Pogue Carburetor.

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Snip Tocket

Registered Member
Supposedly it was a carburetor for cars invented in the 1930's that would get 100+ m.p.g. by increasing the efficacy of the fuel to 100% by completely vaporizing the fuel as it entered the piston.

But I learned recently via this URL that such an invention is impossible. :(

http://www.mikebrownsolutions.com/fish3.htm

Anybody out there have any other ideas or inventions that would solve our current highly inefficient fuel wasting automobiles? Because my fuel gauge bungee jumps from 'F' to 'E' and my wallet can't support to many more jumps.
 
For a number of years, I was a member of the Carburetor Research Center out of Foyil, Ohio which collected the research of various fuel efficiency plans over the years and reported it in their news letter. One thing they reported that I found interesting was of a guy who dropped pellets of caustic soda into water with chunks of aluminum to generate hydrogen on demand to power his truck. I find that there is recent research, links to which are posted elsewhere on this forum, about a similar way to produce hydrogen on demand using alcohol at relatively decent enough efficiency to suggest that it may become practical. I am now looking for a diesel vehicle to do what is suggested at the following web site, http://www.greasecar.com

I don't know about the "science" presented in that article you post here. I have seen it stated that conventional carburetion is only around 20% efficient in mixing the fuel with air. I actually bought a kit to build a redesigned Pogue type carburetor but never got around to welding it togethor. The original design involved some quite exacting and involved welding to create the long warmed path where the fuel was prevaporized before going into the intake maniford.
 
I was aware of that avenue though not of some of the details of BMW's design. I see that you were one of those who posted here the very interesting research of producing hydrogen on demand in the following threads:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=35376

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=33162

My understanding is that fuel cell technology usues some rare and expensive compounds. I also see there is speculation that hydrogen released into the atmosphere may lead to ozone layer depletion. The storage of hydrogen also includes some difficulties as to the availability of the materials to do so and the expense. I like the idea of using alcohol as the storage medium and generating the hydrogen on demand which seems to me to side step hydrogen storage issues and fuel cell expense considerations. Of course, a hybrid vehicle just using alcohol directly doesn't need that hydrogen generation though if one were to couple that within the hybrid design, things might get even more efficient.
 
Gaseous hydrogen does not burn well, it tends to burn to early in the piston stroke, backfiring, to prevent this the hydrogen has to be burnt lean with a lot of extra air, out of stoichiometrical proportion for optimal combustion, resulting in low engine power and much Nox pollution.
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=23556

propane engins are around and are very efficent.
 
You can compress the hydrogen into 10,000 psi canisters and they each will achieve over 200 miles of driving with a typicle automobile today. So 2 10,000 psi canisters would get you 400 miles or what most cars can get today with regular gas. True, hydrogen doesn't like gas with the engines of today but it does to a pretty good job without polluting as much as does gasoline. In the future engines could be designed to be made for just hydrogen use which will make them much more efficient.

Hydrogen is our best alternative fuel for all we need is water to produce it. All other fuels aren't as well adapted for use as hydrogen is , IMO, for batteries cost alot and don't last to long, ethenol needs to have good crops so if a drought hits we are out of ethenol and propane still has to be produced from wells and pollutes more than hydrogen. Hydrogen can be recycled also , the other fuels cannot be. That alone puts it above the rest, it's just the best!
 
How would you like to have a couple of 10,000 PSI tanks on board when you get in an accident? It takes energy to split water. Where does that energy come from, fossil fuel fired plants? Alcohol can be made from wood scraps, kitchen garbage, prunings, grass clippings etc. Some lands that are too polluted to use for food crops would be okay for fuel crops. So, are we going to have to scrap all of the existing engines and build new ones for a hydrogen economy? Existing engines can be converted to run on alcohol easily. I don't know ultimately, but alcohol does seem to offer a real way to get off of the fossil fuel addiction with a minimal amount of effort. Hydrogen as a fuel requires retooling the entire infrastructure and is no panacea in and of itself to decrease carbon dioxide emissions.

Of course, if we want to bring the same level of cavalier consumption and waste as is now prevalent in the USA, there is not enough to go around no matter what medium you use, IMHO.
 
Using a couple of nuclear breeder reactors would produce enough energy to make quite alot of hydrogen.

http://www.clean-air.org/

The Ultimate Alternative

The best pollution-free alternative to batteries while still using clean electric motors is the hydrogen fuel cell. Hydrogen-powered "fuel cells hold enormous promise as a power source for a future generation of cars" (Zygmont 20). They do not have the restraints that batteries do, either.

