Pardon me, but that whole story is fucking stupid. The energetics of gasoline engines are well known. Gasoline only has so much energy available (admittedly it's quite a bit), and no matter how you vaporize it you aren't going to improve efficiency by a factor of 4 over a conventional motor.

Stories like the "magic carburetor" (of which this is a variant) exist because people like to believe conspiracy stories. Many conspiracy stories turn out to be true, but also many of them turn out to be complete horseshit. This is one of the latter. If it were so easy to quadruple the energetic output of a gasoline engine, everyone would be doing it.

As an example, consider a similarly simple hack from the 1970s that yielded a much smaller result: when the Feds required seat belt warning buzzers in cars, folks rapidly learned how to unplug the sensors from the seats, turning off the buzzers. If quadrupling your gas mileage were as simple as running a vacuum line into the fuel tank, every shade-tree mechanic in the nation would have done it.

Oh, shut up. Nobody's buying your bullshit, Agent Bullshitter.

No personal attacks please.

Excuse me while I go hook a vacuum line to my Prius' fuel tank...

You're excused. GFY with your Psy-ops shill bullshit. Paid agents of ignorance like you are the reason these provable concepts never reach production or the public attention.

Please no personal attacks.

I call bullshit.

I work on small engines as a sideline to flying and have NEVER seen an external vacuum line EVER on "a lawnmower engine"...unless the engine was big enough to have Positive Crankcase Ventilation (PCV). That's about 20-24HP. Usually more. Hardly a "lawnmower engine."

Even barring THAT and saying this was a "one of a kind" motor two questions arise:

How did the engine run without the correct fuel/air stoichiometry?

WHAT THE HELL got the fuel so cold (in the "car" he "converted")??? If the tank was hot cold air or water would crush it. When this was in a car NOTHING should have pulled fuel temp that low.

This is nothing but an urban legend, sorry folks.

Source: Small-engine repair class certificates from Kohler, Honda, Briggs, Tecumseh, Craftsman, Echo, and Komatsu.

I'm not saying that they don't work. Ogle had a system that did. Thing is, when PHYSICS time came around Ogle's motor did EVERYTHING "by the book" and was just a great idea.

I have watched these "fuel vaporizers" BLOW UP two cars. Granted, the installer was a hobbyist but Pantone had a MUCH better design that was "stolen" by TPTB.

Yes, vacuum drops pressure but not by THAT much. Why have I built small block Chevy engines for 30 years and never ran into a cold vacuum line (except for the return ac into the evaporator?

Ah stoichiometric mixtures. Yes, it's true that all modern car engines run a stoichiometric air-fuel mixture.

But they could actually run a lot leaner than this and get higher fuel mileage. Why isn't this done? Mostly because the leaner mixture burns a lot hotter and create nitrogen oxides as a by product. These compounds are bad for the environment.

If someone could come up with a decent way to eliminate NOx compounds associated with lean burn engines, we could all easily be driving around getting 80 or 90 mpg highway.

One other interesting possibility. Carbs and fuel injectors turn gasoline into a spray. This means the gas itself is still in the form of tiny droplets. The way the story reads. it might be possible that Ogle had found a way to heat the gasoline into a very rich vapor. Instead of small droplets, he might have reduced the gasoline right down to a sort of molecular fog.

This would probably burn far more efficiently than any carburetor of the day. Possibly much better than even today's high pressure fuel injection systems.

So a system that turns gasoline into a fog, burning at a very lean fuel air ratio? Ogle might well have been getting fuel efficiency several times better than the factory mileage. In the early 70's, many cars only got about 20 mpg on the highway. Ogle might well have been able to achieve 70 or 80 mpg. I can see some exaggeration turning that into 200 mpg.

A couple of other things. Turning the fuel into a fog by heating it requires heating elements in close proximity to the fuel tank. Not something most car companies want to try (lawsuit potential).

The temperature drop with the fuel could easily be the result of a pressure drop. If Ogle was indeed turning the fuel into a molecular fog, and this fog had a bit of pressure... that pressure would have dropped if the fuel was being burned faster than the fog was forming. Any pressure drop in a closed container has a temperature drop associated with it. Next time you cook with propane on a BBQ, look at the propane tank. Sometimes the pressure will drop fast enough that frost will form on the sides of the tank even in the summertime.

