Carb cleaners

Henry wrote:
> Steve W. wrote:
>> Henry wrote:
>>> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
>>>
>>>> Because they're engaged in an evil conspiracy to get
>>>> rich selling you more gasoline. Same reason they've
>>>> suppressed the 500 mpg carburetor for all these decades.
>>> Back in 1984, Hot Rod Magazine did an article on a
>>> Pontiac Fiero that was powered by what Smokey Yunick
>>> called a "hot air engine". Hot Rod said it might be the
>>> most significant advancement in engine technology since
>>> the Otto cycle engine. They added that this may seem like
>>> an extraordinary statement, but the car they tested is
>>> worthy of it.
>>> Smokey's 4 cylinder Fiero engine made 250hp, got about
>>> 50mpg, put out much low emissions than the standard
>>> engine, and ran very smoothly. Basically, the fuel was
>>> vaporized using heat from the exhaust before being introduced
>>> to the combustion chambers. Carburetors and modern fuel
>>> injection puts liquid fuel into the combustion chambers,
>>> which doesn't burn cleanly or completely.
>>> Not saying there was a conspiracy to suppress his
>>> invention, but given that the car was actually built,
>>> and how impressed Hot Rod Magazine editors were, I do
>>> wonder why the technology was never perfected and mass
>>> produced. From what I've read, it was due to legal and
>>> patent issues. Here's a link to the original article from
>>> 1984 along with a couple more.
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/m8w8f8
> http://www.gassavers.org/archive/ind...ne/t-7868.html
>
> http://digg.com/general_sciences/Smo...iabatic_engine
>
>
>
>> The problem with the Smoksters engine was that it couldn't take the
>> heat. Fieros are notorious for engine fires to begin with as well.
>
> What about the technology itself, which is using vaporized
> fuel vs atomized liquid fuel?

Not real practical when compared with EFI. Consider

>
>> Also in a modern fuel injected engine there is far less than
>> 1% unburned fuel.
>
> That seems pretty low. Where'd you get that number?

Current EPA number used for the standards test that manufacturers have
to meet.

>
>
>


--
Steve W.

On Aug 13, 12:30*pm, Henry > wrote:
> The Older Clown, whilst cowering behidn its killfile timidly obsessed:
>
> > Steve W. > wrote:
> >> Also in a modern fuel injected engine there is far less than 1% unburned
> >> fuel. The injectors do a great job atomizing the fuel.
> > Heh. Keep at it. He'll be postings reams of stuff on how the CIA
> > suppressed the engine, next.
>
> * The older clown will tell us that some guy with a long beard
> who lives in cave did it... <chuckle>

Oh you know Pninneas McClintock? Nice chap, hates cars.

ben91932 > wrote:

> > Back in 1984, Hot Rod Magazine did an article on a
> > Pontiac Fiero that was powered by what Smokey Yunick
> > called a "hot air engine".
>
> He got the interest of GM and Chrysler.
> He built a 2.5 liter K car with these same spec's.
> A good idea, but piston temp's killed it.
> He used superheated intake air and high turbo boost...

Anyone can tweak a turbo'd car to silly power outputs... for a short
time.

I mean, 1.5 litre race cars were developing 1000bhp 20 years ago.

There are all sorts of other aspects. Ideally, if you want max power,
you need max fuel in. That's why engines use intercoolers, to cool the
incoming fuel/air load, make it denser, and get more fuel in.

He might have made a clunker of an engine more powerful, but he didn't
invent a whole new engine and what he did make certainly wasn't covered
up by the Black Helicopter guys.

As this thread pointed out earlier, there are lots of people who want to
believe in the everlasting battery, the electric car that does a million
miles, and the engine that runs on water, all of whuch were hushed up by
these mysterious people who have 'other interests'.




--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ER Coo, down to just five bikes!
If you don't know what you're doing, don't do it. And RTFM.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com

"Vito" > wrote in message
g.com...
> "Hachiroku ????" > wrote
> Henry wrote:
>>
>>> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
>>>
>>>> Because they're engaged in an evil conspiracy to get
>>>> rich selling you more gasoline. Same reason they've
>>>> suppressed the 500 mpg carburetor for all these decades.
>>>
>>> Back in 1984, Hot Rod Magazine did an article on a
>>> Pontiac Fiero that was powered by what Smokey Yunick
>>> called a "hot air engine". Hot Rod said it might be the
>>> most significant advancement in engine technology since
>>> the Otto cycle engine. They added that this may seem like
>>> an extraordinary statement, but the car they tested is
>>> worthy of it.
>>
>> And I remember one mail respondent's response to that article:
>>
>> "Abadiated, my ass!"
>>
>> The technology has actually been used in aircraft engines for years.
>>
> And most cars had intake manifolds heated by exhaust passages.

Which does make on wonder why the intercooler is such a magnificent thing,
doesn't it?


