Major gains in fuel economy?

[3v0]

I agree that there are a multitude of snake oil salesmen pushing hydrogen generation on the car. Everything I know tells me that is should be a waste of time.

But I know that it is possible to get more MPG from the fuel we are burning. Why, because I have seen a few cars over the years that point in that direction.

1963 Ford Galaxy 500 XL 390, factory demonstrator, best described as a factory hot rod, 22 MPG and the thing had loads of power and torque.

1971 Ford LTD 390, 21 MPG 2BL carb and catalytic converter. Lame performance for the size of the engine.

1977 Ford F150 351M, headers, holly 4 bbl, eldebroch performer intake, unknown cam. 19 MPG

These were all at highway speeds 65-75 MPH.

I was 7 years old when dad got the 63. So mostly I recall what I heard about it. I do recall a shredded tire or two. I drove the 71 and owned the 77 pickup.

20 and 30 latter the numbers for the fleet are the same or worse.

 

[crashsite]

Input...Need Input...

Stop attacking the man, rather help him to prove or disprove the theory.
So, it seems he is already experimenting, so all on this forum can gain something from that.
.

We'd love to help him prove his theory but, to do that we need the credible (there's that word again) evidence that he has to present. If it comes from his experimentation, that's great. If it comes from good, solid references, also great. But, so far he's given nothing but the vague rantings and complaints of, close-mindedness and conspiracy so common to the pseudo-science dreamers. It's a two way street. Until he gives us something to work with we have nothing to work with.

If I have a dream that I can run a car on pixie dust, are you obligated to drop everything and dive into the pixie dust production process (which of course I'll claim has already been done but, doggone it, has been suppressed by the government)?

The ball is in his court and the first thing he needs to do is present his credible data. Until then, quite frankly we have nothing to work with except the notion that he's acting like an arch-typical pseudo-science nut.

And, I don't mean another spate of meaningless links. If he has the goods, let hime explain the details here and use links only to augment his evidence...not as a way to try to flood us with crap.

 

[arrie]

crashsite, I agree with you fully on all points made.
As I said, let's help the man either prove or disprove the theory, as he is more hyped about it than any of us.
Either way, he'll gain something from it in life, and possibly so will we.
Regards

 

[crashsite]

Since I've brought the subject of links up, I want to make my position clear. This has nothing to do with any specific poster.

I see very good and very bad use of links in the posts. When someone has a circuit question and puts in either a link or an inline graphic to support what he's done or is trying to do, that's great. If he posts some info or an opinion and then augments it with a clearly identified link (identifies what the link will contain and how it supports his statements), that's great.

To post links as a way to avoid typing something is a poor use of a link. To mask your ignorance of somethng by suggesting that the link will resolve it is a poor use of a link. To spend 2 minutes Googling a couple of keywords so you can post a bunch of links that are purportedly on a subject, is a poor use of links.

I guess I'd say that the successful use of a link is when you've provided the background info for it in such a way that the reader really wants to go see what the link says. But, that's pretty rare. Maybe a good test is to re-read your post and ask yourself if YOU would really want to go see the link based on your presentation.

 

[crashsite]

Getting back to the original, original topic of this thread...

There is one thing we know for sure. If Einstein was right with that e=mc2 business, there's enough energy in a droplet of gasoline to run a car for many lifetimes. We think of nuclear bombs (atom and hydrogen) as releasing a lot of energy. In fact, they convert almost none (a miniscule amount) of their mass to energy.

So, the energy is there and it's abundant. Accessing it is the tricky part. In the case of the notion of cracking water to get free HH and O, we also know that water is basically a molecular compound that has lost a tiny bit of its energy from having been converted from HH and O at some time in the past and to restore the water back to its component gasses takes some energy. Unfortunately, the laws of phisics make it necessary to use more energy to crack the water than you get when you burn it again.

That doesn't mean that cracking water is an impractical way to get hydrogen for fuel but, it does mean that, to be practical, it almost requires "free" energy (such as sunlight or the forces going on here on Earth such as seismic, waves, tides, wind, geothermal, the water cycle, etc.). You know, the energy that's going on all around us and is pretty much going to waste.

But, a solution may not involve cracking water or may involve a combination of cracking water and other processes to improve the efficiency of automotive fuels.