WHAT THE HELL got the fuel so cold

Vacuum boils and also freezes liquids simultaneously. He'd have needed to create a complete vacuum to boil the fuel as it froze, which would be difficult, but it's a neat effect of vacuum on liquids. I have no idea how that would improve mileage, but vacuum effects on water temperate and physical state are high school experiments everybody should have conducted at some point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSMiec0bECw

This basically boils down to the fuel vapor molecule size. Most modern engines spray gasoline as mist with droplets varying in size, but there is no requirement to spray mist. A gas vapor is much easier to ignite too.

The modern car engine actually runs at a terrible efficiency until the motor warms up, after about 30 minutes.

How did the engine run without the correct fuel/air stoichiometry?

Good point.

So you admit you have no clue what you're talking about because you've never attempted to test this concept yourself. The only bullshit I can see is your baseless speculation on a concept you can't understand.

WHAT THE HELL got the fuel so cold (in the "car" he "converted")??? If the tank was hot cold air or water would crush it. When this was in a car NOTHING should have pulled fuel temp that low.

This I could think of an answer for, the evaporation, expansion, and liquidification of chemicals that react to temperatures differently than water is the entire Bases of modern refrigeration.

So the effect of recycling the vapor, (liquid to gas and back again) could of turned the gas tank into an inadvertent refrigerator.

As to the rest of it, I have no clue.

eta:

http://home.howstuffworks.com/refrigerator2.htm

Yes, but NONE of those chems are in there by his own admission!!!

You would need, at the least, a liquefied fuel source that was COLD (think butane) and that would be SO fucking unsafe it would be mindblowing.

He's using no refrigeration so HOW can he get the EXHAUST of an IC engine to RUN COLD??? It cannot be done without intercoolers.

I want to believe and know you do too! But take it from me...this is bullshit.

And nobody has answered my question!!! SHOW ME a small Honda engine like he uses (to be generous let's say 3.5 to 6 HP) that "has a vacuum tube" anywhere on the engine. I have never, ever seen one in 22+ years unless it was used to automatically open a fuel petcock when the fuel valve senses vacuum. And I've only seen THOSE on motorcycles and some large (>24HP) Briggs engines.

Good luck looking...they don't exist. That engine is free from most emissions requirements so crank ventilation is not needed. Period.

You should take a class in chemistry before you start acting like a chemical reaction expert. You clearly no nothing about chemical reactions when you think that you must have a cold fuel source for an endothermic reaction to take place. Maybe before you act like you know anything about chemistry you should take a class because you do not even understand the chemical reaction that takes place in the most basic of reactions.

You lack basic reading comprehension. You say that no small honda engine like he uses would have a vacuum tube. But since you cannot be bothered to READ the article Ill quote it for you. “I was messing around with a lawn-mower when I accidentally knocked a hole in its fuel tank. I put a vacuum line running from the tank straight into the carburetor inlet." No were does he say he had an engine with a vacuum tube. HE SAYS HE PUT THE VACUUM TUBE THERE. So how about you take 15 mins out of trolling and actually read the content.

TL;DR Your a troll who did not even read the article and knows nothing about chemistry.

Oh man, there was this documentary I saw a little while back about all the energy devices that are made but are kept hidden from people. It was from like the 90s so I'm sure there's been advances from what was shown.

Bleeding edge technologies like this aren't developed in secret government labs -- they're developed and proof-of-concepted in academia until they get to a more directly applicable state, after which they may or may not be swallowed up by DARPA depending on the type of technology and targeted industry.

See:

• The internet
• radar
• countless others

I don't think you're familiar enough with academia and public/private research to warrant such a strong position on the matter.

The point I'm trying to make is that it's impossible to keep technology, especially easily-accessible technology like combustion engines, under wraps.

There are energy labs performing research in every university, in every country in the world -- and there is no way to cover something up between lots of disparate research groups, with lots of money and grants to be had. There's just too many special interests and no cohesive management structure to keep scientific discoveries from becoming public knowledge (exceptions for weapons/intelligence gathering activities -- but even those follow the academia -> gov't --> public paradigm mentioned in my first post.)

