Talk:Carburetor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I removed this:

"Claims are made to super-carburetor technology (should start new entry) that gives much higher performance given the same engine. Purported methods include vaporization, plasma, fuel cracking. Supposedly the 'powers that be,' especially the fossil fuel interests, snuff this technology in order to keep their preeminence. A collection of such stories would make for interesting reading. For sample coverage see: http://FreeEnergy.GreaterThings.com/Directory/Transportation/"

This may well be of interest, but in its current form is not encyclopedic, and to be honest sounds like a conspiracy theory. However, some mention might be worth putting in if it is researched properly and written up appropriately. GRAHAMUK 07:17, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sounds like nonsense to me, at least. --Morven 08:54, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Me too, frankly. The article starts off sort of interesting, but gets increasingly wild, with accusations of foul play trying to suppress the scientist's "work". It's also a giveaway that he had to self-publish to get the information out there because of pressure by "vested interests". More likely rejected by peer review because it was B/S. The paranoia and other personal stuff creeping in makes it seem like a conspiracy theory to me. My feeling is that if such a thing were true, the manufacturers would be falling over themselves to refine it and get it to market - the first one to make a 140 mpg car would clean up and drive the rest out of business. There is no benefit to the car producers to keep making gas guzzlers if there was an alternative - i'm not even sure that this benefits the oil companies that much, especially as the reserves start to run out. GRAHAMUK 10:39, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Especially since it would be such an easy way out under pollution laws. I don't think they'd go to the huge effort and expense of developing, say, hybrid cars if such an 'easy' technology could be achieved. Yes, powers-that-be and vested interests CAN keep things suppressed, but not forever, and not when there are other vested interests working against them. --Morven 15:49, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Contents 1 Reason for revert 2 Lead alternatives 3 Exception 4 Carburetor 5 strangler 6 One of the first patents 7 THIS IS BASIC SCIENCE PEOPLE! 8 Link to jet 9 Perspective of a neophyte 10 Etymology 11 Carburetor images 12 "Catalytic Carburetor" Section 13 Before carburetors 14 Colortune improper reference 15 Why do we need an accelerator pump?

[edit] Reason for revert

was that text was removed without assessing consequence for the way the article read; it left statements that seemed odd without the deleted text. If repeated mentioning of fuel injection is needed, the second mention, not the first, needs to go. —Morven 07:20, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Lead alternatives

The theory about lead as an defensive measure against catalytic conversion would require some support concerning the availability of lead alternatives as an anti-knock agent. Since lead was first banned, some of the alternatives that came into use have generated negative clouds. What was the alternative to lead in the first place that it could be specially chosen with a devious agenda?

[edit] Exception

I have to take exception with this portion-

"Constant depression - the jet is varied to alter the mixture. "

-Constant depression refers to maintaining a depression automatically by using a sprung and weighted piston in the carb while the throttle only indirectly controls the opening.

"The commonest carburetor is the Variable Choke (Constant depression) type as exemplified by the SU."

-Commonest? Youd be hard pressed to even FIND one in North America. Also a variable choke does not mean constant depression.

-The throttle slide controlled directly by cable or link is variable choke but NOT constant depression.

-Constant depression always has 2 throttle mechanisms, one directly controlled by the operator and one automatically controlled by engine vacuum and gas flow. --=Motorhead 19:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't like it change it, but don't forget the global nature of things and get hung up on North America alone. I shoudl have qualfied the statement, I will do now. GraemeLeggett 12:47, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

North America alone? Dude, this is an article about cars. Most of the world's proven metal reserves are contained in American car dumps.

[edit] Carburetor

I love it when people always deny the existence of conspiracies. Monopolies by definition are business conspiracies to restrict competition. They happen everyday. The Oil companies have and will restrict ultra efficient carburetors and/or fuel injection systems from reaching the general consumer. It is in their business interest to do so. Buying a highly efficient Carburetor/Fuel Injection Patent for $5-10 million dollars is a cheap solution compared to losing your share of a multi-billion dollar market. The fact that Henry Ford I could be brought back from the grave and sent immediately to begin working on your so-called modern car, minus electronics and pollution control devices speaks volumes about the antiquated technology we call a gasoline powered automobile.

I think Henry Ford would have a great deal of trouble with just about every part of a modern car, especially the engine. He would find a DOHC VVT engine with electronic fuel injection, VLIM, etc to be puzzling to say the least. --SFoskett 02:48, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Ah Yes, Henry Ford would be totally mystfied by the pistons, rings, crankshaft and sparkplugs in our modern automobiles. Which is doubtful, since in the 1890's he worked on much the same basic design for a gasoline combustion engine, over 100 years ago.

So what's your point, that you believe the consiracy theories? Get a grip man, they are utter balls. If anyone out there can come up with a workable alternative to the current state of the art then the world will beat a path to their door. Electric motors are very very efficient (far more than a petrol powered engine) but batteries let the technology down at that end. There is no such thing as an "ultra efficient carburettor" because if so, we'd have them. The reason that petrol engines have not got substantially more efficient is due to a little awkwardness called the second law of thermodynamics, which tells you just how much energy you can get from a heat engine. The "ultra efficient carburettor" is here, it's called fuel injection. You can tweak it and tune it all you want but you'll never get substantially more fuel efficiency than what you have as standard. The petrol-powered engine has probably gone as far as it can go in efficiency terms - perhaps that's your point, and yes, Henry Ford would be familiar with what is at the core of a modern engine. The rest of the stuff that has been developed since is basically the carburettor that you assume has been supressed by the oil companies. If anyone can make the electric car practical the oil companies will be dead overnight. They kbow this, which is why they are the ones frantically investing in reserach into the alternatives while keep a very anxious eye on the world's fuel guage. You only have to look at the recent price rises to see that they have every incentive to do so. Graham 04:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Sir, the technology for electric cars is even older than gasoline combustion engines. There exists working examples in several museums in North America. They were built at the turn of the the last century, in the 1920's and beyond. What happened to them? In the United States, Big Oil and Detroit entered into a gentleman's agreement to remove them from the American Consumer market. We once had Electric Street Cars here in abundance in most American Cities. They were replaced with big smelly noisy buses that used quite a bit of fuel. But why? Profit sir! The public be damned! Oil does indeed rule the world. Why is the U.S. in Iraq? For Democracy sake? Don't be a fool. Question: if there is no such thing as an ultra efficient carburetor, then why did the U.S. Military use them for tactical advantage in North Africa against Rommel during World War II?

I'm not claiming Big Oil doesn't rule the world. I'm saying that electric cars are not (yet) a practical alternative, and that a (much) more efficient petrol engine can't be made, due to the laws of physics. It's a different argument to ask whether the electric car COULD have become successful if the same amount of research dollars had been put in that was put into the petrol engine, but that's not the argument I'm making. As for electric trams etc in cities, they are making a big comeback in many places, and in most of Europe they never went away. However these do not really solve the problem of efficient vehicles, since they only displace the point of the burning of the fossil fuel to another location, so overall they are no more efficient (though they are undoubtedly cleaner locally because the pollution is generated elsewhere). What is undeniable is that it serves no interest of Big Oil (especially in this day and age, where green issues are far more prominent) to suppress a supposedly more efficient carburetor or whatever - it is in their interests right now and for some time to make vehicles as efficient as possible. That they can't or don't is because of physical laws, not some bass-ackwards conspiracy theory. I am no friend of the oil companies, but these conspiracies are even more crackpot than most of them. As for Iraq, etc, the best possible thing now is for the world to become non-dependent on middle-east oil. Without that the west has no business meddling in their affairs, so the Islamists can go back to scratching a living in the desert and leave the rest of us in peace.Graham 05:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Sir, with regard to the idea that never could be or was ultra efficient Carburetors/or Fuel Injectors, Orville Wright, co-inventor of the Airplane, once said "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."