My original question (and, still is unanswered) is: Is there a known or theoretical, practical method for infusing something like gasoline with additional hydrogen or hydrogen and oxygen in such a way that will give a net increase in efficiency than you get from simply summing the energies of the two. In other words...can you make the fuel itself more efficient in releasing its energy?

The energy is certainly there but, can it be accessed?

 

[ArrowHead]

Utube has a bunch of visual proof of how it works

No. YouTube has a bunch of visual explanation of how the scammers want you think it works.

I agree that there are a multitude of snake oil salesmen pushing hydrogen generation on the car. Everything I know tells me that is should be a waste of time.

But I know that it is possible to get more MPG from the fuel we are burning. Why, because I have seen a few cars over the years that point in that direction.

1963 Ford Galaxy 500 XL 390, factory demonstrator, best described as a factory hot rod, 22 MPG and the thing had loads of power and torque.

1971 Ford LTD 390, 21 MPG 2BL carb and catalytic converter. Lame performance for the size of the engine.

1977 Ford F150 351M, headers, holly 4 bbl, eldebroch performer intake, unknown cam. 19 MPG

These were all at highway speeds 65-75 MPH.

I was 7 years old when dad got the 63. So mostly I recall what I heard about it. I do recall a shredded tire or two. I drove the 71 and owned the 77 pickup.

20 and 30 latter the numbers for the fleet are the same or worse.

Yup. Over the years, various safety, environmental and practical concerns have eaten away at the potential MPG improvement of technological improvements.

Generally, this is a good thing. I mean, would you want to drive an 80MPG deathtrap?

Yes, if you change a car’s design, you can go further for the same amount of fuel. The fuel is still giving you the same amount of energy. You’re just making a car that uses that energy more efficiently to haul your ••• down the road. This is remarkably easy if you’re willing to sacrifice everything else for light weight and good aerodynamics.
Fuel additives and hydrogen boosters are, in the worst cases, scams intended only to separate you from your money, and in the best cases, cockamamie schemes by people too ignorant or delusional to have them properly tested.

 

[arrie]

My original question (and, still is unanswered) is: Is there a known or theoretical, practical method for infusing something like gasoline with additional hydrogen or hydrogen and oxygen in such a way that will give a net increase in efficiency than you get from simply summing the energies of the two. In other words...can you make the fuel itself more efficient in releasing its energy?

The energy is certainly there but, can it be accessed?

crashsite, you are sure punching high with the above problem.
Not sure that you will get a lot of good responses to that one, or maybe it's a bit above my energy level at this point.
What I can tell you, having more H molecules are not always better, take methanol and ethanol for example, ethanol has more H than methanol, but methanol is considered a better fuel for fuel cells, because the composition of ethanol makes it hard to get all of the H molecules free.
I may sound confusing now, but contrary to that, ethanol is the better fuel to burn, probably because of the extra O (claimed) in its composition.

I have not gone through the trouble of fine-picking at gasoline and diesel because according to my mind these are fuels we need to move away from.

We have discussed it before, but turbine engines use a water-meth injection to increase their power during take-off.
The major reason for that is the cooling effect of the water that evaporates.
Maybe something similar can be employed for your normal ICE.

 

[arrie]

For whoever did not like my 10:44 22Aug post in this thread.
Do you call that post ignorant philosophizing.
You are blind in your interpretation of my message.

The whole objective of that post was to make you aware that your replies to the poor man was becoming very insulting.
Does anyone not have the right to believe what he/she wish to, or should every person conform to your own ways and standards, which to any other man's standards can be corrupt or repulsive. So who is the supreme human then!
If you despise people because they do not want to be like you or conform to your exact standard, you are the one that needs to catch a wake-up.
For it is you sir who is the self-centred and selfish person this earth does not need.
People come to forums like these to learn and share with others what excites them, whether that is on the money or far of the pitch.
Not to be kicked in the gut repeatedly to end up feeling like a dog.

And you are free to credit me negatively on this too.
Too bad I do not know your name, for I'll put a mental flag "coward" next to your name.

 

[mneary]

We have discussed it before, but turbine engines use a water-meth injection to increase their power during take-off. The major reason for that is the cooling effect of the water that evaporates.

You've confused peak power with fuel economy. Usually they are at cross purposes.