Hydrogen is consumed by a pollution-free chemical reaction--not combustion--in a fuel cell. The fuel cell simply combines hydrogen and oxygen chemically to produce electricity, water, and waste heat (MacKenzie 62-3). Nothing else. And hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, constituting about 93% of all atoms. "It is found in water (H20), fossil fuels (basically, compounds of hydrogen and carbon), and all plants and animals" (61). "What better replacement for finite, nonrenewable gasoline?" (Zygmont 20). "Hydrogen has often been called the perfect fuel. Its major reserve on earth (water) is inexhaustible. The use of hydrogen is compatible with nature, rather than intrusive. We will never run out of hydrogen" (NHA).

Hydrogen can be obtained from water by the process of electrolysis, or splitting water molecules using electricity. We cannot, however, forget the external effects of getting the electricity from power plants. Many power plants across the country, producing electricity to charge batteries or to produce hydrogen, run on carbon-based fuels, such as coal, and therefore produce emissions (MacKenzie 61-2). Here in Spokane, however, where our electricity comes from the water-powered generators at Washington Water Power, this is not a problem, and hydrogen-fuel-cell-powered vehicles can be truly emission free.

The fuel cells are compatible with the cold winters we have in Spokane. There are several types of fuel cells, but the one most suited for cars is called the proton-exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell. Some of its main features are its ability to start quickly and to run at moderate temperatures (150° instead of 1,900°, like some other versions), which will help because it does not need to heat up very much in order to run. The PEM fuel cell is compact and lightweight: a big advantage for cars. Furthermore, its maximum efficiency of 60% (energy delivered from hydrogen to motor as electricity) is about 3 times greater than the efficiency of internal combustion engines (most of the energy from combustion is lost in heat and friction before it even pushes down on the pistons) (Cannon 119, 112).

The range of fuel-cell-powered vehicles is not limited by batteries, but by the amount of fuel in the storage tank. Recent developments in hydrogen storage technology have come up with "carbon-adsorption" systems. These are refrigerated and pressurized tanks that can store massive amounts of hydrogen. Calculations estimate that over 7 gallons of hydrogen could be stored in a single gram of this new material. This allows a range of nearly 5,000 miles from a single tank! (Hill 20). These tanks would weigh less than 200 pounds, occupy about half the amount of space used by current gasoline tanks (H&FCL), and could be refueled in 4-5 minutes (MacKenzie 75). The carbon-adsorption tanks would also work well in Spokane's cold winters, as the process improves greatly as the temperature decreases. This tank could easily become the storage method of choice if research, improvements, and advancements continue (75). Even if nothing came from these or future developments, the current "range for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles is comparable to that for gasoline internal combustion engine vehicles" (Winkler).
from:

http://www.commutercars.com/h2
 
1) An acre of corn can produce about 328 of alcohol.
2) Assuming alcohol powered farm machinery, you would need about 200 gallons of alcohol to plant, grow, and harvest and acre of corn.

This leaves a net 128 gallons of alcohol per acre and we haven't even consider fermentation and distillation losses yet.

3) To process the 6 1/2 tons of corn per acre into the 328 gallons of alcohol will probably exceed the energy available from 128 gallons of alcohol you have left.

Ethanol as a fuel source is worthless or next to it.

Ethanol only has about 2/3 of the energy per gallon that gasoline does. i.e. A vehicle that gets 30 mpg on gas would get around 20 on alcohol.

About the only reason to use Ethanol is as a race fuel, when you don't care about the economics of its production.
 
Hmmmm, there are crops a lot more productive than corn though interests have tended to limit the ethanol consideration to just that source. There is also newly devised fermentation microorganisms that get better efficiency with substances that were heretofore too impractical to consider, wood or primarily cellulose.

I certainly shouldn't rule out hydrogen altogethor. In some situations it may be the best bet especially for new enterprises rather than the retrofitting of existing.
 
Unless nuclear (or some other non fossil fuel) power is used to generate the hydrogen, it is still a net loser as far as overall greenhouse emissions go.

More fossil fuel is burned creating the hydrogen to propel a car a given milage than would be released burning gasoline to go the same distance. All you do is change where the emissions are generated. On the plus side, the consumption of the fossil fuels would be concentrated to just a relatively few locations (the power plants) and scrubbing the carbon from the exhaust becomes more feasible. (though still far from an easy proposition)

note: This assume burning the hydrogen as a motor fuel rather using it in a fuel cell.
 
scotth said:
Unless nuclear (or some other non fossil fuel) power is used to generate the hydrogen, it is still a net loser as far as overall greenhouse emissions go.

More fossil fuel is burned creating the hydrogen to propel a car a given milage than would be released burning gasoline to go the same distance. All you do is change where the emissions are generated. On the plus side, the consumption of the fossil fuels would be concentrated to just a relatively few locations (the power plants) and scrubbing the carbon from the exhaust becomes more feasible. (though still far from an easy proposition)

note: This assume burning the hydrogen as a motor fuel rather using it in a fuel cell.
Click to expand...