In addition, I believe that ultra-efficient carburetors do exist because a veteran of the North Africa campaign told me that they were used there by the U.S. Army. Indeed, Rommel was beat in the desert because of it. This is a classic example of technology providing military advantage. I am surprised the Germans did not think of it first.

Note that the Germans were running a lot of their war machine on ethanol, which has only half the energy content of gasoline. I don't know how this impacts the above. Gzuckier 14:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The device in question was successfully used in WWII by the U.S. Army. A study of the logistics in North Africa and how Gen. Rommel's tank corps was defeated (by running them out of fuel) gives serious consideration to the "rumor" of this being the case. The German high command were certain the Allies would not be able to win the campaign because they did not have the rescources in place for the massive fuel consumption necessary. The fact that these carbs were used is substantiated by many WWII vets and eye witnesses and the publication technology was deemed a security threat at that time, if it were made public which it certainly would have been.

Graham: We know from experience that our government keeps many secrets. Just ask Sir Ian Blair.

I'm sure that's true. But they can't hide from the laws of physics, much as they might like to. The amount of energy in a gallon of petrol is finite, and the amount that a heat engine can extract from it is easily determined by a simple application of Carnot's Law. No matter how hard you try, you can't make a petrol-burning engine much more than about 40% efficient, and that's not too far off what most actual production engines are. The carburettor you're talking about above is the catalytic carb which is covered in the article. It does improve efficiency by altering the fuel, breaking down heavier molecules into more easily burned lighter ones. The overall efficiency is improved somewhat but not really all that significantly - more useful is the fact that it allows the engine to operate with a wider range of fuels of varying quality, which was probably more of a motivating factor during the war. The only real way to improve the efficiency of an engine is to make it burn hotter, but it's hard to do that and make it work for all sorts of reasons.Graham 14:35, 20 August 2005

(UTC)

Let us examine the problem in greater detail.

It is claimed that a Carburetor is subject to the law of physics, thus no carburetor can be made to be more that 40% efficient in a gasoline combustion engine.

It is also claimed that the U.S Army utilized ultra efficient Carburetors which allowed them and the British to defeat the Germans in North Africa by maximizing finite fuel supplies from petrol depots that were infrequently supplied by freighter due to constant U-Boat attacks.

It is possible that the two claims may be reconciled?

It is possible that there were other variables involved?

If the law of physics cannot be breached. Then where did the allies get the additional petrol to defeat Gen. Rommel in North Africa? The North Sea was not developed, European oil fields were in control of Germany. The Soviet Union was in no position to ship petrol to North Africa. The Middle East had oil but no refineries.

So the question remains how did the allies with very finite petrol reserves defeat Gen. Rommel and his Africa corps? If anybody has the answer to this logistical question, it would go a long way to clear up this bit of a mystery.

Sigh. I didn't say that the CARBURETOR was 40% efficient, I said that the gasoline burning engine could only be about this much, overall. It doesn't matter how you get the petrol into it, 40% of its energy is all you'll ever get out of it. Currently the best way we know how to get the petrol in is with fuel injection, and yet the engine as a whole only yields about 40% efficiency. Even if somebody came up with some completely unheard of method for getting petrol into the cylinders for burning, the overall engine efficiency would be 40%. It's not the carburetor that matters, is my point - it's the fact that by burning petrol in a heat engine, you can't get more than 40% of its energy out. So the "efficient carburetor" argument is irrelevant - there is no such thing, because it's not the carburetor that makes the difference. Current production engines are quite close to 40% - say about 37%, ergo, with the petrol-burning internal combustion engine we are doing about as well as we can. Magic carburettors and the like are a red herring, and that is why they don't exist. As for the WW2 stuff, I don't know much about this. Could it be that they were building their engines fairly close to the 40% figure at a time when the typical car engine was only perhaps about 20%? Fuel injection isn't new, it existed back then and its benefits were well-known. Maybe someone who knows these vehicles could tell us whether in fact they used FI? Other technologies such as supercharging might also come into it - these do raise efficiencies by effectively raising the heat differential across the engine. Graham 00:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

So,we may say, the problem does not lay with the Carburetor itself but with the "design" of the gasoline combustion engine. If an Engine could somehow be made to be more efficient, it would therefore allow increased miles/kilometers per gallons/litres? Is this a correct statement? Thus the variable for increased efficiency lies with the Engine and not with the Carburetor or Fuel injection system? Is this also a true statement?

It's true, but also not possible. You need to read up on Heat engines and the Carnot cycle. This sets theoretical limits on the efficiency of heat engines (of which a petrol-burning internal combustion engine is one example). In a nutshell, this says that the energy available from an engine is directly proportional to the temperature differential across it. The input temperature can be said to be ambient temperature, and the output temperature is whatever the burning fuel gets up to, and this is limited purely by the chemical makeup of the fuel. We can play with many factors here but ultimately there is only so much energy you can get from a given quantity of gasoline. Other fuels may give better efficiencies (by burning hotter), but if we interpose some process between the fuel tank and the combustion chamber that converts the petrol into this hotter-burning fuel, we'd have to consider the efficiency of that process as well, which would require some energy input. The catalytic carb is one way to do this, effectively "for free", but it can't really do much of a job on the fuel and so the efficiency gains are modest. A more radical treatment of the fuel - to break it down into the lightest possible hydrocarbons for example - Methane say - would require substantial energy input so the overall gain would be minimal. The engine would also have to be designed to run hotter to take advantage of it. Engine designs do vary in effeiciency, mostly because of combustion chamber shape which dictates how well, how quickly and how completely the fuel charge is burned. But because ultimately the burning temperature is established by the chemistry of petrol, that's where the 40% limit comes from. Graham 02:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

It's worth noting also that the 40% limit does not only apply to gasoline/petrol-burning automobile engines, but also much larger and more complex devices such as fossil fuel power plant turbines. The point is that it is not the machine per se, but rather the limits of burning a fuel, any fuel for any purpose. --Bk0 02:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

These statements may be true, but the seem to fly in the face of our modern sensibilites with regard to putting limits on human ingenuity. It is difficult for us to comprehend in the 21st century surrounded as we are by constant technological change that a machine cannot somehow be made more efficient by some improvement to its design or function.

Ah, the arrogance of humankind. We might occasionally assume that the laws of physics don't apply to us, but they do. I'm sure an engine fueled by unobtainium would be 98% efficient, please let me know when you've built it :) Graham 05:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there's a more serious point to be made here. Most of the physics was worked out long before the first practical car; the Victorians invented most of the mechanisms that we still rely on in the most technologically advanced machines today. Most progress has been in terms of a) miniaturisation (think of the cogs, cams and levers in a Mini DV camera for example) and b) in machining precision. The petrol-powered car engine is now reaching the order of about 37% efficiency, approaching the theoretical limit, having started out at a much lower figure. Many ingenious solutions contributed to this, but at every evolutionary step, what was possible within the constraints of cost and materials as well as theory had to be applied. As engines have become more and more productionised, going through many "generations" of evolution, the use of e.g. fuel injection over a simple carburetor becomes practical, as well as hundreds of other small improvements. But the main reason that a production engine today produces more bhp per ton than the racing engines of 40-50 years ago is that precise machining is now routine rather than the province of specialist hand-builders. We have CAD and CNC to thank for that. But no matter how much this process might continue in future (and it will, though improvements will be to reliability and extending service intervals rather than basic efficiency, as long as we stick with petrol as a fuel and internal combustion as a way to extract its energy), we are asymptotically approaching the 40% limit, and the only way beyond it is to build our cars around a radically different energy equation, which is where research into electric cars et. al. comes in. If an efficient process that can convert chemical directly to electrical energy is found, the Carnot cycle doesn't apply, and much more efficient cars will come about. In terms of better gas mileage, etc, improvements can still be made by making cars that are lighter, less rolling resistance, more aerodynamic, etc, so they require less power to propel them. The IC engine is stuck at 40% efficincy no matter what though.Graham 05:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, the unfortunate torque curve of the IC engine, which provides minimum torque from a standstill when you need maximum torque, and maximum torque at crusing speed when you need minimum. Thus the relative success in efficiency of the hybrid, despite the fact that you are carrying two separate propulsion systems around at all times; also all the various attempts to change the size of the engine on the fly, as it were, such as the shut off four cylinders while you're crusing systems. If a decently performing electrical battery system is ever developed, the IC engine will be relegated to running constant speed generators to charge them. Gzuckier 16:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

