tractor power /concepts ,,continued !

Just spent some time reviewing the POGUE carburator , And studying the Bourke engine Concept ,,,Go to GOOGLE ,, and absorb what is there ,I am Going back to look up the La-force Brothers from the early 70s',,,,,,,,,,THere IS A REASON WHY we are not ENJOYING and Utilizing this Effeccient Clean Fuel concepts.. I think THESE IDEAS deserve a serious Look , especially from those with an Engineering mind bent on saving the FREE WORLD .. Lets take OUR Country BACK .

The Poguue carburetor is a hoax. Google Snopes. Carburetion is inefficient and made obsolete by electronic fuel injection. Carburetors are semi-uncontrolable during both the choke and acceleration cycle, wheras the fuel injector can be precisely metered.

Note however, that fuel economy is not a HUGE leap over carburetor engines over the past. Those 100mpg carbs rumored to exist from time to time, probably never existed.

Snopes is also a hoax. Run by a man and wife who are very left leaning, and present only their views of what they research Ba Da Bing

These carbs can't exist. You can't take a 20mpg vehicle that uses 1/3 of it's fuel energy to move the vehicle.1/3 of the fuel's energy out the exhaust and 1/3 of the fuel's energy out the radiator.
Even if the engine was a Star Trek model that was 100% efficient. How can you with just a carb change, increase the engine's efficiency beyond 60mpg which would be using all 125,000 btu's per gallon to move the vehicle?
How are you going to get 250,000btu from one gallon of gasoline with 125,000 btu. To move the vehicle 120 miles?

The quest for better fuel efficiency doesn't necessarily show a lack of common sense, but the quest for a magical, one-size-fits-all carburetor that gets 100 mpg might. There are a lot of factors that affect how efficient a particular engine is with a gallon of gasoline. Vehicle size, shape, and weight factor in. [I once heard that, aerodynamically, a Ford Pinto hatchback actually had a lower drag coefficient going backwards...not sure whether that was just a legend, or whether the wind tunnel proved it.]

And beyond the BTU's, other factors come into play. It's pretty much accepted that an air/fuel ratio is stoichiometrically optimized at 14.7 to 1...that's 14.7 parts of air to 1 part gasoline. That's with common outside air, which is about 20% oxygen. So what if we introduce more oxygen with the same amount of fuel? Well, nitrous oxide is about 36% oxygen by volume...but when introducing that high a percentage of oxygen in a normal internal combustion engine, you CAN get more heat energy from the same amount of fuel...but because you suddenly have a cutting torch effect going on in the combustion chamber, and pistons and valves tend to get melted in VERY short order. So the best compromise, in order to save engine components, is to introduce MORE FUEL with the N2O...which then negates any "potential" gains in fuel economy.

Books can be, and have been, written on the subject. But those "holy grail" carburetor stories will persist, as long as folks are willing to overlook the history of what's already been tried on the internal combustion engine.

Long time ago at GENERMOTOR TRAINING center in Ohmaha,Neb we rejetted a test engine down for fuel sure it ran but speed was down also HP same old thing want a horse to pull gots to feed him still are people saying how carcompanies and oil people bought them all up just look at what we are doing today. My 4.6 97 150 can do 22 easy no way with a carb did those engines do that in the old days unless you only went 35 mph

It seems to me that real world fuel economy peaked in the early 1990's. How much of increasing EPA standards are reasonable and how much is an arbitrary political burden?

Even if you burn the gasoline mixed with 100% oxygen or 21% oxygen . That gallon of gasoline still only provides 125,000btu.

Does it sometimes feel like you're preaching to a stone wall?

My one son (electrical engineer) has read the posts from the last couple of days, and has smiled while reading them. He wants to know why you keep wasting your breath, when some of the most outrageous rebuttals to you seem to come from people with no ears?!

Part of the problem is that we consumers keep demanding more...more sound insulation, more convenience and comfort gadgets, and THEN more government-mandated safety equipment. It all makes for heavier cars, despite the increased use of plastics and aluminum.

If we could legally build a car to 1957 safety specs, but with modern lightweight materials and with modern fuel injection and modern overdrive transmissions, fuel economy would be unbelievable. But folks would complain about no a/c, no radio, and a car that rattles and squeaks because, without all the sound deadening materials, you can now hear all that stuff.

Look at the GEO Metro...it was a '90's version, essentially, of the old Nash Metropolitan. And with overdrive and fuel injection, it got essentially the same 40 MPG as the original,but with a lot more [heavier] safety and comfort equipment.

At least they do research before they render a conclusion. And they always present their sources so you are free to check them. That gives them much more credibility than probably 90% of the internet.
And sometimes they cannot verify something one way or the other, and they say so.
I have no idea how you can conclude their politics from their website.

Not so much that they don't have ears as it is they are unwilling to listen, that's why scammers will always have a victim.

Just feel sorry for B&D..............

Sorta reminds me of an old high school teacher trying to talk sense to the wiseacre student, who looks back smirking and thinking "yeah pops, wats you tink youse can teach me??"

Just feel sorry for B&D..............

Sorta reminds me of an old high school teacher trying to talk sense to the wiseacre student, who looks back smirking and thinking "yeah pops, wats you tink youse can teach me??"

That gives them much more credibility than probably 90% of the internet




Thats a bit like being the smartest retard in a class isn't it?

Pogue plans were always available free (from the US Patent Office) and for sale from tricksters. Just not common anymore since carburetors aren't common. I built several Pogue setups back in the 60s and 70s and know many others that did also. Big waste of money, and for the most part, creates a rig that most people could not figure out how to drive. Also dangerous. Yes, there's a reason why they were not used in production. The Pogue was not useable for the general public and also was not safe. I'll add that fuel mileage gain under optimum conditions was not all that much.

If you want one, just build a heat exhanger with your exhaust pipe running through it, build a capture box for the explosive gas fumes, and build a diverter to send them into the aux."lean" carb you install. When you get done, and if you live, mileage on an old four or six will not be much better than a modern fuel injected four.

A gas farm tractor works much better run on a wood-smoke system and does very well. Not too hard to build, either - and safe.

They concluded that external_link is NOT a nnalert, so they HAVE to be abundant.

Or so I've been told.

Not only THAT, but they actually refer to him as PRESIDENT external_link...and no self-respecting conservative would do THAT form of blasphmey!