Announcement

**Stealth** · 02-15-2010, 08:02 PM

1) to completely vaporize fuel, it has to be cracked. Heating is one option,using exhaust manifold and or radiator water. Another is pressure, which builds heat.
2) Once fuel is vaporized, it should be injected directly into the cylinders to prevent cold incoming air from the intake to cool it back down
3) when burned more completely, heat would not be a factor as most heat generated would be for combustion
4)friction from the pistons in the cylinders can be reduced by using the best lubricants available
5) seperate intakes should be used for each cylinder,in multiple cylinder engines,this way both valves could be opened when not firng to prevent a vacuum chamber from forming
These are just a few of the modification needed to bring the ICE into the twenty first century. Most improvements made to ICE's have only involved the valve train or fuel delivery systems. The otto cycle ICE's were a revoltionary invention in the late 1800's. We are using technology invented 130 years ago. It's time to reinvent the ICE if we are to continue using them. Good Luck. Stealth

**wantfreeenergy** · 02-15-2010, 08:25 PM

I hear ya. Ineffecient, but there are so darn many of em. And so many just sitting around in yards and junk yards doing nothing.

I really love the idea of making an electronic device that taps energy from "thin air". And at the same time I also enjoy thinking of how one could simply get an engine from a scrap yard, put a GEET system on it and make a generator from it.

In the past I would "daydream" of purchasing smaller electric companies that use coal or anyother type of fuel that continues to send toxins into our enviroment. Then acquire some large engines that would have a GEET system designed for em and installed. Then turn em into generators by spinning large induction motors like what would be used in a hydro electric dam, or similar.

I also think of all the manufacturing that would need to go into the raw materials and such and try to invision a way that would need the least amount of "mining" to acquire what is needed to generate this energy. And typically I come back to the conclusion/idea that it would be simpler if there were simply a shoebox sized device that was tuned correctly that drew as much energy from the enviroment as one would need. Need more energy and the device would supply it. From a materials standpoint it seems like it would need less, but I don't know. Less wires to transport it and less overall material. And one could share it with a few neighbors too.

Anyhow, we're talking about the ICE. And from all I remember while learning in the past, is that a GEET would solve several of your 1-5 list of improvements. Also there's been videos of people showing their lawnmower engines with the GEET running while recycling the exhaust into the intake. Yup, no exhaust and no incoming air, it's a "closed loop". I actually have a GEET, but the engine I designed it for I didn't check the engine oil.

And it quickly overheated and seized. I still can't let that go, I feel so...

It was a sparkling new engine which I picked up for a mere 50 bucks. Purrfect. Till I decided to be too antsy to run the GEET and didn't check the engine oil. LOL But I have another small engine I found that's well used that I'm gonna attach it to sometime. And I'm anxious to try the "closed loop" with it.

BTW the videos are on youtube. I've only seen two of em so far. If you'd like I can find em. But I think if you just type in closed loop geet you'll see em. Also I found another vid from the panacea.org sites GEET manual. THANK YOU so MUCH Ash.

**Stealth** · 02-15-2010, 09:14 PM

Yes, the Geet is a very innovative approach to the ICE. It does help solve some of the problems with the ICE. But even the Geet doesn't approach what could be done with redisigned and reengineered ICE's. If it were possible to completely burn all of the combustible fuel that was used in an ICE, we would be getting approximately 400-500 MPG from our automobiles. It has been accomplished before. As a stable home generating unit, we should see an even more improved fuel combustion, as we could run at a preset speed all the time. With this kind of fuel consumption no one would complain. Pollutants would be almost nonexistant, fuel consumption would be almost nonexistant, and it would free us up to the possiblilties of almost endless energy. With some reengineering and developement we could run our cars, house,lawn equipment and recreational vehicles for almost nothing. With such a small consumption rate, we could even produce our own fuel from grass clippings or other organic materials. Recycling our own garbage could also result in supplying our own fuel.Good Luck. Stealth

**everwiser** · 02-16-2010, 12:41 AM

An ICE uses air and fuel to run and the simplest method for introducing that air to the cylinder is by using the vacuum of the downward moving piston (at least in 4 cycle engines) to pull that air in. To fail to utilize the vacuum would make the engine less efficient as you will have a wasted movement of the piston. Recycling the heat from the exhaust for air/fuel conditioning improves the efficiency considerably. Look into Smokey Yunick's hot air engine of the 80's for cues. He was able to double the horsepower and the fuel mileage by utilizing the exhaust gases to mix and heat the air/fuel mix. The main problem he had was that there weren't any oils that could take the heat.

