Slant Six Forum :: Heating Fuel

One of MPG Mikes economy tricks is to preheat the fuel using the coolant and a heat exchanger of some kind. You can't do this with a carb, because it will boil, but with EFI the fuel is under pressure and can be preheated, which allows for quicker atomization, and some vaporization, so you get some of the benefit of the old Pogue carburetor.

Why do we feel compelled to discourage someone from exploring "outside the box"

If the theory is sound, or at least plausible

If any member here has usefull information such as this to share, I really want to hear it. It is these responses I come on line for. But I don;t want to hear "it won't work". Science is seldom furthered by such closed minded, absolutely certain attitudes. My Grandfather used to say,"It's not what you don;t know that hurts you, but what you know for sure". That is a little exteme, but I now understand what he was trying to say... To say something can't work now because it didn't work in the '70's really closes the door on progress. Almost everything about modern induction systems is different now from what we had in the '70's.

I'm not talking about square wheels.

Terry was told it was absolutely impossible for him to recover by the greatest experts.

I have worked it to create some really cool things, most of which are off the bell shaped curve

the language you use is very harsh, very condemning, very arrogant

in general seems designed to put others down for not following your superior science

The effect of that is to shut people up

I will simply quit talking about things that are off your acceptability list.

Just because the fuel burns completely does not guarantee you have extracted the maximum energy out of it. 14.7:1 burns completely, and produces a push of a certain force per a given volume of liquid fuel. But if you get it to vaporize slightly, or get it atomize into finer droplets, maybe you can get the same bang out of 18:1. Which means less fuel burned per calorie of energy extracted from it.

Sam

Author:	Pierre [ Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:15 am ]
Post subject:	Heating Fuel
Quote: One of MPG Mikes economy tricks is to preheat the fuel using the coolant and a heat exchanger of some kind. You can't do this with a carb, because it will boil, but with EFI the fuel is under pressure and can be preheated, which allows for quicker atomization, and some vaporization, so you get some of the benefit of the old Pogue carburetor. Sam had put this in the ultrasonic thread but I wanted to split this off into a seperate one to avoid hijacking it. Don't go trying this unles you have some kind of control over how hot it does get. Fuel under pressure deffinately can boil. Practical case: I used to have my return line from the regulator leading back to the input side of my fuel pump so I didn't have to plumb it into the tank. The fuel rail would get too hot to the touch after a long drive and high ambient, to the point car wouldn't run any more.The pump would also make odd noises, my bet was it was cavitating because it was trying to pump vapor not liquid. If ambient temp and underhood temp did this to the fuel, using coolant to heat it like a radiator does ATF can deffiantely cause it to boil.

Author:	Matt Cramer [ Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:42 am ]
Post subject:
The EPA tested a couple different fuel heating systems in the '70s - none of them seemed to make any improvement in fuel economy on their own.

Author:	Sam Powell [ Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:19 am ]
Post subject:
Thanks for the heads up Pierre. And thanks for putting this in a seperate thread. The heat build up in the tank is a concern, and you must take that into account. Mike does address this in his discussions. I have not tried heating the fuel myself, but have thought about it some. It is not simple precisely for the reason you mentioned. You have to deal with accumulated heat in the tank. If any member here has usefull information such as this to share, I really want to hear it. It is these responses I come on line for. But I don;t want to hear "it won't work". Science is seldom furthered by such closed minded, absolutely certain attitudes. My Grandfather used to say,"It's not what you don;t know that hurts you, but what you know for sure". That is a little exteme, but I now understand what he was trying to say. In 1971 a young man named Terry McBride was told by every doctor in Seattle that he would never walk again, that he would be sexually impotent, and that his double colostomy was a permenant "fact of life", and he should just face up to reality, and learn to use a wheel chair. His Pastor even told him this must be God's Will. He refused to believe the pastor, or all the experts, and the hard science, and all the prefessional opinions. Ten years, and 30 surgeries later he was completely cured. He is 64 today,and the picture of health. He lectures all over the world about his ordeal and the mind set that got him out of it. He didn't do it through wu-wu science, or alternative medicines, but used the medical establishment, and conventional medicine, inspite of all the "expert opinions" telling him it was impossible. He was up against the best medical minds in the world, with their indisputable "facts", telling him he was going to be sick the rest of his life. He ended up writing a book entitled, "Like Hell I Can't" detailing how he was healed by the very doctors who told him it was impossible. So absolutely warn me of potential pitfalls, but don;t tell me anything is impossible. In the last thread on fuel economy, Lou mentioned MPGMike as being a very creative thinker who thought "outside of the box". What box do you think he meant? If I didn't think outside of the box, I wouldn't be putting fuel injection and a turbo on a Dodge Dart. So you are not going to change my personality by telling me something is impossible. Everything, and I mean everything is way too complicated to come up with simple, hard and fast, always true rules that cover every convergence of circumstances. To say something is an absolute fact, period, and indisputable just doesn't cut it, and isn't really good science for that matter. To say something can't work now because it didn't work in the '70's really closes the door on progress. Almost everything about modern induction systems is different now from what we had in the '70's. Why do we feel compelled to discourage someone from exploring "outside the box"; especially since there is no way we can know all the facts of the situation. Are we afraid our truth might come tumbling down, and a world we believe strongly in might start to shake? Even if you did know all the facts, you should let a guy pursue his own truth, and find out for himself. If you guys feel absolutely compelled to smash ideas down that seem to be too far out there on the skinny branches for you, then I will just quit talking about it, and talk about safe subjects such as what RPM to red line your slant, or where to get parts for them. Or maybe just go away and find a group of guys who feel safe in that territory. I don't want to argue. Arguing usually leaves people feeling bad, while actually strengthening your opponents point of view. Again, absolutely warn me of pitfalls, but don;t tell me something is impossible. "Like Hell I Can't" Sam

