Originally Posted by Ericmck2000

Hunh? i was asking a legit question.

Originally Posted by Ericmck2000

Hunh? i was asking a legit question.

Originally Posted by 1320

I actually came to advanced tech to post about this very topic. There has been several "experiments" in the past that dealt with fuel vapor to different degrees. All claimed high mileage and reasonable to high power.
Yunicks engine, as I understand it, heated the incoming air, via two heating methods. And relied on the heated incoming air to vaporize the fuel. If i recall correctly, detonation occurs around 670 degrees f. No ones talking on the temp he targeted though. I would guess 400+ though.

Another heated the fuel, capsured the vapor and injected the fuel vapor. I dont really remember much about that one.

The one common theme in all "advanced tech" though are...

1. they all claim good results
2. they all claim high ve's
3. the inventors die
4. the oems have the tech and do nothing with it

Any leap in engine tech would over night put people out of work. If its reliability or fuel consumption, billions would be lost and people get put out. So there is a huge adversary to anything like that actually happening.

Back to topic....

I just picked up a duramax engine...well parts, and was thinking about converting it to gas, well a hot air vapor gas engine. Compression, boost, heated air and fuel vapor...

My other idea, is using a honda lean burn 1 liter engine (i have an extra one) that is from the insight. My insight already gets 55-85 mpg, and I originally got the spare engine to raise compression, coat everything and see if I could just raise the ve slightly. Now Im thinking maybe do the same thing, but ad a turbo heated air, and hot fuel.

Really just see If the I can melt some ceramic coated pistons, and ofcourse data log and etc etc....

Ill work on both, but they are long term projects since they dont pay the bills.

Originally Posted by gametech

The fact that you aren't smart enough to understand why your are an idiot means you shouldn't post here.

Originally Posted by Ericmck2000

Lol, was just wondering if anybody did any experimentation on this, since, it supposedly did happen back in the early 70s.....

I mean, if its possible to eliminate detonation via means of 100% fuel atomiztion, That could have some very very cool uses............ Can you say.... 100lbs of detonation free boost on 93 octane!!!

Originally Posted by gametech

The fact that you aren't smart enough to understand why your are an idiot means you shouldn't post here.

Originally Posted by 1320

Technically, this already has happened. You didnt say gasoline.....Some cummins guys are well above 100 psi on diesel which I think actually has an octane around 80 but I cant remember. I know of one cummins guy that runs about 135 psi.........in a ford truck. It makes well over 1000 hp out of about 360 inches, with torque around 2000 ft lbs.

It seems that the way a diesel runs is getting closer to a gas engine over time. Originally known as a detonating engine, now diesel tech says they dont actually detonate, and due to technology now have much more controlled and refined combustion events.

There was a duramax powered sn 95 mustang on drag week. Getting almost 40 mpg, making 700+ hp and running as fast as high 9's.....Seems that a 60 mpg diesel at 3500 lbs isnt that far off if you only wanted t run 12's or 13's, with the pony cars. Why hasnt an oem done it? The new camaro could have come out with a 4.5 duramax, 12 sec et's at 3900 lbs.....and if it didnt, a typical "box" would get it there. And get well beyond 40 mpg.

So why not? The 4.5 duramax is supposedly already done. It would kill sales of all the other lines....why buy a malibu you invested in that gets 30 mpg if you could get 40+ in camaro.

Originally Posted by 1 FMF

diesel does not have an "octane" rating. please look up the principle behind octane as it relates to gasoline. Diesel engines work on the principle of detonation, that is why the ford powerstrokes of the mid 90's were so frickin loud, because all the diesel was injected at once and it explodes. The reason diesels are so quiet now is because of different methods of fuel injection- basically injecting a small amount of fuel early on that lets cylinder pressure increase more gradually. The old way of a huge fuel shot rapidly raised cylinder pressure and that's what causes the noise.


boost it all you want. Diesel is injected into the cylinder, not the intake. Boost would only be limited to how much air you could compress practically... here is where you could throw in that adiabatic word. After that boost would be limited to compression ratio and what cylinder pressures the piston, rings, and head gasket could handle. The fuel [diesel] has nothing to do with it.