**Stealth** · 02-16-2010, 01:06 AM

Yes, In a normally aspirated engine, the vacuum of the piston does pull air into the engine. This could all be eliminated by using a turbocharger or supercharger to push air into the cylinders. By having both valves open during nonfunctioning periods, you could eliminate the vacuum pull that the piston has in the cylinder. If you think it wouldn't have much effect, then put your hand over top of a lawnmower engine,with the piston up, with the head off and try to turn the flywheel.Now remove your hand and you will see how much power is used to overcome the vacuum. A turbocharger utilizes exhaust gases tp presurize the cylinders, so no extra energy is used.Plus more horsepower is developed because of this extra pressure. It is a far more dense concentration of air,plus some heat is extracted from the turbocharger which helps in combustion. A few engines today use variable valve timing, and this is exactly what they do, to a point. They leave the valves open a few degrees past exhasution to relieve the vacuum of the piston. Smokey Yunick was a pioneer in fuel combustion,as several others have been, like Pogue who started the trend. Good Luck. Stealth

**everwiser** · 02-16-2010, 01:57 AM

I have a turbo car so I'm familiar with its operation. At idle speeds, the turbo is not making any pressure so vacuum is all you've got. If you size the turbo and/or supercharger for pressure at idle you'll have to have some kind of wastegate that kicks in rather early or you'll likely blow the head(s) off the engine. This ends up being less efficient at higher engine speeds. Everything is a compromise you see.

I think you'll actually find that the pressure you feel in trying to crank the engine and/or pull the rope on your mower is the compression of the engine and that is going to be there on any piston engine else you'd not be able to run it. There is some drag from the vacuum but that's because it's pulling against the virtually closed throttle blades and it is no where near the force needed to overcome the compression stroke.

Lastly, the hot air engine of Smokey's I referenced used a turbo as a intake pressure check/one-way valve and a fuel/air homogenizer because once the engine was up to temp there was a constant 4 psi pressure feeding all the cylinders. The turbo's internal wastegate was set to its minimum set point so it was basically open the entire running time of the engine which I'm sure contributed to its unique sound. When up to operating temp the intake/fuel temps were between 300 and 400*F. The superheating of the fuel/air mixture is what contributed to its excellent power output and fuel economy.

**sucahyo** · 02-16-2010, 02:05 AM

Steven Mark email to Lindsay Mannix:

My first invention was a Highbred electric automobile way back in 1978. I knew that the automotive heat stroke engine was unbelievably inefficient.

Calculations told me that it only took about 15 horsepower to keep a vehicle on the highway at 60 mph but we needed 40 hp or more to accelerate the vehicle. To accelerate it well we needed 100 HP.

So if we design the automobile with a large hp engine to accelerate the vehicle adequately we waste a great deal of energy when the large heat pump engine is only required to produce 15 hp to cruse at 60 mph on the highway.

My solution was to find the smallest and most efficient engine I could possibly find and couple it to a storage system which could be used for and to provide for acceleration to cruising speeds.. The idea was simple and elegant at the same time.

I found my first experiments very encouraging. I took a 20 hp 4 stroke gasoline engine coupled to a 48 volt generator coupled to two banks of storage batteries coupled to a 48 volt aircraft starter motor connected to the transmission of a ford Fairmont automobile. The Ford worked well. It did not have blazing acceleration but was definitely adequate. You could drive it around town all day and on the highway at 60 MPH it would burn 1 gallon of fuel for every 50 miles you traveled. That is very good for a 3800 Lb. Ford at 60 MPH which on it's best day would have only achieved about 18 mpg.

I had proven my idea would work so I set out to refine it. I needed a more efficient primover and I needed a more efficient electrical conversion system. I found a wonderful 2-stroke gasoline engine that would put out 25 hp on one gallon for 3.5 hours. I then coupled that engine to 4- twelve volt automotive alternators run in series into 4-12 volt banks of batteries. Now I had a super efficient gasoline engine with a very efficient electric energy conversion system.

The car now accelerated very well using the extra power stored in the battery banks and cruised at 65 MPH using 18 HP and leaving an extra 5 to 7 HP output from the 25 hp Gasoline engine to keep the batteries charged up to capacity for acceleration when necessary. I added a governor to control the gasoline engine to throttle back when necessary and save fuel.

You could drive it over town and high way all day. It worked wonderfully and achieved 320 MPG when driven on a trip from Los Angeles to Las Vegas Nevada, a distance of several hundred miles.

The car was a great success publicly and I invited Chrysler, Ford and General Moters to come to see the car. They all sent representatives to see the vehicle, but I was surprised because they did not seem very impressed at all.