This sort of system has great merit, I believe. The IC component can be optimised to run at a constant speed, and also to burn much lower grade fuel, such as diesel or even less refined. A small gas turbine could also be used, which by virtue of running much hotter can be much better than 40% efficient, and can run on any old crap in this task (jet engines only use highly refined fuel for safety reasons). Hotter burning also means less pollution. Using electric motors for traction is more than sensible, they are ideal, with very high torque at zero speed, very wide operating speed range without gearing, and above all, very very efficient - well over 80% in this sort of application. A small traction motor in the hub of each wheel and you have the ideal drive system, with traction control, 4WD and variable power distribution all for free without the highly cumbersome, heavy and lossy mechanical shafts and joints needed now. Batteries are only needed to act as large capacitors for acceleration. Cars can be much lighter as a result. I reckon 200 mpg on a tank of biodiesel or recycled oil is easily obtainable by such a system. For the time being this is where the research dollars should be being thrown, IMO. Once the public is used to these hybrids (and the existing infrastructure can be easily adapted to support them in large numbers), the next step to cleaner fuel such as fuel cells is a much easier step to make. Graham 01:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Such a battery system has already been developed and is in use by the U.S. Military. If one were inquisititve one could surmise where its use would be an absolute necessity for certain military applications. The transfer of this technology for civilian use to a "hybrid" car would be of strategic value to any country heavily depended upon foreign sources of oil.

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, it is of supreme national importance to the United States that those advanced technologies that function to make automobiles use less gasoline per mile driven, be released for widespread consumer use. If you care about the long term prospects of your country over the short term profits of your company, you will share this technology for the benefit of the nation. Your shareholders may hate you, but the country will hail you a hero. The internet is one way to spread the knowledge of this technology. Thanks to the internet, the rate of information tranference is unprecedented in its speed. So it must be with the technologies that will revolutionize our transportation systems.

A laudable suggestion, but still exhibits some misconceptions. Let's imagine for a second that you're a car manufacturer, and you know how to build a car that does 200mpg. If you put such a car on the market, what would happen? People would buy it by the hundreds of thosands. Your profits would soar, your shareholders would be absolutely ecstatic. Conversely, if you knew this technology existed but supressed it, you know it would only be a matter of time before on eof your competitors took that step, and your company would be in a lot of serious trouble. Not THAT is something your shareholders would hate. Therefore you have it backwards. And the fact that no manufacturer has yet done this doesn't mean they're sitting on this, it means they don't know how to do it, ergo, it doesn't (yet) exist. Graham 00:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you would be right in textbook theory but Detroit and the major automobile manufacturers are in turn partially owned by many major oil companies. Over the last hundred years many oil companies have increased their ownership in automobile manufacturers which they rightly consider to be an allied industry. Much like steel companies would buy iron mines and coke reserves to increase their economies of scale. For more information, please read the history of GM by Bradford Snell. Graham, I am glad you were not around when the Wright Brothers were trying to get their aircraft of the ground. They might have given up.

The Wright brothers were not attempting to defy the laws of physics. Besides, my opinion doesn't really matter, I'm only trying to make the point that these silly conspiracy theories are just that - silly. Because NOT ALL car manufacturers are owned by oil companies, therefore it only takes one that isn't to break out of this supposed cartel and dominate the market overnight. Feel free to believe in magic carburetors, perpetual motion and fairies for all I care, but you'll not see a significantly better car based on a petrol-driven, piston based internal combution engine, because it is physically impossible. A better car can be built, but it must be around a different energy equation. I'd love to see this happen - existing car designs are brain dead. Graham 06:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, they exist because I have been told they exist by ex-members of the U.S. Military. They are credible because of their education, level of rank and standing in the community. More than that I cannot say.

(Could you at least put your contribution in the right place - it's not rocket science). Ah yes, when in a corner, a conspiracy theorist will say "it's hush-hush, I can't talk about it", or somesuch. Ask yourself this: What possible benefit would it be to an oil company to somehow set up a situation that MAXIMISES oil consumption, especially given the a) rapidly dwindling supply, b) the state of the planet and c) the fact that they are falling over themselves to increase supply/reduce demand right now? A CUT in demand is what is required, that would benefit everyone. Even the richest of capitalists has to think of the bigger picture sometimes. Graham 06:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Why do oil companies want to keep the current staus quo? Why in a word, Profit Sir! If I were an oil company I would maximize profits until the oil ran out or some government shut me down. It matters little that the public is put out. Since, I am a multi-national I answer to no one. Save for some fanatic such as Hugo Chavez of Venezuela who should have an accident any day now, according to my CIA secret decoder watch. Now, with my vast profits, I would buy other industries much like the tobacco industries, who having seen the writing on the wall, are now branching out to other less controversial industries. Sir, I am from Texas, we are ruthless and will stupe to even murder to achieve our economic aims. See the history of LBJ and GWB. To inconvenience the public is but a mere trifle so as long we are ensured vast profits. You may say I am a conspiracy minded individual, but in truth we are mere cogs in a much bigger game, in which we have little control or understanding.

You assume that in fact we, as a species, are a lot more competent than we actually are. In truth, everything is just a muddle, nobody sees the "big picture", we just fiddle about doing whatever and some sort of emergent behaviour arises. We have almost no control over it, it's true, but nobody has. Multinational corporations are just as stupid and ineffectual and incompetent as everyone else. The proof is all around us. Graham 23:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

"It should also be pointed out that the rumours of super-efficient carburetors are a perennial favourite of those who indulge in conspiracy theories."

Graham: Regarding this statement of opinion in the carburetor article. It needs to be removed. It comes close to an ad-hominem attack and has no place in Wikipedia. A better place for it is in the discussion section on carburetors. We can't have everyone that has a divergeance of opinion in Wikipedia be accused of conspiratorial mental deffects and the like. It is not the utterance of a professional or a gentleman. Please remove it.

This isn't an opinion, it's a statement of fact. The statement of fact being that such rumours repeatedly crop up in conspiracy theory forums and the like. It's certainly not an ad-hominem attack of any sort - who is it personally attacking? It is merely making a comment that balances the previous statement, thus overall bringing some balance to the article. This is the most neutrally worded statement I could come up with. Clearly, as the discussion here indicates, my views are much much stronger than this (and have the advantage of being backed up by hard science), but in view of WPs rules, this is a very mild distillation of them. If this statement is removed the article will then be biased in favour of the other statement that suggests that super carburettors are a reality. They are not. Therefore if this is removed then the whole section must be removed. However, I think it's probably worth making mention of it, since so many otherwise sane people seem convinced of it. But if it is worth mentioning, then it must also be mentioned that is really is just another conspiracy theory. Graham 03:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Graham: In a court of law. It would be opinion, unless you can back it up with evidence. The U.S. Patent office appears to have many numerous examples of these Pogue like vapor carburetors going back over a span of 60 years. They would appear to exist in the mind of the U.S. Patent Office, and therefore it is hard to argue that the Patent Office also concerns itself with the idle whims of conspiracy buffs. Whether they work as advertised might be the subject of debate. But there is ample evidence courtesy of the U.S. Government that they do exist. Please re-word the statement. It is not the utterance of a gentleman or a professional.

The Queen of England and other famous types also find themselves oft mentioned in conspiracy forums but that "statement of fact" does not therefore negate their existance.