Author:	dakight [ Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:13 am ]
Post subject:
I hear what you're saying Sam. We need to learn to walk a fine line between past experience and creative thinking. Experimentation is not just taking off willy-nilly down some unexlored path. Successful experimentation always starts with what IS known and attempting to expand it. If the theory is sound, or at least plausible based on what is known then it's worth looking at. This idea of heating the fuel is probably worth looking at because it does have an element of plausibility. There are factors both pro and con and until some folks try it we won't know which factors outweight the others. Also, experimentation involves taking small steps and carefulling measuring and documenting each of them and the result. Dan's complaint is that too many just throw stuff together and claim big gains from it but never document what they did and what was the result of each step or component. We, as the automotive community, have seen so many snake oil peddlers that it's easy to be skeptical and cynical. Personally, I say if you've got an idea then try it out. If it works and you can document that it works, most people are willing to listen and give you your due. If you want to float it for feedback then expect feedback from both sides. It's easy for caution to become negativism and it's also easy to mistake caution for negativism. Just listen to what folks have to say and weigh it carefully then if you're still curious or still think it will work then give it a whirl. I'll be waiting to hear the outcome. Even if it doesn't work, or doesn't work as expected, the boundaries of knowledge have been expanded even if ever so slightly. Sorry for the book guys, I'll stop preaching now.

Author:	SlantSixDan [ Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:44 am ]
Post subject:
Quote: Why do we feel compelled to discourage someone from exploring "outside the box" I don't feel any such compulsion, I just want to see evidence. "It works really great!" is not evidence. "Here's a dyno sheet including twenty-three different mods!" is not evidence. "I get eleventy-two miles per gallon!" is not evidence. Pages and pages of pseudopscientific handwaving is not evidence. Evidence consists of careful before/after comparisons of one modification, with all other factors held constant. It doesn't even have to be an expensive dyno test. Five tanks of gas before a mod, five tanks of gas with similar driving conditions after the mod. So far, zero such evidence has been forthcoming. It's a shame, because what is evident is that Mike does careful, thoughtful work and pays attention to detail when he puts together engines. The missing link is the evidence to support some of the mods he talks about. Anyone's welcome to do whatever he wants to his car. Me, I'm not about to futz around pretending square-shaped wheels will work if I only just wish it hard enough. Poorly-thought-out ideas remain poorly-thought-out ideas no matter how alluring they may be; there's a difference between things that are possible but unlikely (severely injured people who aren't likely to walk again, walking again) and things that are not smiled upon by the laws of physics. Knowing which is which saves a lot of time, effort, and money. IOW, you may not want to hear "it won't work", but... Quote: If the theory is sound, or at least plausible Exactly! That's the big, important "if". Breaker points made out of rubber instead of metal won't work no matter how hard you wish, hope, or pray, because science is not dependent upon faith. If the theory's sound and the effect isn't outweighed by other effects, then the theory will translate into practice. If not, or not, then not.

Slant Six Forum https://slantsix.org/forum/

Heating Fuel https://slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=24104	Page 1 of 5

Author:	Sam Powell [ Thu Jul 19, 2007 6:22 am ]
Post subject:
I'm not talking about square wheels. That is an unfair exageration. Terry was told it was absolutely impossible for him to recover by the greatest experts. He was healed by science, but he had to find the sliver of doubt in the expert's science and go after it. Which he did, one small step at a time, in an amzingly disciplined and effective way. His process is what I have used my entire life, and I have worked it to create some really cool things, most of which are off the bell shaped curve. Some communities like that kind of thinking, and some do not. I have flourished in those that did, and have been considered kind of kooky in the ones that didn't. Dan, you say people can do what they want with their cars, but the language you use is very harsh, very condemning, very arrogant, and in general seems designed to put others down for not following your superior science. The effect of that is to shut people up, and to make them feel stupid. If that is what you want to do, go ahead. But as I said, I will simply quit talking about things that are off your acceptability list. Sam

