Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2024 Poal.co

190

I was rabbitholeing physics videos and came across vacuum boiling water. Could we safely vacuum boil gasoline, I wonder?

They say that the fuel "atomized" when it is injected into the cylinder but that is obviously a misnomer, as it's more like misted, like a windex shot. "Molecularized" would be more proper but the fuel is still in liquid form anyway so whatever.

I'm sure gasoline fume is what actually burns so just pumping that into the engine instead of liquid would drop the consumption without losing horsepower, I think.

Sounds dangerous but with the right measures in place I think it could work, maybe with a carburetor instead of direct injection.

Thoughts?

I was rabbitholeing physics videos and came across vacuum boiling water. Could we safely vacuum boil gasoline, I wonder? They say that the fuel "atomized" when it is injected into the cylinder but that is obviously a misnomer, as it's more like misted, like a windex shot. "Molecularized" would be more proper but the fuel is still in liquid form anyway so whatever. I'm sure gasoline fume is what actually burns so just pumping that into the engine instead of liquid would drop the consumption without losing horsepower, I think. Sounds dangerous but with the right measures in place I think it could work, maybe with a carburetor instead of direct injection. Thoughts?

(post is archived)

[–] [deleted] • 4 pts

Seriously though, See this: Reid vapor pressure - Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_vapor_pressure

Atomized gasoline from a carburetor rapidly vaporizes

It is essentially already "vacuum boiling"

So you're not really super-retarded or anything, it just seemed like you were asking for it

This is how we learn. Read a bit, assume we understand, stick our necks out, get mocked and feel shame about it, and then commit the experience to memory :)

[–] • 1 pt

Fuck it, I'll see what I can do. There are worse ways to leave this mortal plane.

[–] • 2 pts

The moving piston in an engine creates a vacuum which creates a fuel air mist. You found a roundabout way to learn the working principle of a standard engine. Best way to remember something is to discover it yourself.

[–] • 1 pt

Mist you say...

[–] • 1 pt

Mist & vapor are almost synonyms. It just comes down to droplet size. ICEs have gone through more than a century of fine tuning. I'm sure they've got optimal droplet size figured out.

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

No. Almost is not the same. And the scientists are probably all owned by jews.

[–] • 2 pts

Have you ever seen a wood gasifier set up?

[–] • 3 pts

Biggest plot hole in the holohoax. Germany & other European countries had hundreds of thousands of wood gasifiers because they were short on diesel fuel & gas. They run by directly burning carbon monoxide from the gasifier. So the jews naturally claim that they were gassed using giant diesel engines that burned for no other purpose than to create carbon monoxide. Problem is they were desperately short of diesel, diesel engines don't make CO, and they had hundreds of thousands of engines that ran on pure CO. And there's no possible way to confuse the two, they look nothing alike; it'd be like confusing a freight train for a tow truck.

[–] • 2 pts

Yeah, they did that on The Colony, steamed wood to run a power washers engine to make ozone to purify their water. Based it on German design during WW2 when there wasn't enough fuel for civilians.

[–] • 2 pts

You are not necessarily retarded since you are actually thinking but that fuel is burning. Completely in a modern engine. The problem is it is in an ICE that is like 5% efficient. Find a way to turn gasoline or propane into electricity with a solid-state catalyst system and then you are talking... You would get 10-15x gas mileage (3-400mpg) because of the efficiency.

Most energy is wasted in the form of heat.

Fuel cells are excellent BUT hydrogen is a shitty motor fuel.

[–] • 2 pts

First off yes, you're retarded. Now that we got that out of the way. "Atomized" is the proper mechanical terminology for what you call misted. Gas lines for engines are under pressure, approximately 50 or so pounds per square inch. The fuel is pumped out of the gas tank into the engine and there's a return line for what isn't burned to go back into the fuel tank, because pressure. Now for the vacuum boiling of gasoline. You are correct, first off it would be extremely dangerous and second off it would take a lot of energy to accomplish. a lot more energy than simply pumping the fuel under pressure into the combustion chamber and burning it.

[–] • 1 pt

I'm just sure there's a better way to deliver the fuel to the engine. Everything else in this world is upsidedown

[–] • 1 pt

From the technological mechanical standpoint we've pushed the internal combustion engine about to its limit of power output. What I was trying to relay was, boiling gasoline would consume more energy then it would put out and be extremely dangerous in an accident. You can also look at it this way, after it's injected it fires immediately. There's no need to boil it at all.

[–] • 2 pts

There are similar videos on the internet of people running tubing into a 1 gallon gas can so basically the engine runs on fumes. I saw a guy with a V-8 dodge drive over 50 miles and he still had plenty of gas in his 1 gallon fuel tank. It can be done and you get great gas mileage, you also have created a firebomb that will engulf your engine bay and probably the entire vehicle the first time all that aerated fuel sparks

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

You're retarded

[–] • 0 pt

I'll need your mechanicalfag credentials

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

I was able to identify OP as a retard, wasn't I??

[–] • 1 pt

You want a cookie?

[–] • 1 pt

You're not retarded, you're just overcomplicating something that already happens. Others have explained why in this post.

The real issue with what you're describing is the inefficiency in powering a vacuum pump to gasify fuel to then run an engine instead of simply using the gasoline to run an engine. No increased fuel efficiency in your proposal would overcome the losses of running the pump in the first place.

Give me an example of what you'd like to do, and I'll do some math for you to demonstrate the initial losses you'd have to overcome in added engine efficiency.

[–] • 1 pt

You're correct. Others have explained why.

Now I would like to run an engine on ethyl alcohol.

[–] • 2 pts

That's much more doable in a modern engine. You'll have problems with the water content, especially in cold weather. You'll also lose quite a bit of the engine's rated output. This will require a free fuel source (wood, waste oil, dried jews, etc) to distill the alcohol. There are a few methods to dry the alcohol, but I can't imagine doing that on a large scale myself.

[–] • 1 pt

Sweet I've got all the dried jews in my basement. Knew they'd come in handy someday