Science that you know is incomplete and down right false in many areas. universities are stuck in a constrained mode of thinking.

That you're lumping ALL research groups from ALL universities into such a generalizing statement is, well, disingenuous. I do get that science-derived knowledge is incomplete and at times false, but isn't that a fundamental tenet of any knowledge-producing system/paradigm?

I've heard too many stories of corruption and deception in higher education, it got to the point where my faith in the education system was totally destroyed.

Can you elaborate on this corruption and deception? Have you worked in a lab where you've seen this happen?

pride and prestige sadly gets in the way of the search for scientific truth.

I would agree that academia is bloated, inefficient, and will likely change drastically in the next century. However using phrases like "search for scientific truth," to me, indicates an outsiders' ill-nuanced view on an industry -- an armchair quarterback of sorts.

the conclusions are inescapable

There are precious few conclusions that are "inescapable," and DB Larson's claims are about as far from it as possible. Reciprocal theory has been tested, refuted, then supporters of it move the goalposts, and repeat.

Would love to know the name of this doco

I found it! Here's the link: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/free-energy/

Thanks heaps for that

I remember hearing about this when I was a kid. The Oglemobile.

Water injection is a very real very feasible technology that could realistically reduce the fuel in the mixture by quite a bit as well.

Water injection is great for reducing knock and increasing power density of an engine, but it does not increase fuel efficiency -- except in the highly inefficient case where you might otherwise waste fuel by using it as a cooling agent. (wiki)

Such as acceleration or heavy load on the engine? There are many many times when an ordinary engine uses more fuel specifically to cool off the combustion process. Edit That is to say it could be very widely used but isn't a miracle either, I would expect a good improvement in say small engines for large vehicles though. Probably cut quite a bit of wasted fuel use out of start and stop driving commuting which is a huge factor for drivers.

Yes, such as very heavy load on engines that are optimized for power-to-weight.

Using an extra-rich mixture for cooling causes black smoke and hydrocarbon smell, something we fortunately got rid of in cars a long time ago with closed-loop fuel injection systems and exhaust gas oxygen sensors.

You know that rotten egg smell when you step on it? That is the catalytic converter burning off excess fuel and hydrocarbons from the mix.

All engines are highly optimized nowadays and a loaded vehicle or towing Yada Yada even accelerating hard still uses a rich mixture that never changed. It got less rich and emissions controls were added but the fuel is still going in the cylinder.

Higher power to weight can also increase mileage.

Not by a factor of 4. Even if mileage were proportional to vehicle weight, which it isn't, there's just not enough engine to make the average vehicle 4x lighter. As an example, a typical car weighs 1-2 tons, while a typical car engine weighs 500-1000 lbs.

No not a factor of 4 I never said that in relation to water injection. Probably 30 or 40 percent real world mileage for the right applications. That being said there are clearly some hurdles and problems but it does seem like a potential method to streth the o I love we have left.

"for the right applications" is right! But automotive is not one of them, since modern cars don't have that particular inefficiency.

Haven driven around in vehicles with a wide and o2 and reading fuel maps you would be suprised.

I remember reading it in the local paper. (Either El Paso Times or Herald Post, can't remember which.) My somewhat genius cousin knew Tom and told us to read the article.

I really do wish that at least 1 of these stories was real...

Yes, the government, that entity that is so incompetent that it can't keep people inside it from selling or exposing top, TOP secrets (Aldrich Ames, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, etc) is just HUGELY competent at suppressing all of these wonderful inventions.

And if US govt decides to suppress something, of COURSE every other govt in the world, including Russia and China, would follow US's lead. None of them would be interested in some amazing new breakthrough that would let them lord it over US and trumpet the virtues of their systems as opposed to the USA.

Unless there is one order controlling the world...

Ah, yes, the ever-growing theory. Any contrary fact or reasoning just becomes part of a BIGGER conspiracy.