--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:38:55 +0100, Beav wrote:

>
> "Vito" > wrote in message
> g.com...
>> "Hachiroku ????" > wrote
>> Henry wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Because they're engaged in an evil conspiracy to get
>>>>> rich selling you more gasoline. Same reason they've
>>>>> suppressed the 500 mpg carburetor for all these decades.
>>>>
>>>> Back in 1984, Hot Rod Magazine did an article on a
>>>> Pontiac Fiero that was powered by what Smokey Yunick
>>>> called a "hot air engine". Hot Rod said it might be the
>>>> most significant advancement in engine technology since
>>>> the Otto cycle engine. They added that this may seem like
>>>> an extraordinary statement, but the car they tested is
>>>> worthy of it.
>>>
>>> And I remember one mail respondent's response to that article:
>>>
>>> "Abadiated, my ass!"
>>>
>>> The technology has actually been used in aircraft engines for years.
>>>
>> And most cars had intake manifolds heated by exhaust passages.
>
> Which does make on wonder why the intercooler is such a magnificent thing,
> doesn't it?

An intercooler cools the air. Cooler air is denser, so more air is
supplied to the engine, increasing HP output.

The Older Gentleman wrote:
> ben91932 > wrote:

>>> Back in 1984, Hot Rod Magazine did an article on a
>>> Pontiac Fiero that was powered by what Smokey Yunick
>>> called a "hot air engine".

>> He got the interest of GM and Chrysler.
>> He built a 2.5 liter K car with these same spec's.
>> A good idea, but piston temp's killed it.
>> He used superheated intake air and high turbo boost...

> Anyone can tweak a turbo'd car to silly power outputs... for a short
> time.


Smokey's hot air engine wasn't turbocharged.


--

http://911research.wtc7.net

Vito wrote:
> "Henry" > wrote
>> Vito wrote:
>>> "Hachiroku ????" > wrote

>>>> The technology has actually been used in aircraft engines for years.

>>> And most cars had intake manifolds heated by exhaust passages.

>> But of course, that's a far cry from burning vaporized fuel
>> as described below...

> Nope. Same thing.

Either you didn't read the article, or you failed to comprehend
it. Engines with carbs or fuel injection do not burn vaporized
fuel.


http://tinyurl.com/m8w8f8

http://www.gassavers.org/archive/ind...ne/t-7868.html
http://digg.com/general_sciences/Smo...iabatic_engine

Steve W. wrote:
> Henry wrote:
>> Steve W. wrote:

>>> Also in a modern fuel injected engine there is far less than
>>> 1% unburned fuel.

>> That seems pretty low. Where'd you get that number?

> Current EPA number used for the standards test that manufacturers have
> to meet.

Got a link? Not saying you're wrong, but I like to see
claims verified before I accept them if I can verify them
myself.

Beav wrote:
> "Vito" > wrote in message
> g.com...
>> "Hachiroku ????" > wrote
>> Henry wrote:
>>>> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Because they're engaged in an evil conspiracy to get
>>>>> rich selling you more gasoline. Same reason they've
>>>>> suppressed the 500 mpg carburetor for all these decades.
>>>> Back in 1984, Hot Rod Magazine did an article on a
>>>> Pontiac Fiero that was powered by what Smokey Yunick
>>>> called a "hot air engine". Hot Rod said it might be the
>>>> most significant advancement in engine technology since
>>>> the Otto cycle engine. They added that this may seem like
>>>> an extraordinary statement, but the car they tested is
>>>> worthy of it.
>>> And I remember one mail respondent's response to that article:
>>>
>>> "Abadiated, my ass!"
>>>
>>> The technology has actually been used in aircraft engines for years.
>>>
>> And most cars had intake manifolds heated by exhaust passages.
>
> Which does make on wonder why the intercooler is such a magnificent thing,
> doesn't it?
>
>
Well they are not mutually exclusive. The main purpose of the heated
manifold was for cold weather drivability. It heated up the mix to keep
the fuel in suspension when it was cold. (quite a few TBI vehicles have
heated throttle bodies for a similar reason, Icing across the venturi.)
On a turbocharged vehicle that intercooler is getting the charge from
the turbo, which is generally HOT air. It cools the air down so the
system can actually get a better fuel ratio.

What I don't get are the folks who look at the vehicles used in mileage
runs and say LOOK they made that thing get 200mpg, why doesn't MY CAR
get that. They did it so it MUST be possible.



--
Steve W.

On 14 Aug, 13:23, "Steve W." > wrote:
> Beav wrote:

> > Which does make on wonder why the intercooler is such a magnificent thing,
> > doesn't it?
>
> Well they are not mutually exclusive. The main purpose of the heated
> manifold was for cold weather drivability. It heated up the mix to keep
> the fuel in suspension when it was cold. (quite a few TBI vehicles have
> heated throttle bodies for a similar reason, Icing across the venturi.)
> On a turbocharged vehicle that intercooler is getting the charge from
> the turbo, which is generally HOT air. It cools the air down so the
> system can actually get a better fuel ratio.
>
> What I don't get are the folks who look at the vehicles used in mileage
> runs and say LOOK they made that thing get 200mpg, why doesn't MY CAR
> get that. They did it so it MUST be possible.
>

It's all a load of crap, anyway.

As you and Beav say (and I said, but I dunno what happened to the
post), intercoolers are there for a purpose. They work.

And how many Jap bikes were fitted with carb heaters? Remember those?

And anyone can tune an engine to produce more power. How long it
produces that power before it grenades is another matter.

He might have been a talented engineer, but he didn't invent The Great
Solution Engine, and no Evil Forces Have Hidden The Sceret. Of course,
this won't stop the nutters proclaiming otherwise.