The peak power needs during takeoff are greater than for level flight. Water-meth injection isn't used for level flight because it's inefficient.

 

[arrie]

mneary, actually I've mentioned during take-off.
So I actually meant take-off only.
At level flight turbine engines (all derivatives) are most efficient around 90% thrust, or just under 90%, if you really are fussy.
The water-meth injection is literally used for seconds during take-off to help squeeze some extra juice out of the system.

Does that clear up my previous post a bit?

 

[3v0]

The cars I pointed out were about 5 MPG better then others that came out of the same factory. In the neighborhood of 30% better.

In the case of the Galaxy it was due to factory tuning, the F150 had a handful of go fast parts, and LTD was plain Jane as they come.

I think this sort of gain could be had with the current engines if more care were taken during design and manufacturing to ensure that they are all up to the same quality.

And yes I know, quality is not free.

Yup. Over the years, various safety, environmental and practical concerns have eaten away at the potential MPG improvement of technological improvements.

 

[arrie]

I think this sort of gain could be had with the current engines if more care were taken during design and manufacturing to ensure that they are all up to the same quality.

But surely, with today's technology and advances in mass production, that bit of extra quality should be a run in the park for these big players.
Why should people say "Ooh, your factory intake port is not smooth, that is costing you 8 kW" or stuff like that.
It should come smooth of the line. but I think emphasis is on making money, regardless the underlying quality.
Most people buy a car on features in any case, and not what happens under the covers.
Or so I think.

 

[mneary]

mneary, actually I've mentioned during take-off.
So I actually meant take-off only.
At level flight turbine engines (all derivatives) are most efficient around 90% thrust, or just under 90%, if you really are fussy.
The water-meth injection is literally used for seconds during take-off to help squeeze some extra juice out of the system.

Does that clear up my previous post a bit?

Yes it clears up your post a bit. I was confused by the fact that this thread was almost exclusively about economy.

 

[crashsite]

Catalytic action I tells ya...

Yes it clears up your post a bit. I was confused by the fact that this thread was almost exclusively about economy.

Actually, it kind of is. There's no denying that there are modes of operation and power ranges for which various techniques and mixtures are either needed or beneficial. But, generally speaking most effort and thinking is (and should be) on economy and emissions control.

As has been noted, the question in my original post was pretty lofty but, I still think there are breakthroughs on the horizon. I'm still guessing (emphasis on "guess") that the next plateau will involve some sort of catalytic action in or related to, the fuel formulation. Time will tell if I was right.

Regarding our treatment of the "water car" guy. If you're going to enter a gunfight, you'd better not be the guy with the knife. If you can't present arguments that are backed up by physics (or prove that the existing version of physics is incorrect) you're going to take some lumps. I know I've taken more than just a few for some of my views and opinions (sometimes even deservedly so).

 

[kchriste]

1963 Ford Galaxy 500 XL 390, factory demonstrator, best described as a factory hot rod, 22 MPG and the thing had loads of power and torque.
1977 Ford F150 351M, headers, holly 4 bbl, eldebroch performer intake, unknown cam. 19 MPG

Sounds like they were fairly heavily modified.
From just the horsepower specs, you'd expect the Galaxy to get way crappier mileage than the F150. How reliable is your MPG data?:
F150 1977-1979 - 351 CID (5.8 L) 335 V8, 150-163 hp (Wiki)
1963 Ford Galaxy 427 V8 425 bhp @ 6000 rpm, 480 lb-ft.
Then the performance of the Galaxy wasn't that great considering the BHP is was putting out. Must have been a very heavy car:
Performance: 427/425: 0-60 in 7.4 sec, 1/4 mile in 15.4 sec @ 95mph
Source:
**broken link removed**

 

[3v0]

The 63 and 71 both had 390's. Both were as they came from the factory
but the 63 was a demonstrator and the factory had its way with it prior to shipping it to the dealer. No 427's. The first two were my dad's and the F150 was mine.

The Galaxy was a hardtop built on a convertible frame which make it heavier then a normal Galaxy. It was a bit over 4000lb.

The LTD was a lighter car by maybe 300 to 500 lbs. The LTD was as I said plain Jane.

The F150 had a handful of go fast parts. Hooker headers, edlebroch performer intake, and a holly 4 bbl carb.