The article currently consists of many paragraphs promoting the idea that such carburettors exist. In fact I would go so far as to say that the article is currently heavily biased in favour of such an idea, even though the physics indicates that this is a fairly ridiculous notion and the arguments on both sides are really not put forward properly. There is a substantial amount of work that needs doing to the article to put this right. In contrast my single mildly-worded sentence is presently the only counterbalance to this screed of guff. I agree that the article needs changes, but the changes needed will only serve to strengthen my viewpoint. I assume you are happy with that, in the spirit of balance. Or are your provocations really motivated by your own biases, which would appear to be to support these daft notions? You need to ask yourself this in all honesty, because the more you stir it, the less likely it is that the article will be changed in favour of this point of view. So think about it. And by the way, this isn't a court of law. Thankfully.

Such patents may exist; I don't dispute that. However the existence of a patent does not prove that such a device actually works, as you yourself admit. That is the real question here, and one that the article really should be addressing, since we are concerned with the actual physical working of a practical machine, based on sound scientific principles, not on the wishful thinking of conspiracy theorists. Going back to first principles, I have set out my argument at length in the discussion above on this page. The existenece of fuel injection bypasses all of the argument about "super carburettors" and places the emphasis firmly on the thermodynamic efficiency of a petrol-burning internal combustion engine. Thus what it all boils down to in the end is that super carburettors cannot exist (as a functional, practical device as opposed to a speculative patent) because the physics says so. The article needs to be changed to make all of this clear. Maybe I will be the one to do it, but I suspect that the howls of protest from the nutters will be even louder than the whining coming from you at the moment. Hence my reluctance to charge in. Graham 01:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Graham: We have a tradition in the English speaking countries which you are no doubt familar. It has long been considered an "article of a gentleman" to allow the hearing of opposing sides of an argument, no matter how odious one side may feel about the other side's idea or theory. Likewise, we agree that both sides should be heard relative to the theory and disproof of the "Pogue Carburetor" and its so-called imitators. We note that your assertion that anyone that believes in such an "idea" is as you refer to it, a "nutter" or "conspiracy theorist", actually damages your credibility on the subject and lends credence to the suspicion of some that you may be indeed employed by a petroleum concern or such type related industry. The wonder is why anyone would concern themselves so much on disproving the existence of such a device of such obvious benefit to the "Public" unless they had a direct economic stake in doing so.

It is you who is attaching these pejorative terms to what you THINK I wrote. However, look at what I actually wrote, no more, no less. I merely state that this topic comes up again and again as a favourite of conspiracy theorists. That is indisputable, as a google search will show. That is all I am actually saying. I am not calling anyone a nutter in the article, though I certainly do consider such conspiracy theorists as being at least dim-witted. At present the argument is very one sided in favour of the 'nutters' view, so by all means change it in favour of more balance - to do so will require far more argument on the other side than there is at present, and will no doubt stir up a far bigger hornet's nest. But if you insist on poking a stick at the hornet's nest, then don't be surprised if the result is that you get stung. By the way your constant ad-hominem reference to "language of a gentleman" etc cuts no ice with me - I'm only concerned that the article is fair, balanced and truthful. You appear to be suggesting I must have an ulterior motive. I most certainly do not, my only motive is to counter the hocus-pocus that is so prevalent in modern discourse wherever I find it. On this topic, the laws of physics are all that is needed, and so anyone who believes that a "super carburettor" must exist is, to my mind, in the same league as everyone else who believes in perpetual motion, telekinesis or any other pseudoscience. It is quite easy to become quite passionate against this tide of crap without having to have any vested interest. I am pretty offended that you accuse me of this, the notion is ridiculous. Please stop, or else change the article yourself. However the article needs balance and I am determined to put that in place. In other words let sleeping dogs lie, or be prepared to have your view point significantly cut back. I think I can count on the support of many wikipedians who I know are equally intolerant of pseudoscience in any form. Graham 09:05, 18 September 2005

(UTC)

Graham: With respect, I trust you will do a good job in exhibiting both sides. My main objection is your choice of language. It has the tone of a rigid pedant. One can win over one's audience without the use of pejoratives that only seem to disract rather than inform. For instance, you are no doubt aware that the term "Pseudoscience" is a loaded term. What was once considered out of bounds in science 50 years ago is now but common place kid stuff. Science was different yesterday as is from today. There is constant change and constant re-thinking of old theories once considered sacrosanct. Our modern way of thinking is "progressive". Meaning we expect our society to be in a state of constant advancement. Perhaps you knew an elderly person who lived in the early part of the last century and witnessed the transformation of society from "horse and buggy" to seeing men "land on the Moon" and therefore came to see that man's technological capabilites were enormous. Thus, if a president or prime minister went before their countryman on live TV and declared it was a matter of national policy and strategic necessity for the nation to develop automobiles that achieved 200 mpg. The majority of the public would assume it could be done and would be done. This is the sentiment you are fighting against. I did not invent it. It was already there and seems to only worsen with the price and demand for gasoline and the public's vague anxiety that we are running out of oil at some point in the future.

Let me state my case simply, as you seem determined to misrepresent it. So rather than expect you to synthesise my point of view by actually reading through the discussion, I'll restate it. I believe a 200mpg automobile is perfectly possible, and even quite easily realisable with existing technology. Such a vehicle could not, however, feature a piston engine which burned petrol or some locally derived byproduct of it. (By locally I mean within the vehicle itself). Such a vehicle would probably not have a mechanical transmission like cars of today. The current design of cars is at a dead end. This is obvious from the fact that there have been no significant technical developments in automobile technology since the 1930s - everything else since has either been nothing but marketing or co-opting technologies from other fields (such as electronics). There is massive inertia in the industry, and far too little being invested in really alternative approaches. There is a desire among ordinary people for cars to be better than they are, especially in terms of gas mileage, and it is this desire that fuels the conspiracy theories, which are very often the product of wishful thinking. We all WISH that a car with better gas mileage would come along tomorrow, but the fact that it doesn't is not because the industry is supressing the alternatives, sitting on patents for "super carburettors", etc, but simply reflects their inability to see beyond the mechanical system that they have been building for a hundred years. I would love nothing more than a national leader of a western nation declare, moon-landing like, that a 200mpg car must be a priority - that would galvanise and focus a very lazy and complacent industry, and instead of next year's model having an oval clock instead of a round one, or some new bling-bling wheel covers, we might actually see some progress.

Pseudoscience is not a loaded term - it is quite simply, non-science presented as if it were science. I am quite happy for new scientific discoveries to overturn or (more likely) extend existing ones, that is fair and reasonable progress. It doesn't make the old science turn into pseudoscience, nor does it mean pseudoscience can ever become real science, given enough time. The idea of super-carburettors, etc is totally within the realm of pseudoscience, for the very simple reason that the amount of work that a petrol-burning piston engine can do is dictated by the most fundamental physical laws we have - the laws of thermodynamics. There is no chance that these laws will ever be replaced by something "better", because that would mean that all of physics is wrong, which is quite clearly a silly notion. 50, 100, 2000 years of progress will not make thermodynamics wrong, it's too fundamental. Any invention that asks of the credulous that thermodynamics must be wrong is not an invention worth taking seriously, and so far, all the "super-carburettor" inventions that I have seen described fall firmly into this category. I notice another one showed up just today on slashdot: [1].

