Active Now

Heeeeers Jonny!
Dink del Diablo
Morning Star
Don Barzini
Walt O'Reagun
Discussion » Questions » Environment » All petrol vechicles burn only part of their fuel for propulsion,the rest goes out of the exhaust as polution,

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

A small gismo installed under the bonnet turns the petrol into gas and 99 % of the fuel gets converted to energy and exhaust gasses emit nothing harmful.
Gas mileage goes up more than half and virtually no damage is done to the environment....
Why do our car manafactures and goverments not make fitting these devices compulsory,or is that the giant oil corporations want us to buy more oil...! 
I think we the public are being well and truly screwed by both.....:(  

Posted - March 9


  • 1720
    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.
      March 9, 2019 7:20 PM MST

  • 10862
    They don't care either way as they get their cars and fuel for free....all paid for by the state's the same here in England.
      March 9, 2019 7:49 PM MST

  • 15601
    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.
      March 9, 2019 9:21 PM MST

  • 10862
    I was talking with my brothers and my dad....they are all racing geeks and they said  fuel injected cars are more frugal than carburetor and both only get energy out of the fuel they use....most gets blown out if the exhaust from lack of complete combustion......
    Engines that burn a gas as fuel ,the whole cylinder get burnt in each explosion....
    There is another factor as much energy is wasted with the wasted heat loss generated and not turned into energy for motion.....38% of energy is wasted that way alone I think I read.... 
      March 10, 2019 11:22 AM MDT

  • 5790
    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)
      March 10, 2019 5:41 AM MDT

  • 24887
    Smokey Yunick developed an engine that would have revolutionized the auto industry. I read about it in 'Popular Mechanics' back in the 70s. The engine had no cooling system and had a preheater for the fuel, so it would go into the cylinders as a vapor, not atomized droplets. He would not reveal the material the engine was made of, but it was assumed it was made of a ceramic material. He ran the engine at top speed under full load for 24 hours and it showed no wear and got something like 70 mpg. 
      March 10, 2019 9:22 AM MDT

  • 10862
    A heavy foot don't help ,but a car engine wastes fuel and energy in different ways such as wasted beat and not burning every drop of fuel cleanly and transferring it into motion.....

    Yes I would agree that any money saving fuel device that cost pennies to manafacture and fit on cars would most likely cost hundreds of pounds to buy and fit ....
    You can make a cheap thing out of pastic plumbing fittings and electrical transformers that turn water into hydrogen as you drive....I gall of water makes quite a bit of gas and that gets burnt with petrol ....
    My elder brothers messed with that fifteen od years ago...The cost of doing it was minuscule really  
      March 10, 2019 11:35 AM MDT

  • 24887
    I'll send you a PM on this question. I need some more information on this.
      March 10, 2019 9:23 AM MDT

  • 10862
    It's fascinating......there are loads of info on Ytube also..
    Oil companies are against any clean fuel.....
    There are farms in England where they grow Algae to make bio's sustainable and far cheaper to make than  corn produced fuels... This post was edited by Nice Jugs at March 10, 2019 11:56 AM MDT
      March 10, 2019 11:42 AM MDT

  • 24887
    I've heard about algae farms The algae has a number of uses. So far they aren't wide spread here. They are FREE energy.
      March 10, 2019 12:00 PM MDT

  • 10862
    To produce algae fuel as opposed to corn grow fuels would take up a fraction of the land used to grow corn...You do make it in America ,but most likely the farmers that grow corn for fuel are opposed to it just like the many oil companies are.... 
    A guy made a contraption that recovered heat from exhaust abd enging block......he developed a way of turning it in to moving energy and increased fuel efficiency by 38% ....nothing was allowed to come from it ....:(
      March 10, 2019 12:10 PM MDT

  • 24887
    Toyota has created two small engines at 38%. They can be used in hybrids. You got my research engine revved up. Thanks.
      March 10, 2019 12:31 PM MDT

  • 10862
      March 10, 2019 2:14 PM MDT

  • 22385
    i dont know anything about that
      March 10, 2019 3:33 PM MDT

  • 1808
    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.

      March 31, 2019 3:35 AM MDT