So neither the LTD or the F150 were highly modified. The Galaxy was as the factory built it but not a run of the mill car.

How reliable is your MPG data? How much can you trust me ?
I owned the F150 for 3 years and am sorry I ever sold it. I stand by the numbers for it, as they are on the conservative side.

The numbers for the other two are what I recall. I am quite sure they are right.

The Galaxy showed that Ford could build a better car when it wanted/needed to. The LTD shows that once in a while one came off the line that worked better then the average car. And the pickup shows with a bit a flow work and a good carb an engine can do better.

FWIW I sold the pickup to my brother. The headers burned out and he replaced them with stock manifolds. Without the headers the carb needed adjustment. By the time his mechanic got done with it milage was 14-16, about what stock was at that time.

I am attempting to build an engine along the line of F150. I have the same intake and headers. Unlike the original I have cleaned up the air passages and combustion chambers to reduce drag. Compression is stock, maybe even a bit lower due to the head work. I plan to run it this way for about a year and then add a SST turbo with multiport injection and water injection.

Sounds like they were fairly heavily modified.
From just the horsepower specs, you'd expect the Galaxy to get way crappier mileage than the F150. How reliable is your MPG data?:
F150 1977-1979 - 351 CID (5.8 L) 335 V8, 150-163 hp (Wiki)
1963 Ford Galaxy 427 V8 425 bhp @ 6000 rpm, 480 lb-ft.
Then the performance of the Galaxy wasn't that great considering the BHP is was putting out. Must have been a very heavy car:
Performance: 427/425: 0-60 in 7.4 sec, 1/4 mile in 15.4 sec @ 95mph
Source:
**broken link removed**

 

[kchriste]

The 63 and 71 both had 390's. Both were as they came from the factory but the 63 was a demonstrator and the factory had its way with it prior to shipping it to the dealer. No 427's. The first two were my dad's and the F150 was mine.

Probably the gas mileage had more to do with the gearing than anything else. I would assume that the F150 was geared a lot lower than the Galaxy. Maybe the Galaxy's engine had a higher compression ratio. Just guessing at this point as I'm no expert on that era's vehicles. I seem to remember that they lowered the compression ratio in later years to reduce emissions at the expense of fuel economy.

How much can you trust me ?

Judging from past experience: I can trust you.

 

[3v0]

Probably the gas mileage had more to do with the gearing than anything else. I would assume that the F150 was geared a lot lower than the Galaxy.

The Galaxy was a demonstrator setup to impress people with its acceleration. I could check with my brother to see what the ratio was. The model came out between normal model years. After my dad owned the car for 6 months ford used it in a car show. The fixed all the paint chips and took it 300 miles to a ford day event. During the event the car was run on a race track in West Fargo ND to impress the car buying public. I know the clocked the top end but I do not recall what it was. Some figure north of 120. It was a beast and still made impressive MPG figures for its weight.

Maybe the Galaxy's engine had a higher compression ratio. Just guessing at this point as I'm no expert on that era's vehicles. I seem to remember that they lowered the compression ratio in later years to reduce emissions at the expense of fuel economy.
Judging from past experience: I can trust you.

As I said it was a factory hot rod. I am quite sure ford used a high compression. I remember the car but since I was 6 or 7 did not take part in the interesting things that were done with it. After owning the car a year my dad got tired of my brothers racing it and had it detuned by the dealer! The MPG went down to stock.

But this is just one of the 3 cars I am talking about. The 1971 LTD was a stock early emissions car with at catalytic converter. A dog compared to the older Galaxy but about the same MPG.

I think the reason for lower compression was to lower the peak combustion temperature which causes one of the nasty pollutiants (NOX maybe). With water injection you can use high compression.

 

[Hero999]

Generally, this is a good thing. I mean, would you want to drive an 80MPG deathtrap?

It's called a small motorcycle.

 

[crashsite]

Speaking of 80 mpg Deathtraps...

It's called a small motorcycle.

Or an Isetta? One door, in front of the driver with the steering wheel attached. Bet an Isetta in primo condition would be worth something today.

I haven't thought about the Isetta in years. We used to have one in the neighborhood when I was growing up but, I never knew it was made by BMW (I always thought that it was some Italian company). Anyway, the link is some general info about that cute little car.

https://www.whirlingpool.com/isetta/history/history.htm