So it's not that I don't believe in progress, but I do most firmly believe in the laws of thermodynamics, and what they can tell us about heat engines. It is not pedantry to stick with a proven theory - you will not find any physicist that thinks that thermodynamics will "do" until we figure out something better. It is not pedantry to insist that believers in super-carburettors need to have their notions disabused, because it's not a case of waiting for engineering to make more progress with IC engines, but for physics to cvlearly demonstgrate that their idfeas are, quite simply, wrong. Surely that's pretty obvious? If you insist on believing in something that is demonstrably false, then there's nothign I can do about it - you are entitled to believe whatever tou want. But in science, there is no principle that says all ideas must be equally valid and given equal time and respect. It is perfectly possible for you to be wrong. And in this case you are. Graham 09:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Graham: I will concede there is a possibility I could be wrong. It is always possible that individuals who are correct in most things may be incorrect on this one topic. But, the curiosity is why there are so many who claim that super carburetors have existed, do exist and are being supressed by either petroleum interests and governments or a combination of both. The witnesses seem credible enough and have had positions in society that merit respect and in some cases acclaim. But there are others who are not so credible and probably should be more concerned with UFO's, Aliens and the deaths of John Kennedy and Princess Diana, etc. I think the value of this conversation, if one choses to see it, is that there is a major problem for our generation regarding the use of petroleum and if there is the "will" to do something about it by the Western Democracies, it will go a long way in taking the "bumps" out of the 21st century.

I don't know why these ideas are so popular - as I say it's probably wishful thinking. But popularity of an idea doesn't make the idea right. Millions of people believe in astrology, but there's no chance it could ever be accepted as a scientifically valid theory. In the case of super-carburettors, we don't even need to go into the complications of whether device X will yield double the mileage of device Y, because we can simply fall back to a straightforward analysis of the system as a whole. We have a black box which draws fuel from a tank and has a rotating output shaft to which we can attach a dynamometer to measure its output power. The only constraint is that inside the black box there is a piston engine of some kind. You'll find that no matter what else is in the black box, overall efficiency cannot exceed about 40% (this means that 60% of the calorific value in the fuel is wasted, it does NOT mean that 60% of the fuel is wasted, which is a common misconception - all of the fuel is burned thoroughly, leaving only water and carbon dioxide as byproducts in a perfect engine). If we lift the constraint that there must be a piston engine in there, we may well find that we could achieve efficiencies far higher than this, and to my mind that's the way forward for the 200mpg car. As long as we place the constraint that there must be a piston engine, we'll never do better than 40%. Car companies place this restriction whether they realise it or not because they seem incapable of thinking outside of that square - cars have piston engines, ergo, we'll start with that and build a new car... I agree with you, I think we are facing a crisis in the 21st century about our use of fossil fuels in general - if it doesn't simply run out, then we really should be paying attention to the damage it's doing to our planet. Either way, we have got to use it more efficiently, and the IC piston engine just isn't going to do it for us, because we will never get more than 40% of the energy out, no matter what we do. This is why the super-carburettor idea is so bogus - it's not because you couldn't build a better carburettor, but because it would not make any difference if you did. Sure, one carb might be double the "efficiency" of another, but this isn't what is constraining you - it is the burning of the petrol inside a closed cylinder that is killing you. Who cares how the fuel is delivered to the cylinder? Currently the best way to actually deliver the fuel is fuel injection, which does not have a carburettor of any sort, and the industry has been pretty quick to adopt that technology - so you can't say they are stuck in their ways in this sense - they saw a better way to deliver the fuel, and they were more than willing to abandon the traditional carburettor more or less overnight. No wonder, carbs are complicated things to make with many moving parts, they wear out and go out of calibration at the drop of a hat. FI on the other hand is mechanically far simpler, and amenable to electronic control, which makes it much easier and cheaper to build, far more reliable and it doesn't suffer from long term calibration problems, etc. Fuel injection IS the super-carburettor. But we don't have 200mpg cars with FI, because of that nagging 40% problem. FI has taken us from say, 35% to 37% efficiencies... an improvement, and a worthwhile one with many additional benefits, but not all that dramatic. If the 200mpg car is to be a reality, it's not the carburettor we need to look to for the answer - it's the piston in the cylinder, the one thing that has rarely been examined in over 100 years of development. It's just a given, and that's the problem. Thermodynamics tells us that we can raise the efficiency by raising the temperature differential across the engine - so all that's needed is for it to burn much hotter. Unfortunately as long as we are wedded to the idea that we must compress the mixture in a closed space, burn it and use the expansion to push a pistion down, we are stuck, because burning hotter will cause detonation and the metal will melt.... one solution could be gas turbines, but they are unsuitable for direct drive (as is an IC engine in fact, but we've kludged our way around that one with clutches and gearboxes to the point where it works quite well, and nobody stops to think what a bizarre and complicated system this ends up creating). Whoever does create a 200mpg car, it will be a company that is prepared to really think in a completely new way about the problem - not just try and whack some new black box in front of the same old IC engine, but who rethinks the whole problem from first principles (i.e. thermodynamics). And so, this is why super-carburettor theories are not worth giving time to - not because they do or do not exist, but because they are irrelevant. A 1% difference in efficiency is not what's needed - we need a 400% difference. All the super-carburettor inventors are doing is pissing about in this 1% area - they are missing the wood for the trees. And just as arguing about the number of angels on the head of a pin is no longer considered worthwhile, arguing about the existence or otherwise of super-carburettors will be looked back on centuries hence as being an argument in exactly the same category - meaningless. Graham 01:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Graham: You may be right. Look at the example of the changes to automobiles versus that of airplanes with regard to their engine development in the last 80 years. Nobody who worked on the airplane engine of the 1920-1930's would be competant to work on Airplane Jet Engines of our generation. Yet the low level techology to take apart a basic car engine block is nearly unchanged in the last 80 years. One may visit any mechanic shop the rebuilds classic cars and see that many parts from the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's are still available and are sold along so-called modern automobile parts. I once knew a mechanic that had worked on cars from the 1930's to 1990's. He was never formally trained and yet was considered a very competant mechanic. At the age of 69, when computers became commonplace in automobiles, he decided to retire.

You are incorrect on one aspect of Fuel Injection. Its adoption by American Car Companies was one of necessity and not inovation. The U.S. Government forced American Car manufacturers to reduce noxious emissions and fuel injection already widely used in Europe for years was grudgingly adopted to appease the U.S.Government.

• I love how a little machine can cause such big arguments. LOL --ApolloBoy 05:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

There's one thing left out of this argument- the Pogue claim was based partly on vaporization of the fuel, and partly on raising the operating temperature of the engine from 160F to 180F, a gain in thermal efficiency. Modern engines typically operate in excess of 195F, far above what Pogue envisioned.

The whole "Catalytic Carburetors" section needs to be rewritten or removed. To even suggest what it's suggesting is a prime example of the kind of article that damages Wikipedia's credibility.--Rluzinski 13:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] strangler

Isn't strangler more of a British term? Any Brits out there? Gzuckier 14:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Its a term that was in use in the 1950s. GraemeLeggett 14:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] One of the first patents

Hello! I have added one of the first patents for the carburettor in the list. For the first time about this carburettor has written Donat Banki in the work "Theory of the gas engine" (16.02.1893). Alexey Markov, Russia

[edit] THIS IS BASIC SCIENCE PEOPLE!

All any carburetor (or any other fuel system) can do is mix the fuel with the available air in the proportion required to burn. THATS ALL!

Any fuel contains an EXACT amount of chemical energy per unit mass and THATS ALL!

In the case of gasoline there is typically 20000 btu/pound and we can account for every single one of those btu's in a running engine. We KNOW where every single bit of energy is going. We find that, no matter what we do, only 25-35% of the available energy in the fuel can be converted to mechanical power. The rest is lost in the form of HEAT out the exhaust and out the cooling system. "Lost" does not mean we don’t know where it is. We know EXACTLY where it is. There is just no way to mechanically extract it. But every single scrap of energy is accounted for. There is NO MAGIC ENERGY RESERVE which some voodoo carburetor can mix, "just so", to perform a 'miraculous' gain in mileage or performance. IT DOES NOT EXIST!!

Considering carburetors and fuels, no carburetor performs better than the ones designed for propane because propane is already a gas. It only remains to mix it with the air in combustible proportions. PERFECT mixing and yet......... NO IMPROVEMENT IN MILAGE HAS APPEARED.