I thought I had discovered the solution to the energy crises and they didn't even want to study the car I built. They were polite and they all asked me if I wanted to work for their companies but none of them were excited at all.

I couldn't understand why until I met a very impressive fellow named Delorian. Yes the ex-president of Ford who tried to manufacture the Delorian motor car in Ireland. After visiting with him and meeting his chief engineer, Zora Duntoff, the father of the Corvette, I learned that the automotive companies already knew how to make Highbred automobiles and so did not need my design! This was back in the 1970's and they are just now coming out with highbred electric automobiles for sale to the public.

I find it terrible that these new automobiles are only getting 50 MPG! That was my first lesson in discovering what I thought was a break through in technologies.

When I asked Mr Delorian and Mr. Duntoff why they were not making automobiles that could get 100 MPG they told me that it involved complicated economic issues involving the oil industry and the world economic system. . .

If an inefficient 2 stroke can produce 320mpg, imagine what a geet powered motor capable of.

**sucahyo** · 02-16-2010, 02:11 AM

I think turbo or supercharger car today are more inefficient than the one without if you drive it at econo rpm range. Turbo or supercharger only work well/activated at high rpm range. The car is purposefully setup to have low power at low rpm (low efficiency) to avoid destroying the engine (knocking etc) at max power.

Thus at 2000 rpm, turbo car is much weaker than normally aspirated car at the same size.

**Stealth** · 02-16-2010, 03:21 AM

I am glad to be getting good feedback and responses from you all. It is in this spirit of sharing experiences and info that will ultimately help to define the ideal ICE. One that will provide enough power, while at the same time give unprecedented fuel economy. It is within our reach. I have some definite ideas to try on an engine, when weather permits. I have already done some testing and have some proven results in achieving great fuel economy. But I have only begun my endeavor to harness the most fuel economy form an ICE, without sacrificing much in the way of power. I know sometimes there are tradeoffs, and I am prepared to deal with them whenever I encounter them. I am also planning to build my turbine to do some testing. I am encouraged by the interest in ICE's. I feel like they are here to stay, whether we like them or not. Good Luck. Stealth

**everwiser** · 02-17-2010, 12:25 AM

Some info on Smokey's engine...

Smokey Yunick’s Hot Vapor Fiero; 51 mpg and 0-60 in less than 6 Seconds! See and hear it run in our exclusive VIDEO! : Legendary Collector Cars

**Stealth** · 02-17-2010, 05:57 PM

Thanks for the video link. Smokey was into race cars and as such was as much interested in horsepower as fuel economy. Pogue was more involved with fuel economy. While Smokey's 51 MPG was good, Pogue's 200 MPG was better. But it has been proven that a V8 engine is capabale of getting over 400 MPG. This is what I am looking in to. Plenty of people over the years have achieved over 200 MPG. But this was only accomplished with fuel vaporization. I am looking at modifying the engine to make it a more efficient powerplant as well as vaporizing the fuel. The ICE of today is virtually no different from one a century ago. Only the valve trains and heads are different. There is much to be improved in an ICE design. Sure turbochargers and superchargers are an improvement, but mostly for the HP. The Duesenberg's of the 30's had overhead cams and superchargers. I am talking about a radical new designed system to bring the ICE from 25-30% efficiency to about 90% efficiency. By utilizing acquired knowledge combined with experimentation,it should be achieveable. Good Luck.. Stealth

**h20power** · 02-17-2010, 07:20 PM

I wish everyone would understand engines the way I do. A blower or super charger takes around 15-50 horsepower to use them and a turbo doesn't work well until the RPMs are up. But one has to ask just what are these devices doing for the ICE's? The answer is pulling in more oxygen into the combustion chamber so more fuel can be burnt. Both devices increase the compression in the combustion chamber conciderably which is why the compression of those engines have to be around 8:1 and that's on the high side. If you where to add a super charger to an engine with a compression ratio of 10:1 without lowering the compression ratio the engine would more than likely throw a rod or overheat in a very short time. The starter motor would have to be larger due to the increased compression ratio and all other load bearing parts found inside of the engine would have to be beefed up. For you don't think a diesel engine is bulkly just because the designer wants it that way do you? Ofcourse not, they are bulky because they have to be that way for the increased compression they have to deal with.

Now the way a blower and a good hho producing device works are about the same if you look at the basics.
1. They both take energy to run them.
2. They both add more O2 to the combustion chamber so more fuel can be burnt.

This is why everytime I saw an automotive person saying that the hho devices did nothing to an engines performance I knew he/she was lieing through their teeth for the science of all of this says so. But the dumbed down society just can't see these lies for they have at best very big gaps in their learns of all of the needed topics to fully understand them fully. I'll talk more this a bit later have to run for a bit.

h2opower.

