Vaporizing Fuel w/my Device... Results...

-

70DusterBob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2016
Messages
781
Reaction score
148
Location
Texas
It seems like I'm getting more of an increase when in my car, driving it than on the dyno, but I don't know that.

Anyway here are the results. The device smooths out the power curves and notice how well it brings the a/f mix closer to ideal.

This was done in 2nd gear, the operator said he had his foot on the floor all the way at 3,000.

I'm looking for insight as to why the a/f mix is better with it, just how sweet the curves are with it, and is this a very significant increase in smoother acceleration, improved a/f mix, and in hp and torque to warrant putting it on a Mopar.

Anyone dare to take a stab at how much this would shave off an et?

The baseline was the best of 3 runs without it, and the proto4 was the best of running with the 4th proto I put on it.

Also notice there is absolutely "0" restriction as the graph shows there is an increase all the way up the RPM range.

Any questions, ask away.

Thanks...
 

Attachments

  • Bef and Aft 3g RPM 1-8-18.pdf
    1.6 MB · Views: 294
  • Bef and Aft 4g RPM 1-8-18.pdf
    1.6 MB · Views: 218
  • Bef and Aft 5g RPM 1-8-18.pdf
    1.6 MB · Views: 168
Care to share a pic of this devise?

I wish I could, but I am applying for patent on it and that would be a public disclosure which would hurt or eliminate my chances of getting the patent. I do apologize, but I would like any insight you may have as to how well it is working, is it significant enough to charge a couple hundred dollars for these results? Or more maybe?

The engine it was on is a 1975 360, 650 Holley DP, mild cam, headers, performer intake, 9.5:1 forged pistons.

Thanks
 
I`d say some long term testing would be in order for liability issues.
some would think a couple bens for 16 hp increase would be fair.
looks-size-complexity-etc would sway a lot of buyers too.
Good luck in your endeavors.
 
I`d say some long term testing would be in order for liability issues.
some would think a couple bens for 16 hp increase would be fair.
looks-size-complexity-etc would sway a lot of buyers too.
Good luck in your endeavors.

Thanks. I appreciate the feed back.
 
I have been awaiting your return since your last thread. This holds interest and could potentially be handy little gadget if things work out as you plan.

Keep on working on it and keep us posted.
 
I've read some on the subject. IMO, if there was anything to it, fuel vaporization would be on every single new vehicle made.
 
And so would every other magic device made since 1902 'er whenever..............

The problem with, and I have done extensive research, with "other" devices, is either they cannot be mfged for an inexpensive price but work okay, they cannot produce enough hp/torque/fuel mileage savings, etc to be worth mfg, or they just don't work in the entire power band.

I have been trying to vaporize fuel since the late 80's. I came up with another patented device that was too costly to mfg, but worked like a muther. With that one, I started a 360 at 30 degrees, no choke, just turned it on, it was brushless electric motor powered, tapped the gas, hit the key and it started on the fist spark plug ignition and idled with no black smoke, and no more than a tap on the throttle to start it. It didn't hesitate, bog, choke, gag, fart, wheeze or sputter at "all" on take off. But like I said, it was too expensive for mass mfg.

FI has provided the most reliable bang for the buck, sorry for the pun, and is reproducible, as well as reasonably cost effective to mfg.

What I have here, and I'm dying to show you guys, is easily mfged, reliable, stationary so there are no moving parts, and no maintenance. It will never wear out, never break, and the results are enough, I hope, to warrant mfg for carburetion. I haven't been able to test it with a TBFI system yet, but those systems may not benefit enough to use it IDK.

There has been a couple products hit the market, the Tornado comes to mind, but it swirled the air. Swirling air is inefficient because it gives the a/f a longer path to the combustion chamber, slowing the a/f down. This does not slow it down at all, that is why there is a boost, be it a little one, all the way up the power band.

How much might this sustained boost decrease an ET, on this engine, on the above graph? Can anyone take a stab at it?

Thanks!
 
I have been back and forth with Bob for a bit on this and curved a distributor for him. I think this will be a great thing once all the bugs are worked out.
 
I`d say some long term testing would be in order for liability issues.
some would think a couple bens for 16 hp increase would be fair.
looks-size-complexity-etc would sway a lot of buyers too.
Good luck in your endeavors.

I've been doing this for 35 years now. There is no issue with mechanical failure, carbon buildup and they are stationary. Changed the design over the years quite a few times. This was the best sustained boost I have gotten. Though I agree it needs more boost to be of real value. I'm working on a new design to increase the boost throughout the full RPM range.

They look cool, I'm working with about a 5/8ths in spacer which is needed for the butterfly clearance, and they are very simple.

Thanks for your input, I appreciate it. I need all the help I can get...

Bob
 
I have been awaiting your return since your last thread. This holds interest and could potentially be handy little gadget if things work out as you plan.

Keep on working on it and keep us posted.

If there is one thing for sure, none of us know it all. lol?? I had an issue with the timing chain. I guess punching it so many times stretched it out. One time in particular pushed it past its limits.

Thank you for your positive feed back. I will keep working on it. This was a substantial improvement. I hope to have more...
 
I've read some on the subject. IMO, if there was anything to it, fuel vaporization would be on every single new vehicle made.

It's called Fuel Injection, lol!!!

Say, the dyno results showed more torque and hp than the first time I ran back in Oct 16. Those runs were made in 3rd gear, these were run in 2nd but showed lower HP and torque. I KNOW FOR CERTAIN it has more hp and torque, by a long shot. Would the fact that these tests were run in 2nd lower the HP and torque values even if the engine has more?