These mysterious free energy scams are just that... SCAMS. Never is it explained where this gigantic increase in energy will come from. Just a bunch of vagaries designed as a smoke screen to hide the truth. Pulling parcels of energy from a parallel universe through the wormholes between the quarks in the atoms that make up the fuel perhaps.

As far as the Patents' so called "proof" that has been offered, it will be useful to know that patent offices DO NOT TEST inventions to verify that they work. ANY STUPID IDEA CAN BE PATENTED so long as the explanation of its operation is sufficiently vague that a bored patent clerk doesn’t see any obvious contradiction. PATENTS ARE IN NO WAY PROOF OR CERTIFICATION of TRUTH! They merely exist as a LEGAL mechanism to protect property rights.

The miracle carburetor story has been around ever since jesus fed the 5000 with 2 fish and 5 loaves.(and if you believe that one I have a bridge to sell YOU!) I suppose it will always be around as long as there are people who cannot grasp high school science. People need miracles to comfort them I guess. It’s the perfect excuse to avoid the hard work of making things REALLY work.

There are plenty of conspiracies out there to hide the evil deeds of humans but this is not one of them. This is just plane old science and there’s nothing hidden…except from those who will not see. --=Motorhead 11:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

You still can't get around the fact the so-called modern gasoline combustion engine belongs in a museum and probably will be our life time. If you are a Generation Xer.

It’s still the most cost effective and cleanest thing we have, although the new hybrids look encouraging. Pure electric vehicles are horrendous if the power comes from fossil fuels and hydrogen fusion is not even on the radar yet. Hydrogen fuel cells might have potential.--=Motorhead 03:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

There could still be an advantage to pure electric vehicles recharged from the power grid, PROVIDED that power stations themselves can be made significantly more efficient than an IC engine. I don't know much about power stations, but it seems to me this should be possible - after all, you can build a power plant as big as you like to incorporate the necessary technology, it's not as if you're weight or space constrained as you are with an on-board power plant. Once you're dealing with power in electrical form, efficiencies soar - DC motors can be easily 90% efficient, as are generators. AC power transformers are usually >95% efficient... in this domain you're onto a winner. The biggest headache right now is storing that energy efficiently on board a vehicle. If the batteries are heavy you have lost much of your advantage, and the conversion to chemical energy and back again loses quite a bit too (anyone have efficiency figures for this?). So it's not the motors, or the power transmission or even the displacement of the pollution to the power station that is the key problem - all of these are acceptable - it's the storage of the energy in the vehicle. As you say, hydrogen fuel cells look the most promising approach at the moment, but maybe some new wonder material will yet be invented that solves this one. My bet would be that the next generation of cars (by which I mean based around a new energy equation, not just the same old same old with new styling) will come from a totally unexpected direction - don't expect the big car companies to be the ones to do this. Only Honda seem to really be researching alternatives seriously, but I don't know what's going on in GM's skunkworks, who knows? I do expect the next big thing to come from Toshiba, or one of those companies. Graham 00:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

My point about electrics being horrendous refers to fossil fuel powered generating plants that would be used to power such cars. Let me clarify… Comparing fuel burned in a plant to fuel burned directly in a vehicle.

Generating plants run about 30-50% efficient converting potential energy to electrical energy. Fossil fuel powered plants at the 30% end and hydro-electric at the 50% end.

Starting with 1 liter of fuel at the plant there now remains 330ml of fuel energy in electrical form.

Then the power goes on the grid with radiation and resistance losses then losses when stepped down at the substation then stepped down to final user levels.

Taking your figure of 95% for transformation.. and… I don’t know the figure for radiation and resistance losses but lets be generous and say 90% efficient. Leaves 282.15ml

Then it is stepped down once more to make it usable for charging. Then that electrical energy passes through an inverter and is converted to chemical energy in a battery bank. 

Lets give it 85% efficiency (not knowing an exact figure)... 240ml

Finally your ready to roll but there are still more losses to come. Converting from chemical back to an appropriate electrical energy to power the specific control/motor system in use.

Again using 85% 203.8ml

Then the losses incurred in that same control/motor system.

(Using 90% efficiency) What’s left? 183.5ml

This is the point where you have the misery of lugging around half a ton or more of batteries, with all the associated extra losses due to weight and acceleration/deceleration, which will incur still more losses in addition to the above.

My thumbnail estimate of the difference between a standard car and a fossil fuel generated electric car is that the electric will be, at best, 1/3 the efficiency of the standard car. I think that’s generous.

You are 100% correct in saying that batteries are a major problem. I was merely saying that trying to save fuel with electric vehicles in the current sense makes no sense. (this page is becoming almost a blog eh? hehe)--=Motorhead 18:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely, but notice I said PROVIDED power station efficiencies could be raised significantly. In theory this might be possible, since unlike the IC engine, they can be built around any appropriate technology, and are not constrained in the same way that IC engines are. In addition, it's not really the efficiency that is so important, as the amount of carbon dioxide or other pollutants that it creates as a by-product. It will surely be easier to build enormous great (but efficient) power stations than making several million more efficient IC engines, one in each car. Also, centralised power stations can take advantage of any energy source, such as solar, wind, wave, geothermal, etc. which even if efficiencies are low, the power is coming 'for free' and so it doesn't really matter whether the conversion is all that efficient, since at the moment it all goes to waste anyway. In my view it would be better to go this route and develop the appropriate infrastructure, even if in the immediate time frame efficiencies would drop. Gradually better power stations will come on stream, but the actual cars people drive and the way that they are powered and recharged will not need to change. Weaning ourselves off the IC engine + petrol infrastructure will be difficult and painful, but we only need to do it once provided we move to something that at least in theory offers better efficiencies and room for improvement down the track. If we back the wrong horse we'll only have to make a similarly gigantic change all over again at some point. Graham 21:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I was just keeping with the original thread of the miracle carburetor/"magical energy" theme. The world needs reduce consumption off the top and then make the best use of the energy we do use. We are far from that now and it’s simply ridiculous how energy is wasted now. Lighting up the entire planet while we sleep? Monstrous SUVs? The foolish way we lay out cities and then expect billions of people to move in and out twice a day.

In Australia they make very sparse use of stop signs and traffic lights at every intersection, opting for mini traffic circles instead. That way you don’t have to stop every 100 feet. Traffic moves smoothly safely and swiftly. This saves fuel, wear and tear on vehicles which makes them last longer (saving even more energy).

In North America stop signs and traffic lights are used mainly as a speed regulation scheme, which is extremely wasteful not to mention aggravating. Accelerating then stopping billions of tons of vehicular steel over and over, 24 hours a day every day. I’d bet that’s a 10% savings, continent wide, right off the top!

Then we need to find a scheme that has the best possible energy/density/cost/renewability/ecological benefit. For the moment chemical energy still has the most punch in most respects. It would be great if we got off our Asses and developed fusion to a level where it is usable. Fission scares me; it’s an atomic time bomb waiting to go off.

In the meantime I like seeing that solar/wind/tidal/geothermal/hydroelectric is getting lots of attention (if not financing). It’s the individual brains out there, working on it, that will produce results.

(by the way. I agree with your earlier assertion that big oil would dearly love to lower consumption.That way they can jack the price sky high while scaling back thier operations, making billions of dollars more then they already do! Here in Quebec (hydro-electric capital of north america) they have pushed very hard to reduce electrical consumption so they can take the saved megawats and sell them to the U$A. As we conserve and use less... they continue to JACK THE PRICE. Dont ever think that conserving will ever save money!We are paying more than double for less than half the energy now!)Supply and demand my ass! Its a cartel/monopoly and thier only mission is to rake in as many dollars from the public as they can. As consumption falls, Oil Prices will RISE! (I'm willing to write that in stone!) --=Motorhead 18:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Motorhead: We the directors of "ExxonMobilEssoSoconyVacuumStandardHumbleMagnolia" oil monopoly thank you for your comments. Yes, in answer to your question. Yes, we will raised prices as conservation causes consumption to fall. We will raise prices as high and as long as we want. How can we do this? Because we control your government. No elected official can withstand our political influence and control. This is not a fantasy but is fact. The American Congress recently directed huge amounts of criticism at our recent profits and we laughed in their faces. What are they going to do about it? Absolutely Nothing! We have an army of lobbyists and money that can defeat any politican that opposes us. The status quo suits us fine.