So, for example, a country such as Cuba or North Korea or Singapore or Taiwan or Israel or India or Argentina, just to name a few, would suppress a major new technology that they could make a FORTUNE off ? Something that would revolutionize the gasoline internal combustion engine, one of the most-used machines in the world ? They'd turn down the opportunity to make tens of billions in licensing fees, etc ? That makes no sense. They have no major stake in preserving the status quo of energy, many of them have major budget/economy problems. Such an invention would be a godsend to them.

You think leaders of these countries don't make decisions based on logic about the power and money and prestige they'd acquire from doing something ? If, say, Cuba were to develop and sell this wonder-engine, the leaders would benefit directly, in money and prestige and power. They absolutely would do it, IF the engine actually worked. They have no reason to suppress it, and many reasons to develop it.

Governments wouldn't have to "release" the technology, just let the inventors and markets operate normally. You are claiming govts actively work to suppress the technologies. I see no evidence that they do so, and I think it would be against their own interests, both personally and publicly.

Yes, once a technology is known, others will steal it or not pay royalties and licensing fees. But there still is plenty of money and prestige to be made from being first, and being the inventor. Wouldn't China or North Korea or Cuba just LOVE to be able to say "see, our system is best, we produced this amazing new breakthrough, while the capitalist running-dog pigs couldn't do it" ? And they'd LOVE to be independent of or less reliant on the oil-producing countries. Similar for Israel or a dozen other small/medium countries; the benefits and prestige would be enormous.

Oh shit. Not this thing again. If you've never heard of it, that's because it didn't work. You don't get 200 miles per gallon from gasoline with a normal, full-sized car. Don't you think the car makers would have done this if it had been even remotely possible?

I'm asking this honestly, has anyone traced the "magic carberator" legend and the story of this Tom fellow and seen which one appears first? Just something you could use to prove your point, as it would be more feasible if these stories of agents showing up to take super gas technology appear after the original article, or vice-versa.

You misunderstand me. I was offering points of research for you to gather information to use to support your argument in the future.

If you are interested in experimenting I suggest the modern method of using an ultrasonic fogger to make gasoline fog. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0x1Po-C4W4k

I don't see any evidence for murder.

[deleted]

So the lack of evidence is itself evidence?

[deleted]

But doesn't the government always screw some small thing up that shows the power of their coverup? How can they have possibly done everything right this one time?

If they were doing it "in broad daylight", I imagine there'd be tons and tons of evidence that would prove that it's government-led.

Can you show me some proof?

But this isn't proof that the government stole Tom Ogle's design. That's what we're discussing here.

"They done it before" is not a valid substitute for evidence.

What would be the motive for killing him? They already have control of his invention. There is nothing to gain by killing him.

This is similar in ways of the GEET Engine. You should have a look at that.

I had read up on a water injection system that worked similar. Claims of 100mpg on cars from the 50s and 60s...

Some car company tried to buy the patent and he refused. I think he ended up dead in the desert if i remember correctly...

I'm not saying that they don't work. Ogle had a system that did. Thing is, when PHYSICS time came around Ogle's motor did EVERYTHING "by the book" and was just a great idea.

I have watched these "fuel vaporizers" BLOW UP two cars. Granted, the installer was a hobbyist but Pantone had a MUCH better design that was "stolen" by TPTB.

Yes, vacuum drops pressure but not by THAT much. Why have I built small block Chevy engines for 30 years and never ran into a cold vacuum line (except for the return ac into the evaporator?

I'm asking this honestly, has anyone traced the "magic carberator" legend and the story of this Tom fellow and seen which one appears first? Just something you could use to prove your point, as it would be more feasible if these stories of agents showing up to take super gas technology appear after the original article, or vice-versa.

You know that rotten egg smell when you step on it? That is the catalytic converter burning off excess fuel and hydrocarbons from the mix.

All engines are highly optimized nowadays and a loaded vehicle or towing Yada Yada even accelerating hard still uses a rich mixture that never changed. It got less rich and emissions controls were added but the fuel is still going in the cylinder.

Higher power to weight can also increase mileage.

Not by a factor of 4. Even if mileage were proportional to vehicle weight, which it isn't, there's just not enough engine to make the average vehicle 4x lighter. As an example, a typical car weighs 1-2 tons, while a typical car engine weighs 500-1000 lbs.