Thanks...
 
It's called Fuel Injection, lol!!!

Say, the dyno results showed more torque and hp than the first time I ran back in Oct 16. Those runs were made in 3rd gear, these were run in 2nd but showed lower HP and torque. I KNOW FOR CERTAIN it has more hp and torque, by a long shot. Would the fact that these tests were run in 2nd lower the HP and torque values even if the engine has more?

Thanks...
I'm confused. Were the current tests all performed on the same day? If it were me, I would get that engine out of the car and onto an engine dyno. Too many variables with a chassis dyno, imho. If the project is as important as it seems, sell off some stuff and eat canned beans and box mac and cheese if you must to finance a proper test.
 
I started a 360 at 30 degrees, no choke, just turned it on, it was brushless electric motor powered, tapped the gas, hit the key and it started on the fist spark plug ignition and idled with no black smoke, and no more than a tap on the throttle to start it. It didn't hesitate, bog, choke, gag, fart, wheeze or sputter at "all" on take off.

Sounds exactly how propane fuel acts in cold weather :)
Do you think the device would have any likely benefit on other fuels used in cars, like Propane / LPG? Propane doesn't need vaporisation as it's already a gas and it will actually benefit from a stone cold intake.

As for the costs, depending on your manufacturing costs, I think it would be a 'simple' choice between desired profits over a small amount of sale volumes, or a little less profit per initial device, but likely more profit because the sold/produced volume is larger.
 
I'm confused. Were the current tests all performed on the same day? If it were me, I would get that engine out of the car and onto an engine dyno. Too many variables with a chassis dyno, imho. If the project is as important as it seems, sell off some stuff and eat canned beans and box mac and cheese if you must to finance a proper test.

I am already on a rice and bean diet, lol!! But seriously, the tests were done 1.5 years apart. I think as the post below yours states, it may be the colder weather that has something to do with it, but the car is running better, more power now still, and the test showed like 60 more hp in a test in Oct of 16. Maybe he re-calibrated the machine or something? I know for a fact it should be 60 more hp now than then. I first, in 16, ran with a 750 DP, this test now was done with a 650 DP, both Holley's. I will try to think how to remedy this situation. But yeah I could sell the car minus the engine and get it tested. That would be the only place I could come up with that kind of money... ugh But thanks.
 
Sounds exactly how propane fuel acts in cold weather :)
Do you think the device would have any likely benefit on other fuels used in cars, like Propane / LPG? Propane doesn't need vaporisation as it's already a gas and it will actually benefit from a stone cold intake.

As for the costs, depending on your manufacturing costs, I think it would be a 'simple' choice between desired profits over a small amount of sale volumes, or a little less profit per initial device, but likely more profit because the sold/produced volume is larger.

I have a patent agent working on my application now. He wanted me to test the difference between the copper I was using and aluminum. The copper and aluminum blades made no difference in hp or torque, identical actually. I could significantly reduce the price if I could make the device with aluminum, but don't think it will withstand heat over decades of use. Copper seems the better material to go with. There are so many variables to consider, this is why so many inventions don't make it. You have to think of everything possible to consider when going for a patent, and if you patent something and leave an important detail out, like choice of material, you have to start all over, then they say, "Well it is obvious you could make them out of aluminum instead of copper" then you can't get another patent! That is why I am picking you guy's brains, to get as much help as possible with this that your willing to give as far as advice goes. As far as backing goes, I could use help there too, and am willing to explain things to someone if someone were willing to back this.
 
I thought the (US) way for applying for a patent was that it's "best" to mainly describe the idea, and not the materials used, as to keep it as vague as possible for copycats?
So if someone else makes a similar device, you can defend your idea with 'prior art'.
 
I thought the (US) way for applying for a patent was that it's "best" to mainly describe the idea, and not the materials used, as to keep it as vague as possible for copycats?
So if someone else makes a similar device, you can defend your idea with 'prior art'.

I was using that as an example. You are right, that is what patent atty's and agents specialize in, making sure the "claims" portion of the application are as vague and specific as they need to be to prevent someone else from stealing it/copycating it and making it a new application. However, if you leave some important detail out when you send your material to the agent/atty, they may not see your "absence of important information", leave something critical out and there you are.

The test results on this dyno thing are kicking my butt. There "are" a lot of variables, though I did prove with this latest test that it does not cause restriction, even though it is a non-powered device. That alone should get me the patent, that is extremely unique and I don't "think" anyone has done that before. I know it is next to impossible, without revealing the critical aspects of this device, for you guys to know what I need to include, but here I was looking for help with why the dyno was saying I had more power back then Oct of 16 than now, when I clearly am producing more power now. It did show an increase, it's just that the overall was less hp and torque now as to then. I will post the old results here in a few. That may help.

Thanks.
 
I thought the (US) way for applying for a patent was that it's "best" to mainly describe the idea, and not the materials used, as to keep it as vague as possible for copycats?
So if someone else makes a similar device, you can defend your idea with 'prior art'.[/QUOT

Here are the two different runs, Oct 16 and Jan 18. The Oct run is higher, albeit very wavy. The Jan run was smooth as glass, but was lower??? I guess the only way to be certain is to put the same set up I had back in the 750 and run both one after the other to see which one has more power, but I changed up the 750 big time since then. Don't know if I remember exactly which power valve, jets and accelerator cams I had in it. Remember the Oct run was in 3rd, the Jan run in 2nd. Could that vary the results this much or should it be the other way around??
 

Attachments

  • Oct2016 and Jan2018 Base Runs.pdf
    1.4 MB · Views: 156
-
Back
Top