Author:	Matt Cramer [ Thu Jul 19, 2007 6:53 am ]
Post subject:
Quote: If any member here has usefull information such as this to share, I really want to hear it. It is these responses I come on line for. But I don;t want to hear "it won't work". Science is seldom furthered by such closed minded, absolutely certain attitudes. My Grandfather used to say,"It's not what you don;t know that hurts you, but what you know for sure". That is a little exteme, but I now understand what he was trying to say... To say something can't work now because it didn't work in the '70's really closes the door on progress. Almost everything about modern induction systems is different now from what we had in the '70's. Sam, I know you mean well, but in this case you're looking to try something that a lot of other people have tried to do and found their implementations did not work. So if you're going to try to succeed where they failed, I'd recommend starting by studying what others have tried and learning from there mistakes. You may find this rather large PDF a useful starting point. This documents where the EPA tested a fuel heater on a slant six Aspen with a carburetor. Not all of this would apply on a port fuel injected engine. But it's worth noting that in a carbureted application, the unburnt hydrocarbon emissions and the carbon monoxide emissions went up, suggesting that preheating the fuel on this car actually resulted in less complete combustion, not more. If you want to try this, study what others have done, learn from their mistakes, and see what you can do to avoid them.

Author:	Sam Powell [ Thu Jul 19, 2007 7:23 am ]
Post subject:
Sounds like good advice. I want to point out that when the questions here on the forum are on well trod territory, and inside the bell shaped, curve nobody has more useful, or more acurate information than Dan, and I thank him for that. Sam

Author:	Dart270 [ Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:53 am ]
Post subject:
I will point out that I agree with two basic concepts here. 1) It is often good to try out creative ideas that other people have failed to make work, or say won't work. Lot's of people like to say things won't work because of this or that reason, and they don't have enough information on which to base their opinion. For example "you can't make a Slant 6 fast." This is a very rewarding aspect of science. HOWEVER 2) Dan has made the excellent point that experimental evidence is what is mostly lacking in supporting many wacky ideas. Without evidence - meaning substantially long term, controlled, reproducible, back-to-back testing - we cannot believe anyone's feeling about what worked and what didn't. Many far out claims of high gas mileage have been made for many years. About the only way I would believe someone's high MPG claims is if they either (1) let me borrow their car for a month so I could test it myself, or (2) provided tests from independent researchers on multiple cars with the same mods. In science, anecdotal evidence is almost always useless for predicting new outcomes, creating theories, or designing new devices. Lou

Author:	Joshie225 [ Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:23 am ]
Post subject:
I'd like to comment on heating and vaporizing fuel and why Pogue was likely a fraud. My standpoint is that modern fuel systems atomize fuel quite well and most fuel burns in the combustion chamber and very little unburned and partially burned fuel exits the modern engine. Can we agree that by heating fuel, pulverizing fuel with ultrasonic sound waves or mixing fuel with air as it is injected that we are attempting to burn more of the consumed fuel in the combustion chamber and make more power from a given quantity of fuel? That's the aspect of fuel economy we are speaking about is it not? To make more power from a given quantity of fuel so that less fuel will produce the power needed to move our vehicles down the road? So how much fuel really goes unburned? It's pretty easy to measure the composition of exhaust gases when it comes to carbon monoxide (partially burned fuel) and unburned hydrocarbons. Unless there is a large quantity of unburned and/or partially burned fuel the potential gains from completely vaporizing fuel before combustion are necessarily small. http://www.fuelsaving.info/atomisation.htm http://www.fuelsaving.info/unburnt_fuel.htm This argument is meant only to address fuel vaporization and it's effect on economy. I am not addressing frictional losses, pumping losses, aerodynamic drag, or anything else. If anyone cares to start a discussion on these or other aspects of fuel economy I'll likely address those as well.

Author:	SlantSixDan [ Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:02 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: I'm not talking about square wheels. Not quite, but close. Quote: Terry was told it was absolutely impossible for him to recover by the greatest experts. That may be, but there's still a fundamental difference between the organic processes by which the human body works and the plain ol' laws of physics by which man-made machines work. That comparison is not valid. Quote: I have worked it to create some really cool things, most of which are off the bell shaped curve ...and none of which violates any physical laws. Your creations actually serve well to illustrate my point: When you understand the theory, the principle, the science, you are free to look at existing implementations and practices and wonder and experiment with different ones to see if you can find a better way. If you don't understand the science (or choose to disregard it), then you're pretty much just pissing up a rope. Quote: the language you use is very harsh, very condemning, very arrogant I'm sorry you feel that way, Sam. I guess I take a dim view of people who deny or disregard the basic physical laws by which our universe works in order to advance pet ideas. Fact is, if something works, then there's science behind it. If there's no science behind it, it doesn't work, no matter how earnest the claims made or how fervently the believers believe. I didn't get to vote on the rules governing how the universe works, I just have to live by 'em. So does everyone else. Quote: in general seems designed to put others down for not following your superior science I think that's a rather extravagant accusation. Take a look at all the cars people on here own. They're not all cookie-cutter Daniel Stern specials, not by a long shot. And there is no "superior" science involved, just plain ol' regular science. Quote: The effect of that is to shut people up Every time I log into the board, I see a bunch of new posts. If I'm shutting people up, I'm not doing a very good job of it. Quote: I will simply quit talking about things that are off your acceptability list. I don't have an "acceptability list". But when people start advancing unscientific, faith-based ideas, I am going to point out the underlying problems. I'm genuinely sorry that makes you uncomfortable or offends you.

Author:	dakight [ Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:46 pm ]
Post subject:
Getting back to the topic... I'm just kind of tossing ideas around right now. I don't have a lot of hard data to support what I'm about to say so consider it accordingly. The object of the exercise is to increase the amount of usable energy that can be extracted from an air-fuel mixture. So to do that we need to determine how much energy is available and where that energy is going. As Joshie pointed out above, a certain, very small, portion is going out the tailpipe in unburned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. The rest is either kinetic energy with which we can do work, ie, turn the wheels, and heat. A vast amount of energy from the fuel is converted to heat and is eventually dissipated into the atmosphere through the cooling system and radiant transfer to the environment. The only way to get more useable kinetic energy is to reduce what is lost as heat. Fancy gizmos to better atomize fuel are going to have a minimal effect because the fuel is already being burned rather completely as we've already seen. The big culprit is internal friction losses and parasitic losses incurred by running accessories such as the water pump, alternator, AC, and power steering. All of that lost energy is mechanical energy that has been converted back to heat. One of the physical laws with which we have to live is that energy and mass are conserved in any system. The energy and mass going in must equal the total energy and mass leaving. There is simply no way around that fact. Given that, I find it difficult to understand how heating fuel, atomizing fuel with utrasonic energy, or any other such mechanism is going to make a material difference. The only way to get more energy out is to put more air/fuel mixture in. That is the whole point of blowers, turbos, cold air systems, NOS, etc. The other tack is make the combustion process more efficient at converting more energy to kinetic energy and less to heat. Raising the compression and reducing friction are the most common methods of doing that. And that in a nutshell - well OK, a coconut shell - is the story. I wish there were some magic gadget that would give me 200 mpg while propelling the vehicle to an 8 second quarter mile time but that is just not within the laws of physics as they relate to internal combustion engines.

Author:	Sam Powell [ Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:06 pm ]
Post subject:
Just because the fuel burns completely does not guarantee you have extracted the maximum energy out of it. 14.7:1 burns completely, and produces a push of a certain force per a given volume of liquid fuel. But if you get it to vaporize slightly, or get it atomize into finer droplets, maybe you can get the same bang out of 18:1. Which means less fuel burned per calorie of energy extracted from it. Sam

Author:	dakight [ Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:35 pm ]
Post subject:
I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. Remember the law of conservation of energy and mass. A gallon of fuel contains a fixed energy potential. If that fuel is completely burned it will yield that amount of energy, no more and no less. The only variable is the mix of kinetic (mechanical) and heat energy. Lean burn schemes do give good fuel economy but at the expense of reduced performance. It's really a zero-sum game. There are certain optimizations that can be done but they all involve varying operational parameter to maximize the fraction of energy that is recovered in the form of kinetic energy as opposed to heat. Trying to extract any more from the unburned portion is going to very quickly run into diminishing returns. Now, having said all that, I don't mean to say that heating the fuel is necessarily futile. I'm personally skeptical but willing to be convinced. The only thing I will ask is some pretty rigorous testing and documentation of what was done and what the result was for each discrete step. A "seat of the pants" dyno isn't very convincing to me; I will want to see the results in before and after 1/4 miles times or 0-60 times and fuel consumption figures at a minimum.

Page 1 of 5	All times are UTC-08:00
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Matt Cramer [ Thu Jul 19, 2007 6:06 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: Just because the fuel burns completely does not guarantee you have extracted the maximum energy out of it. 14.7:1 burns completely, and produces a push of a certain force per a given volume of liquid fuel. But if you get it to vaporize slightly, or get it atomize into finer droplets, maybe you can get the same bang out of 18:1. Which means less fuel burned per calorie of energy extracted from it. Sam Why would it release more energy? The chemical reaction is the same - the fuel combines with oxygen, and the laws of chemistry let you calculate the heat released if you know the beginning products and the end products. It's up to you to back up this statement and explain why the combustion would be different.