NO !!!
by getting closer to a gas engine in terms of noise maybe. But a diesel will always be a detonating engine. You know it doesn't use spark plugs right? Any diesel tech that says otherwise is.... not smart enough to understand why they are an idiot. They do have more refined combustion events, and it's for the simple reason I stated above.


fuel economy and [power output/performance] are inversely related. And to supe up a diesel to make whatever the vehicle run low times in the 1/4 is fine, it is easily done just max out the boost and fuel delivery, that's all it is. Highest cylinder pressure possible results in max power output, but there is no durability and reliability of the engine, that is why the oem's don't do it. They have enough problems with the fuel injection system and all the other emissions **** they are now hanging on the engine.

Originally Posted by chuntington101

There is ALOT of money and research going in to deisel engines at the moment. In the EU well over 60% of all cars sold are deisels. The new generation VW, ford, GM and BMW units all run common rail injetion with massive fuel line presures. Unlike in the past they dont just have a single conitueus injection for the whole burn stroke. they fire the inejctor upto 7 times. this makes for a much cleaner and more complete burn resulting in more power and better efficencies.

CHris.

Originally Posted by 1320

Chris, the interesting part is that the efficencies seem to not be getting much better if at all. Many of the older noisy engines have reputations of getting better mpg's then their newer more developed counter parts. They do run smooth and quiet though with higher and higher rev limits.

Originally Posted by gametech

Damn! This section has turned into a bunch of useless spambots peddling bullshit.

Originally Posted by gametech

The fact that you aren't smart enough to understand why your are an idiot means you shouldn't post here.

Originally Posted by 1320

Sir, you apparently just want to argue.
"easily done, thats all it is" thats a great line.......

Originally Posted by 1 FMF

it was midweek and i was grumpy
and if i misinterpretted some of your writing then my bad.
my point is this thread is trying to go a handful of directions at once, with diesels (compression ignition) and gasoline (spark ignition), and with things said (regardless of who said them) like diesels are not a detonating engine and the description about boost in a diesel were wrong.

the yunick crap is dated back to the mid 80's, before electronic and computer control of engines. Do not read terms like complete atomization and think it's not already happening, although atomization is a poor word to use. It is, that was the reason behind the fuel injector for gasoline engines and why they obsoleted the carb. when the a/f mixture gets compressed as the piston goes to TDC, that mixture becomes homogeneous and "atomized", there is no liquid fuel present anymore because the mixture has been heated as a result of that pressurization. If there is liquid fuel still present, it's because too much fuel was added for the quantity of air, the a/f ratio is overly rich. The O2 sensors prove there is complete combustion. Preheating the air/fuel mixture prior does what exactly? All it does is decrease density of the mixture entering the cylinder, it does not change the spark ignited combustion process. If it does tell me how. It does not cause the oxidation of fuel vapor with oxygen to expand to a gas at any different rate. And it is this expansion of gasoline vapor from oxidation into a gas which is what is doing the work. The whole heat is lost energy concept is taken out of context.

yunick bullshit:

this is misinformation and deception to "sell" this concept to some sucker. Yeah, fuel vapor by itself with no oxygen will not burn, compress it all you want. Same thing if I took propane gas and filled a room with 100% propane gas, it won't burn. These mixtures need a certain ratio of oxygen for the combustion process to happen. Where yunick derails is you must have oxygen present in the cylinder, otherwise you won't have combustion. If you have your fuel vapor separate, and preheated enough, then it will detonate as soon as it hits O2.




what are the O2 sensors saying?
if everything is tuned right you are getting a complete burn,
complete burn is independent of power output,
it seems like people want to discuss power output, different fuel and combustion types, and fuel economy at once. you can't. you need to focus on one thing. but regarding complete burn and thinking you can get more mileage out of gasoline, go back to basic physics. A given quantity of fuel has only so much energy content,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline
horsepower (not torque) is the measurement to be interested in, which is equivalent to so many BTU's/time, and the amount of BTU's (energy) per gallon of gasoline, or diesel, is known.



massive torque only means something if you mention what rpm, or distance, it is happening over. regarding diesel engine efficiency and fuel economy, look up some terms such as torque rise and engine sizing. And in general, mean effective pressure.