All petrol vechicles burn only part of their fuel for propulsion,the rest goes out of the exhaust as polution,

They're probably hogging all those little gizmos for themselves. Not really surprising they'll make the little guys have to pay more just to get to and from work.

They burn about 99% of the gas. To burn the rest would require more oxygen. To carry enough oxygen to burn just 20gal of fuel would require over 200 scuba tanks of oxygen.

Don't give the green folks any new ideas. That gizmo, (a type of atomizer) will cost consumers big bucks to have in their cars.  The truth is, if you don't stomp down on your gas pedal so hard, you can burn fuel as efficiently as the atomizer! I was a carburator specialist for motorcycles and fiddled with them for many years. A BTU is a BTU. (a drop of petrol only has so much power in it)

I'll send you a PM on this question. I need some more information on this.

i dont know anything about that

An internal-combustion engine that emits a high proportion of un-burnt fuel in the exhaust under normal conditions, does not need some extraneous fitting sold only to make money for its inventor.

Whether carburetted or injected petrol, or diesel, it is running "rich", so needs servicing!

In a carburettor-fitted engine, the fuel IS turned to a gas, well, vapour. That is the carburettor's purpose.


Driving styles and other external conditions have significant effects on the vehicle's overall economy, and leaden-footed accelerating (not steady speed) is one of the most wasteful practices. 


I wonder if the experiments made by Nice Jug's brother actually did bring the benefits he sought? It's a good try and very far from the old "perpetual motion machine" myth, but still doesn't quite ring true or practical due to the basic physics. You cannot defeat physics.

For whilst you can indeed electrolyse water into hydrogen and oxygen,  it takes a lot of energy and that can have only one origin in a car... the fuel! So each kW/hr taken by the electrolyser is 1kW/hr taken from the engine's output - yes the hydrogen returns a lot, but if you can achieve 100& efficiency it would only put back what it took in the first place, via the engine-driven alternator. However, we know 100% efficiency is unattainable, so all it does is place a small drain from rather than useful contribution to, the system.

It would also require a lot of very fine tuning to work properly, because the engine has been designed to work with its fuel and air in a very tight mixture. Introduce a second fuel to the mixture and you immediately need to redesign more than just a bit of plumbing.

Many people have tried all sort of odd ideas but most fall by the wayside not because Big Business crushes them, but because they promise the unattainable or unrealistic, often ignoring THE simplest and most fundamental Law by which the whole Universe operates: you can neither create not destroy energy, only transport or convert it! 


It is true that a lot of the fuel's potential energy is lost, but not as heat per se because that rather misses the engine's principle.

A heat engine of any sort is one that converts its fuel's potential chemical energy into heat energy, and that to mechanical energy; but it is impossible to make a 100% efficient system - despite what the more rabid "green" types apparently think. So all the engineers and scientists can do, is continuing what engineers and scientists have sought to do since James Watt realised why the earliest steam-engines used so much coal for the work they did. That is to improve the efficiency (the ratio of power output / power input) as far as practicable, but they cannot go beyond a certain point for any given engine and fuel type; and eventually a law of diminishing returns must apply.