Do you believe this?

bertsmobile1

Lawn Royalty
Joined
Nov 29, 2014
Threads
64
Messages
24,647
Yes I can believe there are pig ignorant morons out there with no understanding of physics or chemistry what so ever who have "discovered" what they should be taught in physics when they were around 11 to 12 years old.

ONLY GASES BURN

So Mr Stupid has just invented a device that has been around since 1842 called a "Fuel Wick" and latter on a "Wick Carburettor" in order to prove the religion of all pig ignorant people.
Every business in evil and is conspiring with the government to hood wink honest hard working people like himself and rob them blind.
Wick carbs work, sort of, they also have a bad habbit of catching fire, they respond very slowly to changes so don't work on governed engines as when the govenor OPENED THE THROTTLE UP FULLY, the engine will starve & die.
Engines fitted with Wick carbs , also called perfume carbs and perfume bottle carbs accelerate very slowly so you can only mow very slowly.
You engine when not under load is on HIGH IDLE because the throttle is only opened a tiny amount.
Start your engine and leave it there on high idle & it will run for a week on a single tank of fuel.
However do some work with the engine and it is a different matter completely.
Those of you who shut off the fuel supply and starve the engine off will all know it will run on fast idle a good 10 minutes on nothing more than a single float bowl of fuel, about 2 oz.

The only thing he got correct is there is a fraction of the fuel you buy that will not burn in your engine which is why after burners are fitted to motor vehicles.
However you don't need to go to the lengths he has gone to to prove this.
Tip some fuel into a pan & leave it out in the sun.
What is left in there after an hour or two is what gets burned in the after burner ( catalytic converter ), and that is a government condoned rort.
However there is nothing much else in fuel apart from Hydrogen, Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen, in various configurations, You are definately not buying a tank full of CO2.
However to know that he would have needed to pass juniour high school chemistry which Mr Half Wit Moron obviously did not do.
The only thing that worries me iis he becomes a hero of other 1/2 wits who then decide to settle the score by blowing up City Hall/ Fuel Depots or Petrol Stations, and of course in the USA he can buy enough armour to run a small war.
 

turbofiat124

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2011
Threads
83
Messages
288
I didn't say I believed him, just thought it was one those things where, "If it was that easy, everybody would be doing it".

If you think about it, an engine with the proper equipment will run on LPG. It's liquid when under pressure then when it hits atmospheric pressure, it runs into a gas. So a 20# propane cylinder which is roughly 5 US gallons in liquid form is not going to last any longer than 5 gallons of gasoline. Of course you have to figure in your probably using more propane than gasoline anyway due to the BTU rating of propane versus gasoline.

Since the price of propane typically follows the price of gasoline, there is not much cost savings in it. The only advantage I see is with generators. I have a generator that could power almost everything in my house as long as the central air and heating unit is turned off and my wife did not run a bunch of appliances simultaneously and trip the breaker.

I would like to tap into the 500 gallon propane tank so I wouldn't have to refill it every 6 to 12 hours. And the fact I work 12 hour shifts and if the power was off for more than a day, she wouldn't have to refill the tank at 3 in the morning. Also gasoline tends to go stale and can gum up the carburetor if it's not used regularly.

Like you say, the problem with using a "wick" as a carburetor is like these people removing carburetors on lawnmowers and feeding a propane gas directly into the engine. Then controlling the engine speed by adjusting the mixture (opening the gas valve more). This might work to a certain extent but the engine speed range would be very tight. Sort of like adjusting the idle mixture and the engine speeding up. Not an ideal way to do it. Now if the engine ran a constant speed this might work. Kind of like diesel electric train engines.

I've been hearing these urban legends about fuel vaporization for decades. They started back in the 1970s during the oil embargo. I used to have several Popular Mechanic magazines that advertised these fuel saving devices. I don't know about OZ but in the US you can patent a turd if you have enough money and you don't have to prove the product actually works. Today it's weight loss pills and pills designed to make you "last longer" increase your libido or add inches...

The most interesting article was how to convert a V8 to a V4. There were two ways to do. One was to block the ports in the intake manifold so only half the cylinders got air and fuel. This one guy actually developed a device controlled by a choke cable that blocked off every other cylinder. So once he got up to around 55 mph, he pulled the cable and shut off the half the cylinders.

The conclusion: This one car tested got something like 14 mpg running on 8 cylinders. With the device it averages something like 16 or 17 mpg on 4 cylinders. In theory the engine should have doubled it's gas mileage. But there were several problems. One the pistons were still moving so you had resistance. Then the weight of the car. I had a 1994 Jeep Wrangler with a 2.5 liter 4 cylinder engine that made 120 BHP and got a terrible 15 MPG. I was too cheap to buy the 6 cylinder model. Turns out the 6 cylinder model got just as worse gas mileage as the 4 cylinder model. Why? The 4 cylinder engine was gutless and I had to rev the hell out of it to make it up hills.

Then Cadillac got into the act back in the early 1980s with the 8-6-4 engine (something like that). Just like the diesel converted engines that used a gasoline block and a 22:1 cylinder head to run on diesel fuel, had numerous issues and were eventually replaced with standard engines due to warranty complaints.

Now it looks like Honda is trying to get in on the game with the CRX or something. I don't know how well their technology is coming along. From what I read, they don't fair any better than the guy with the device controlled by the choke cable back in the 1970s.

My Trabant has a 600cc 2 stroke engine that makes a whopping 26 BHP was developed by Audi before WWII. My Citroen 2CV has a 600cc four stroke engine that makes 29 BHP. In theory the Trabant should make 60% more power but it doesn't. Once upon a time Yamaha or Rotex made a 580cc air cooled 2 stroke engine that went into snowmobiles called an Arctic Cat 580 that made over 60 BHP.

In theory these cars should get incredibly gas mileage but they don't. They don't get any better fuel economy than my 2.5 Subaru. Whether it be old technology or the fact your trying to push a 1300 lb car around making less than 30 HP.

But they are fun to drive! I just get as mad as the person who is behind me tailgating me when I top out at 30 MPH in 3rd gear trying to go up hills! He's made because that's the fastest I can go and I'm made because he thinks riding my bumper is going to make my car go any faster! The advantage with the Trabant is once they get a whiff of burned 2 cycle oil, they usually start backing off!
 

bertsmobile1

Lawn Royalty
Joined
Nov 29, 2014
Threads
64
Messages
24,647
I don't really get what you are trying to say.
The video showed an idiot maintaining that he could get something for nothing and we were being forced to consume greater volumes of fuel because engine come fitted with carbs burning a liquid because he has no idea how a carb works
He then seemed to be aserting that his device was releasing some sort of "magic vapours" locked within the liquid.
He then followed up with a bog standard conspiracy theory.

You are waffeling on about LPG engines ( I have been using them for 30 years ) then confusing work with power and trying to connect fuel consumption of 2 strokes in there.
None of this was part of the video.

The bottom line for any engine is there is a finite amount of energy in any fuel.
The trick is converting the chemical energy ( measured in Calories or Jules ) into mechanical energy.
The problem with any combustion engine is you are converting chemical energy into heat energy first.
Then using this heat energy to push a piston / turbine to convert it into mechanical energy and electrical energy.
Every conversion is not particularly efficient and every conversion also looses energy through unwanted or unused by products.

Cooling an engine burns up a lot of energy that was originally converted into heat but can not be used by an engine.
This is why in the early days air cooled engines got more useful energy than water cooled engines despite being less efficient.

Perpetual motion is a myth.
As is the garbage spewing from the mouth of the video presenter.

Fuel economy is a totally different matter again.
You could run your car on a 5cc deisel toy aeroplane engine and get 200 mpg.
The problem is it will take all day to go 5 miles.
 

turbofiat124

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2011
Threads
83
Messages
288
I don't really get what you are trying to say.
The video showed an idiot maintaining that he could get something for nothing and we were being forced to consume greater volumes of fuel because engine come fitted with carbs burning a liquid because he has no idea how a carb works
He then seemed to be aserting that his device was releasing some sort of "magic vapours" locked within the liquid.
He then followed up with a bog standard conspiracy theory.

You are waffeling on about LPG engines ( I have been using them for 30 years ) then confusing work with power and trying to connect fuel consumption of 2 strokes in there.
None of this was part of the video.

The bottom line for any engine is there is a finite amount of energy in any fuel.
The trick is converting the chemical energy ( measured in Calories or Jules ) into mechanical energy.
The problem with any combustion engine is you are converting chemical energy into heat energy first.
Then using this heat energy to push a piston / turbine to convert it into mechanical energy and electrical energy.
Every conversion is not particularly efficient and every conversion also looses energy through unwanted or unused by products.

Cooling an engine burns up a lot of energy that was originally converted into heat but can not be used by an engine.
This is why in the early days air cooled engines got more useful energy than water cooled engines despite being less efficient.

Perpetual motion is a myth.
As is the garbage spewing from the mouth of the video presenter.

Fuel economy is a totally different matter again.
You could run your car on a 5cc deisel toy aeroplane engine and get 200 mpg.
The problem is it will take all day to go 5 miles.

Sorry if I was rambling on. It was late in the shift and I didn't have anything to do.

What I was talking about was he was trying to say that sucking in vapors as opposed to liquid gasoline was somehow more efficient. I was comparing his wicking method to LPG.

Also he was not compensating for the load on the engine. Whenever the load changes, the engine requires more fuel and air. So sounds to me like when the engine demands more power, it sucks in more air but the same amount of fuel so the fuel mixture is never correct.

This was what I was talking about people running lawnmowers off 1# propane cylinders:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hEFT4JanpY

Totally pointless since a 1# propane cylinder would cost way more than 1 gallon of gas.

Just like that pre-mixed 50:1 fuel that sells for $6.00 for a quart. Or $24 a gallon.

https://www.google.com/shopping/pro...0tXSYgQuDw2KTfhRiKldWUKCKNxcijf_shhoCVQTw_wcB
 
Top