**Stealth** · 02-17-2010, 08:31 PM

You are correct, of course, on the usuage of turbochargers and superchargers. They are built to basically produce more horsepower by building a higher compression in the cylinders. Mostly though, most turbochargers are used on small engines to boost thier performance to eliminate the use of larger engines to propel small to midsize autos. In diesels, they are used the same way, except they actually do improve fuel economy. These are not the main problems of ICE's, though. If we are to design an ICE to get 400 MPG, on gasoline, we need to do more than modify the fuel distribution and valve train. We need to look at all aspects of the function of the ICE. I have experimented with fuel vaporization and have had some success. But only increased 40-45% MPG. There is more that needs to be addressed to substaincially increase fuel economy. I posted where an Opel in the 60's obtained 376 MPG in a A Shell oil competition. This was done by some emplyees of th Shell oil Company.This is by no means a record. The current record is far above this. Good Luck. Stealth

**Aaron** · 02-17-2010, 08:47 PM

vaporization of gasoline

Another vaporization method but of course no details.

YouTube - White Gasoline Vapor is a MOLECULAR CHANGE, READ

-----------

Stealth,
"I am talking about a radical new designed system to bring the ICE from 25-30% efficiency to about 90% efficiency."

Are you talking about redesigning an ice? 30% you mention is very generous
I think. In any case, the Bourke for example is about 5HP per cubic inch
and runs at 1:30 to 1:50 fuel:air ratio. If 1:14.7 is 25% efficient, then
1:50 is like 85% efficient and 1:30 is 51% efficient if same power output
but at 5hp/CI, I think probably more.

If you're talking about using already existing ICE's, you can get a lot of
gas mileage out of them with nothing more than just tuning with stock
factory parts. It is hard to do any real tuning on these newer cars with
all the electronics/computer control unless you get reprogrammed chips,
etc... The below aren't 100mpg plus or anything but they far exceed
what is "supposed" to be possible with them.

In about 1992 my family moved back to Washington state from Ohio after
my dad retired from the military. We took a big road trip. Mom drove a car
pulling a trailor. Dad drove a car and I drove a car towing another car.

The car I drove was a Datsun 77 280Z and I was towing my 73 240Z
and both cars were loaded down to the max. I'm talking back end dragging
and that isn't good for them z's. We went off the main highway plenty of
times for sight seeing, etc... up and down through the badlands, you name
it. By the time I got to Washington state, the Z I was driving averaged
almost 27MPG. FULLY LOADED DOWN AND TOWING A 240Z,WHICH WAS
ALSO LOADED DOWN! The engine was mostly stock except for the exhaust.
5 speed, 2.8 liter inline 6 with fuel injection using just regular gas pump gas.
That is phenomenal gas mileage under those circumstances - towing
a few thousand pounds on top of it!

The car my dad was driving was some 87 or so Mecury Topaz, automatic,
one of the biggest pieces of junk ever made. Takes like half an hour to
go from 0 to 60! Sure seemed like it! lol Anyway, things kept breaking down
along the way, distributor went bad and I can't remember all the other
stuff but he just replaced it and fine tuned everything along the way.
By the time we got to Washington, that car, 100% stock with all factory
parts was getting a little over 55 MPG! That is no insignificant fact seeing
that the mileage was gotten with economical driving and no modifications.
My dad was a master mechanic before he joined the military so he knows
how to tune a car.

One Honda Civic I did the most experimenting with - only modification was
a slighly bigger exhaust diameter to breath a little easier, larger air intake
pipe and cone type performance filter to breath easier, magnet on fuel
line and before I ever used any kind of additive, I was able to get 43mpg
with normal gas pump gas and economical driving habits - on the highway.
What is funny is that I also got 43mpg in the city as my highest mpg city
driving.

In a 96 or so Nissan Altima, 5 speed, I drove to Vegas 4 years ago, I did
use an additive and a few tanks, I was getting up to 43mpg...something
about that 43mpg lol. But 43mpg for that car...100% stock, just the
additive and that was without economical driving.

In a 2001 Kia Sportage 5 speed, 4wd, a few years ago I drove to Seattle
and back and on the way there, I got 33mpg, which is extraordinary for
these bad gas mileage cars that normally get low 20's on the highway.
That was just with an additive. I only got that mileage once but it shows
it can be done. All stock, nothing special.

So the potential for much higher mileage than normal is possible with the
engines just how they are. Not magical amounts, but if every car in the
country increased gas mileage only 10%, that is very significant numbers
and 10% increase is a joke.

Announcement

ICE's

ICE's

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment