How to convert 1 gallon of gasoline into 160 gallons of highly combustible fuel.

if only you could provide a video tutorial

a reply to: ANNED

OMG! you really need to wake up! It is that kind of brainwashed, closed-minded thinking that keeps us from realizing that your so-called "law of engines" is a ridiculous freaking joke! Numerous carburetor designs were invented, tested, and proven to help get over 100mpg in the 80's and earlier - then all the designs were bought, stolen, etc. and were destroyed by car companies, who were paid handsomely by the big oil companies to do so - hence, we still don't have them. Yes, the information is out there - yes, it has been proven - yes, the patents exist (I have seen many of them) - and yes, it is very possible and quite easy to get your car engine to run at a much better fuel/air ratio than 14.7 to 1. The oil and gas companies paid automakers to switch over to fuel injection because too many people were modifying and inventing too many carburetors that were way more fuel efficient! Then, car makers were paid to invent, install, and program computers (ECM's) that would control that "magic" ratio - they are preprogrammed to ensure that the ratio cannot ever change, therefore you are not supposed to be able to reprogram it for better fuel economy. All these new technologies (i.e. - all the extra crap on your engine) is all designed so that if you do figure out a way to tamper with it and make it run better and more efficiently, it screws up all the other electronic systems and causes to run like crap - it is intentionally designed that way so you won't figure out that almost everything they put on engines nowadays that falls under "emissions" or "electronics" is actually a fail-safe system to prevent you from improving your fuel economy. In other words, if you adjust the airflow or fuel flow, another system's sensor triggers another something to automatically "correct" the error in fuel/air ratio, and if it cannot automatically fix itself, it is designed to run so poorly that you have no choice but to revert it back. Anyone with half a brain and even a miniscule amount of common sense can figure that out. If you noticed, many of the engines from the 50's thru the 70's often ran much better and it was easy to modify them and "tinker" with inventions and such to make them more efficient. Since the inclusion of all these b.s. emissions components, you can hardly find room under the hood to put anything extra, and god forbid you take anything off - the whole system crashes! Oh, and for the record, I took a 1978 Ford F-100 Ranger (the old full size trucks) that had the 300-straight six cylinder motor in it (which by the way got about 12 mpg) and proved that you can modify the engine to run on ACTUAL fuel vapor much more efficiently than anything we have now! I used PVC pipe, a 5 gallon bucket, an air filter, and a few other easy to find, cheap parts, put together my own simple evaporator/vaporizer setup, and ran the piping directly into the carburetor. With a little tinkering and tweaking, I was able to get that truck to run perfectly and was getting approximately 90 miles per gallon of gas. When I filled up the "tank" (the bucket), I only put about 1 to 1.5 gallons of gas in it and could drive it from Coats North Carolina to Wilmington NC before needing to refill the bucket! Our fuel injection systems do not actually vaporize the gasoline in the way you think they do. They still work by spraying tiny droplets of LIQUID gasoline into the cylinders. The evaporation system I used worked on gasoline that was converted into its actual GASEOUS state by evaporation, not forced spray injection. BIG DIFFERENCE THERE! The EPA says that modern engines efficiently burn 99% or better of the fuel injected into the cylinder, and that is true. However, when you inject an actual gas, not a liquid, into the cylinders, you can still burn the fuel at 99% or more efficiency, but it takes a CRAP LOAD LESS because it is already it is ACTUAL GASEOUS STATE, not an "atomized liquid." It may not sound like it makes much difference, but I can assure you, it does. And for the record, I also have a 1997 Jeep Cherokee Sport with the 4.0 I6 engine with throttle-body fuel injection, and I have just completed another setup specifically for it. I use a toggle switch to utilize the fuel pump and injector system to start it up, then after about 1 minute, I manually kill the fuel pump and injectors and run it solely of the evaporated vapors from a similar setup to my first one. I was getting about 18 to 22 mpg on it prior to installing the setup, and now I am getting approx. 103 - 122 mpg (it is hard to calculate the exact amount due to my wife driving it more than me, but she loves it). I can literally go from Georgia (where we live now) to North Carolina (where our families live) and back and still have almost a full tank of gas, and now I have it fixed so that fuel from the tank flows as needed into the bucket setup to keep the fuel level maintained. The system is so simple it would blow your mind, but then again, you probably won't believe anything I have said here because you believe what the government says. God help you.

a reply to: erianos

Paragraphs are your friend! Not to mention, that several strategically placed line breaks, would have allowed me to finish reading your post...!

a reply to: JJDoggie84

^This

originally posted by: Jaquesnet
Converting gasoline into gaseous form as a motor fuel has been tried before. It only requires heat. This can be readily seen by the haze which emits from a gas can on a hot day. I see here several reasons why a gallon of gas would only produce only so much energy, whether in liquid or vapor form,but believe this does not apply as most of the energy thus produced is lost due to the incomplete combustion process inherent . In gaseous form the combustion would be very complete, and need not be further burnt in the exhaust system or catalytic converter.
Both the government and the oil industry have reason not to see a 100MPG fuel consumption, government for tax loss (although they could easily regain this via raising gas taxes to about three times their current rate. But the oil industry would be severely affected by the world's oil consumption dropping to a third or less of present levels.
The conversion would thus appear simply heating enough gasoline to convert it to a gas before it reaches the combustion chamber. This event should take place at or near the carburator or injector, and probably be controlled by engine vacuum. All this has been supposedly done and is apparently no myth, with spectacular results in MPG improvement, however none have been able to get such a system into production. Also consider the carbon output and heat effects on engine life of nearly 100% fuel combustion. Until a synthetic fuel becomes available to replace fossil fuels, this could extend greatly the resources we still have.

Do show how please, I know its possible using a heat plate or pan heated to around 600 deg. Fahrenheit where liquid fuel is sprayed on than it converts to gasoline vapor but you seem to have an other method to vaporize the fuel, let me know how. here is a video showing the heat process to evap. liquid fuel.

www.youtube.com...

say woot again ?

a reply to: intelligenceabsolute

Thank you for the detailed explanation. This post was sometime ago, but coincidentally was searching on google for similar concepts and this post popped up.

a reply to: mkkkay

Well, a gallon of gasoline vapor has 1/160th the fuel value of a gallon of liquid gasoline.

They're making a ridiculous comparison (vapor to liquid) to try to sell this dreck.

a reply to: JJDoggie84

Like the saying goes, what weighs more; a pound of lead or a pound of feathers.

Hmm propane has roughly 75% of the BTUs that gasoline has and its clearly a gas(as delivered to carb)..that means I should get 75 mpg on propane if an evaporated gas setup delivers 100mpg..I don't think it happens.
I would see that the finer the fuel/air is you would get better or more complete combustion..I sound sceptical but would love to see more info.

a reply to: erianos

Hi there,

I read your comment and your experiences with high mpg.
I am very interested how you have accomplished this.
Lately, well actually a while now, I am very interested in how to
increase my mpg. I even had a HHO dry cell placed in my car.
Unfortunately no increase in my mileage.
Lately I have read many articles, websites and posts about using
vapor instead of liquid fuel. The increase in mileage could range from
one to x fold increase (100% to multiple). As this is a no brainer I would
prefer to try this.
So when I read your post I was very much intrigued in your "The system is
so simple it would blow your mind" methode.
I would very much like to discuss this with you and wonder if I could obtain
your methode?
What is the best way to enter in contact with you?

originally posted by: erianos
a reply to: ANNED

Dude you need to chime in so we can replicate the bubbler design and other details , its time for us to start waking up but helping each other with free information , this is the only to kick vested interested in the balls hard. lol

OMG! you really need to wake up! It is that kind of brainwashed, closed-minded thinking that keeps us from realizing that your so-called "law of engines" is a ridiculous freaking joke! Numerous carburetor designs were invented, tested, and proven to help get over 100mpg in the 80's and earlier - then all the designs were bought, stolen, etc. and were destroyed by car companies, who were paid handsomely by the big oil companies to do so - hence, we still don't have them. Yes, the information is out there - yes, it has been proven - yes, the patents exist (I have seen many of them) - and yes, it is very possible and quite easy to get your car engine to run at a much better fuel/air ratio than 14.7 to 1. The oil and gas companies paid automakers to switch over to fuel injection because too many people were modifying and inventing too many carburetors that were way more fuel efficient! Then, car makers were paid to invent, install, and program computers (ECM's) that would control that "magic" ratio - they are preprogrammed to ensure that the ratio cannot ever change, therefore you are not supposed to be able to reprogram it for better fuel economy. All these new technologies (i.e. - all the extra crap on your engine) is all designed so that if you do figure out a way to tamper with it and make it run better and more efficiently, it screws up all the other electronic systems and causes to run like crap - it is intentionally designed that way so you won't figure out that almost everything they put on engines nowadays that falls under "emissions" or "electronics" is actually a fail-safe system to prevent you from improving your fuel economy. In other words, if you adjust the airflow or fuel flow, another system's sensor triggers another something to automatically "correct" the error in fuel/air ratio, and if it cannot automatically fix itself, it is designed to run so poorly that you have no choice but to revert it back. Anyone with half a brain and even a miniscule amount of common sense can figure that out. If you noticed, many of the engines from the 50's thru the 70's often ran much better and it was easy to modify them and "tinker" with inventions and such to make them more efficient. Since the inclusion of all these b.s. emissions components, you can hardly find room under the hood to put anything extra, and god forbid you take anything off - the whole system crashes! Oh, and for the record, I took a 1978 Ford F-100 Ranger (the old full size trucks) that had the 300-straight six cylinder motor in it (which by the way got about 12 mpg) and proved that you can modify the engine to run on ACTUAL fuel vapor much more efficiently than anything we have now! I used PVC pipe, a 5 gallon bucket, an air filter, and a few other easy to find, cheap parts, put together my own simple evaporator/vaporizer setup, and ran the piping directly into the carburetor. With a little tinkering and tweaking, I was able to get that truck to run perfectly and was getting approximately 90 miles per gallon of gas. When I filled up the "tank" (the bucket), I only put about 1 to 1.5 gallons of gas in it and could drive it from Coats North Carolina to Wilmington NC before needing to refill the bucket! Our fuel injection systems do not actually vaporize the gasoline in the way you think they do. They still work by spraying tiny droplets of LIQUID gasoline into the cylinders. The evaporation system I used worked on gasoline that was converted into its actual GASEOUS state by evaporation, not forced spray injection. BIG DIFFERENCE THERE! The EPA says that modern engines efficiently burn 99% or better of the fuel injected into the cylinder, and that is true. However, when you inject an actual gas, not a liquid, into the cylinders, you can still burn the fuel at 99% or more efficiency, but it takes a CRAP LOAD LESS because it is already it is ACTUAL GASEOUS STATE, not an "atomized liquid." It may not sound like it makes much difference, but I can assure you, it does. And for the record, I also have a 1997 Jeep Cherokee Sport with the 4.0 I6 engine with throttle-body fuel injection, and I have just completed another setup specifically for it. I use a toggle switch to utilize the fuel pump and injector system to start it up, then after about 1 minute, I manually kill the fuel pump and injectors and run it solely of the evaporated vapors from a similar setup to my first one. I was getting about 18 to 22 mpg on it prior to installing the setup, and now I am getting approx. 103 - 122 mpg (it is hard to calculate the exact amount due to my wife driving it more than me, but she loves it). I can literally go from Georgia (where we live now) to North Carolina (where our families live) and back and still have almost a full tank of gas, and now I have it fixed so that fuel from the tank flows as needed into the bucket setup to keep the fuel level maintained. The system is so simple it would blow your mind, but then again, you probably won't believe anything I have said here because you believe what the government says. God help you.

Dude you need to chime in so we can replicate the bubbler design and other details , its time for us to start waking up but helping each other with free information , this is the only way we kick oil mafia in the balls hard and free our selves , lol

a reply to: mkkkay

There is nothing magical or hoax about it, this is nothing more than misleading advertising. If you think that you can go and buy a reduced fat food to lose weight, then sure, you can turn 1 gallon of (liquid) gasoline into 160 gallons of gas (vapor). The hitch being that the energy density is now 160 times LESS than it was, so you get no new energy. The kind of person who would buy this on the description alone is the same kind of person who buys reduced fat food from the store. No, you don't lose a tiny fraction of an ounce of fat that way, just like you wouldn't gain any tiny fraction of energy from this process.

Perhaps this process is more energy efficient than a fuel injector, and perhaps not. What matters is the fuel efficiency in terms of the car's MPG rating, which naturally will have to change at least a tiny bit one way or another by switching to this technique.