In Australia they make very sparse use of stop signs and traffic lights at every intersection, opting for mini traffic circles instead. That way you don’t have to stop every 100 feet. Traffic moves smoothly safely and swiftly. This saves fuel, wear and tear on vehicles which makes them last longer (saving even more energy).

I just wanted to comment on this part, since I live in Australia. I don't recognise this, as such, - traffic in the main centres is as bad as anywhere in the western world, with traffic lights and jams everywhere. Of course Australia has relatively few huge cities, and only a small population, so outside the main centres traffic isn't really a big problem as it is in say, the UK, which seems to be entering a state of almost permanent gridlock. The other problem in Australia is that the most popular cars are huge gas-guzzling V8s, perhaps even more so than in the USA - the mentality of "a big car for a big country" is very prevalent, even though most people probably just toodle around town or do 95% short journeys. There are small cars of course, but a surprising disproportion of 3, 4 and 5-litre V8 sedans, SUVs and utes. Australia isn't a Kyoto partner, along with the USA, and despite possibly having the most abundant solar energy availability of almost any populated area (almost double the global average wattage per square metre), produces most of its energy from coal. Building standards are atrocious, and though some changes are coming requiring some solar panels for water heating, people by and large seem unaware of the benefits that small, simple changes to the way they build their houses could bring. I don't know what it will take to change people's attitides, but it is telling that the current government doesn't seem to give a f**k either. Just like all western governments at the moment, it's all about money, "growth" without a care for the environment, or any long term vision of any sort whatsoever. You tell me what the solution is, cos none of them have a clue! Graham 23:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

My Australian experience comes from a couple of months spent in Sydney and surrounding area and also comments from Australians visiting me here in Canada (whats with all the bloody stop signs mate?). I can’t speak for the UK but in Canada/USA the stop sign/speedbump/traffic light thing is just ridiculous. I was in Sydney in 2002 and I felt there were less behemoth cars there compared to here although many more private trucks (their version of pickups called UTES) plenty of Holdens (small aussi car)and tons of jap cars. In Sydney we regularly went cross town staying away from main routes and it was fast and traffic free on the side routes. Here in Canada I hit 4 stop signs just to get to my mail box (and I basically live in the forest) and the box is only 100 meters away. I just drive through them! On this continent we do things based on what the whiners whine about and political expediency and in Aus they do things based on what they CAN do and some political expdiecy. So its at least half good. Their idea of a pickup truck is vastly superior to our ridiculous show boats. They have lots of duel fuel cars simply because it works for them. I think they are open to what works. Its not a perfect society of course, I just apperciate seeing some origional thinking which is different from here. Thats why you guys won the americas cup aint it?--=Motorhead 07:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting - I guess like most things the more familiar with something you are the more you find fault... still, you must give me your cross-Sydney route sometime, it sounds marvellous! BTW Holden is just the local flavour of General Motors, they make all sorts of cars from small (Barina) to big (Commodore) and utes too. In fact I drive a Holden ute, which might ruin any claim to green credibility I might have aspired to - but I live out in the bush and it's a very useful type of vehicle here, and they don't make them much smaller than the 3.2 litre V6 that mine has! I think of it as quite big, but it isn't if you compare it to a Ford F100 or one of those huge Chevys that you get over there. Graham 23:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Snore...Please let's have more information on the vagaries of Australian traffic patterns. The public can't get enough!

[edit] Link to jet

The article contains the sentence "Constant depression — the jet is varied by the air flow to alter the fuel flow", but unfortunately jet is a disambiguation page, and I can't figure out how to fix it.

This article defines a specialist sense of the word jet farther below: "small brass screws with finely calibrated holes, referred to as jets".

I would have reworded the article so that the link to jet instead referred to the definition given below, but I wasn't sure the same sense of the term was intended in both places. Could someone with knowledge in this subject fix up this link ambiguity? Vslashg (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It is meant in the same sense but I dont know how to link to a part of the same page--=Motorhead 12:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perspective of a neophyte

I'm trying to learn about engines and thought wikipedia was a good place to start. The article you get by looking up "internal combustion engine" is fantastic. This article - carburettor - frankly stinks in comparison for my purposes. It is written as if to provide basic information for ignoramuses but then proceeds to be extremely long, unclearly written and totally lacking in diagrams. We need diagrams! Just a simple labelled line drawing would make all the difference. Other things: don't alternate terms - call it a "butterfly valve" OR a "throttle" - alternating just adds to the pain of wading through all the complexities; provide little summaries at the start of each section on the lines of "this part enables the carburretor to function by doing this" - it would make all the difference. I appreciate there's a lot to say and much of it is complex, but if the aim is to actually inform (rather than simply providing material for experts to disagree about) it needs serious rewriting.

Thanks for reading - I hope you don't mind my letting off steam a little!

Thanks. This is exactly the kind of feedback we need. Gzuckier 19:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

The article could use an etymology of the word. PeepP 21:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carburetor images

I have now drawn and uploaded to this article a diagram in cross section of a basic Carburetor. If there are any problems with the inclusion of this image or the artwork itself please let me know here. Thanks. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 17:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That's very nice work, WP, and very appropriate to this article. Thanks for posting it. I have replaced the previous carburetor photo (which vaguely showed what could only be described as part of a car engine) with a dual-view image of a more common type of carburetor, with nomenclature. Scheinwerfermann 18:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Scheinwefermann, as a quick update I've also done something similar for fuel injection to achieve some level of standardisation and comrability between the two articles. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 20:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, on second viewing I see a couple of things that could use a bit of improvement on your carburettor diagram. You've omitted the jet, which should be in the very close vicinity of what you've ambiguously labelled the venturi. Scheinwerfermann 20:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've clarified this on the diagrams description. I have deliberately omitted some detail to avoid cluttering the drawing. I was trying to keep it so that a lay person could look at the diagram and basically figure out the fundamentals of how it probably works. I think that was achieved but we'll see. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 12:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Oop, this is not as good as before. "Fan-assisted air intake" does not exist; that device at the top there is a fairly good graphical representation of an air cleaner, but there are no fans involved. That label's gotta go. My previous objection remains; your "venturi" arrow points to what is properly labelled the jet. The venturi is the narrowed area in the carburettor's throat. Scheinwerfermann 16:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as the air intake was a major problem I've altered the diagram. I don't generally do this but it seemed nessessary here. If your still seeing the old image go to the images location: and press ctrl + F5 in internet explorer to reload the image and remove it from the cache. I hope this satisfys the requirements. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 18:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that's much better! My only gripe now: No label for the venturi. Can't you please add an arrow pointing to the hump opposite the one drilled for the "jet"? Scheinwerfermann 20:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I have replaced the drawing. Now it labels the venturi, has a throttle that actually allows flow, a fuel valve that looks workable, and gone is that "gas" label that annoyed. Thanks to you all.Cuddlyable3 15:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Much better! Thanks. --Scheinwerfermann 16:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted to my old version of the drawing as the new one was not up to wikipedia standards. I've made changes to my original diagram to bring into line with Scheinwerfermann's suggestions. I hope this new version is satisfying. Any problems, please drop me a message. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 02:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Catalytic Carburetor" Section

I tried to clean up this section by removing some extraneous information and by making some of the relevant information more concise and straight forward. The section was simply being used to attempt to bolster the notion that superior carburetor technologies have and continue to be suppressed by corporations. There is simply no factual basis to make such a claim. The previous author made that painfully obvious by including no sources of any kind.