The range of fuel-cell-powered vehicles is not limited by batteries, but by the amount of fuel in the storage tank. Recent developments in hydrogen storage technology have come up with "carbon-adsorption" systems. These are refrigerated and pressurized tanks that can store massive amounts of hydrogen. Calculations estimate that over 7 gallons of hydrogen could be stored in a single gram of this new material. This allows a range of nearly 5,000 miles from a single tank! (Hill 20). These tanks would weigh less than 200 pounds, occupy about half the amount of space used by current gasoline tanks (H&FCL), and could be refueled in 4-5 minutes (MacKenzie 75). The carbon-adsorption tanks would also work well in Spokane's cold winters, as the process improves greatly as the temperature decreases. This tank could easily become the storage method of choice if research, improvements, and advancements continue (75). Even if nothing came from these or future developments, the current "range for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles is comparable to that for gasoline internal combustion engine vehicles" (Winkler).
from:

http://www.commutercars.com/h2
 
cosmictraveler said:
The range of fuel-cell-powered vehicles is not limited by batteries, but by the amount of fuel in the storage tank. Recent developments in hydrogen storage technology have come up with "carbon-adsorption" systems. These are refrigerated and pressurized tanks that can store massive amounts of hydrogen. Calculations estimate that over 7 gallons of hydrogen could be stored in a single gram of this new material. This allows a range of nearly 5,000 miles from a single tank! (Hill 20). These tanks would weigh less than 200 pounds, occupy about half the amount of space used by current gasoline tanks (H&FCL), and could be refueled in 4-5 minutes (MacKenzie 75). The carbon-adsorption tanks would also work well in Spokane's cold winters, as the process improves greatly as the temperature decreases. This tank could easily become the storage method of choice if research, improvements, and advancements continue (75). Even if nothing came from these or future developments, the current "range for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles is comparable to that for gasoline internal combustion engine vehicles" (Winkler).
from:

http://www.commutercars.com/h2
Click to expand...

I don't think you understood what I was saying or what you are quoting. And besides that, I have very serious doubts about the accuracy of your quoted source. At the very least, what you quoted does not address my statements......... at all......

I was addressing the production requirements (in energy) to make the hydrogen fuel.
 
cosmictraveler, the way in which the storage of hydrogen can be done certainly can be improved but as far as I understand it, the materials for making such are not common and expensive. This does not address the post by scotth you quoted entirely at all and I wonder why you quoted it.

The Argentinian Wind Association is looking at using their vast wind resources for generating electricity and using the surplus to make hydrogen for export. If we go for a hydrogen fuel economy we will inadvertantly lead to more of it being released into the atmosphere. Until I see otherwise, so far I understand that free hydrogen in our atmosphere can deplete the radioprotective ozone layer.

Why is alcohol favored by race car drivers? I understand that alcohol is higher octane than gasoline, that with an engine designed to burn it, you get more deliverable power per equivalent amounts. I didn't look into it but superficially but that is what I garner so far. Is this not correct?

Lots of sites about this subject on the web.
 
Mr. Chips said:
Why is alcohol favored by race car drivers? I understand that alcohol is higher octane than gasoline, that with an engine designed to burn it, you get more deliverable power per equivalent amounts.
Click to expand...

Higher octane is correct, however.....
Not more power per gallon of fuel burned but more power for a given engine size. (specific output)
 
ya the advantage is they are simpler and there fuel is a liquid. We could see DAFC power cell phones and laptops any day now.
 
Is a Poque carburetor possible with more volatile gasolines, perhaps, with boiling points near that of water?
 
Please check this out about hydrogen and remember that it is only students that have made this working hydrogen powered auto.

http://www.centralphysics.com

8) What about exhaust emissions?
Hydrogen is the only vehicle fuel that contains no Carbon atoms, and thus combusting it as a fuel results in no Carbon emissions. The primary emission of hydrogen combustion is pure water vapor. During combustion, oxides of Nitrogen can be formed from the Nitrogen in the air, but the Hydrogen Car Company has minimized the formation of Nitrous Oxide (NOX) by lowering the temperature of combustion. HCC’s vehicles use oil as a lubricant, but only one quart for every 30,000 miles. HCC’s vehicles are the only pick-ups and SUVs that meet ultra-low-emissions vehicle (ULEV) emissions standards.
 
Last edited:
That is a cool car. Perhaps something like that can get off the ground. Usually though hydrogen gas is manufactured using fossil fuels. If you can get the generation of the gas more efficient somehow than what on board solar cells can provide, maybe it will work. There is still that question about the ozone layer. Maybe I can find more data about that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top