Personally, I'd remove this entire section altogether. As far as I can tell, the catalytic carburetor was a little used and now completely obsolete technology.

rluzinski

[edit] Before carburetors

The carburetor was invented in 1893 and it was later replaced by fuel injection. What technology did the carburetor replace?--[84.231.94.22]

Since many of the first internal combustion engines were diesel, my guess would be more primitive fuel injection or some other form of fuel mixing (when necessary - hydrogen and other gaseous fuels would not require mixing), but this would be a useful thing to have in the article. Perhaps another question would be types of fuel; when did Gasoline start being used? --Justfred 23:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colortune improper reference

Ways to check carburetor mixture adjustment include: measuring the carbon monoxide, hydrocarbon, and oxygen content of the exhaust using a gas analyzer, or directly viewing the colour of the flame in the combustion chamber through a special glass-bodied spark plug sold for this purpose as Colortune (c). The Colortune is a product patented by Istavan Szilagyi that has been around since at least 1971 when I bought mine (and it was selected by the Design Centre London). The Colortune is well established among engine tuners, as shown by 2460 "hits" in Google today. Yahoo Search finds even more hits, I won't bore you with the huge number of them, and it seems that the neologism-verb "to Colortune (an engine)" has entered the language. AFAIK there is no alternative or equivalent to the Colortune. It seems appropriate to name the Colortune by its given name in the section on Carburettor Adjustment so will someone suggest how that should be done if the text as Colortune (c) above is somehow improper?Cuddlyable3 13:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the Colortune. However, unless/until there is a Wikipedia article on the device, it is inappropriate and unencyclopædic to make reference to it. In addition, © is not the correct mark. Published works of intellect and/or creativity (printed, recorded and/or electronically coded) are subject to copyright. Tangible products and their brand names are not. The appropriate mark may be ™, or it may be ®, or it may be one of a few others, but it is not ©. Furthermore, your assertion that "to Colortune (an engine)" has entered the language would need a great deal of support in order not to fall afoul of WP:NOR. Perhaps you wish to be bold and initiate a Colortune article; that would be a good start. --Scheinwerfermann 16:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

1) Scheinwerfermann, your assertion that "unless/until there is a Wikipedia article on the device, it is inappropriate and unencyclopædic to make reference to it" needs more support than just your statement, which is merely defending your own act of censorship. Is this an edict that prohibits any reference to any device not already having a dedicated Wikipedia article? It seems sadly plain that you don't wish to respond in any constructive - shall I say encyclopædic? - way.

2) In the UK Colortunes are packaged as "Gunson's Colortune" with an enclosed warning about "protected by world-wide patents" but I see no sign of a ™ or ® or © anywhere that one would expect them to be asserted for the word Colortune.

3) I did not assert that "to Colortune (an engine)" has entered the language, as you falsely attribute to me. What I did was to observe (that is subjective and allowed, even encouraged, on this Discussion page) that it SEEMS (implicit: to ME it seems) that "to Colortune (an engine)" has entered the language. You may click on http://www.gadgetjq.com/ctune.htm to see someone (not me) using it that way. You may also notice that usage is an orthodox extension of the common English verb "to tune". Unless/until someone wants to put a statement about the usage "to Colortune" on the page you have nothing to say about it.Cuddlyable3 19:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Cuddlyable3, I'm not interested in a pissing contest. This is Wikipedia: Go create an article on the Colortune, which is an interesting and unique enough device that it'll easily support an article longer than a photo-illustrated dictionary entry. Once that article's in place, even in skeletal form, it'll be a terrific link off carburetor. --Scheinwerfermann 03:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Scheinwerfermann thank you for informing us that this is Wikipedia. That seems to be the limit of response of which you are capable now that your officious act of censoring content has been questioned. BTW you are not in a position to command ("Go create an article...") anyone and you need to be aware that nobody has invited you to competitive urination.Cuddlyable3 16:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No good reason has been given for not mentioning the "interesting and unique" Colortune. This is now done with a footnote link to the manufacturer's on-line manual. That way respects any proprietary rights without unnecessary advertising.84.210.139.189 19:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why do we need an accelerator pump?

The greater inertia of liquid gasoline, compared to air, means that if the throttle is suddenly opened, the airflow will increase more rapidly than the fuel flow, causing a temporary "lean" condition which causes the engine to "stumble" under acceleration (the opposite of what is normally intended when the throttle is opened).

I read the above and want more explanation. Is the temporary lean condition because:

- the airflow accelerates but the droplets already in it get left behind?

- the fluid flow of the tiny column of fuel inside and immediately behind the main jet takes longer to accelerate than the air flowing past?

- there is a temporary pressure drop in the carburetor vortex and the Bernoulli effect somehow draws less fuel from the jet?

I think all 3 ideas above are unconvincing or plain wrong and that is why I hope to see a clearer explanation.Cuddlyable3 22:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The temporary lean condition occurs for the reasons originally stated, the inertia difference between the air and fuel flows. Also the rise in pressure in the manifold causes less of whatever fuel is in the manifold to evaporate or evaporate more slowly. Fuel is added by the accelerator pump to cover this transient condition until the fuel system catches up.--=Motorhead 00:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason I am doubtful about the postulate that "the fluid flow of the tiny column of fuel inside and immediately behind the main jet takes longer to accelerate than the air flowing past" is that it implies one could eliminate the need for an accelerator pump by arranging for the main fuel jet to be not a tube but a hole in a thin wall of a large fuel reservoir, thus having negligible inertia in its delivery. Motorhead, your additional comment about evaporation speed in the manifold does not seem to concern the fuel/air mixture ratio, unless you mean that the nominally stoichimetric aerosol-fuel/air mixture being delivered by the carburetter tends temporarily to separate out. The accelerator pumps that I have seen deliver a straight jet of liquid fuel with no apparent design to atomise it.Cuddlyable3 12:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Your thoroughly confused interpretations in your first question in this thread, and your partially confused claim directly above regarding evaporation in the manifold not influencing fuel/air ratio, make it seem quite doubtful you've enough knowledge to be critiquing the veracity of carburettor operational theory. IOW, just because you don't or can't understand something doesn't mean it's wrong. That said, the search for a single reason for the need of an accelerator pump is futile; there are several reasons why such a pump is called for, and they've been covered in this discussion thread and in the main article. Your guess above is correct: When the throttle is opened, manifold absolute pressure rises. As you (should) know, increased pressure tends to cause vapourised liquids to condense, and atomised droplets to agglomerate. It is also correct that the liquid fuel, having greater mass than the gaseous air, has greater inertia and therefore fuel flow does not increase as quickly as airflow when the latter is abruptly increased. Your "hole in the thin wall of a large fuel reservoir" idea is without merit, for it would not significantly alter the inertial difference between the liquid fuel and the gaseous air, and it would preclude the use of most of the fuel distribution aids that contribute significantly to the carburettor's ability to provide good starting, running, and driveability characteristics. Accelerator pumps are quite simple, dependable, and adjustable; it would be thoroughly disadvantageous to replace them with your idea. As to the accelerator pumps delivering a straight jet of liquid fuel with no design to atomise it: Yes, correct, that's how they work. And work they do! I'm not sure what your point is here. --Scheinwerfermann 14:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

How can evaporation change fuel/air ratio? Cuddlyable3 12:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No answer seems available because of course neither evaporation nor condensation change the ratio of the ingredients.

"When the throttle is opened, manifold absolute pressure rises" is correct. And it stays at the new pressure until the rpm increase, which may not happen for a long time. The carburetor is intended to serve also that new manifold pressure indefinitely, so the transient aid of an accelerator pump can't help it do that.

Since neither you Scheinwerfermann nor the sentence that introduced this thread make any distinction between the inertia of the fuel in the jet and the inertia of the fuel after it leaves the jet, my "hole in the thin wall of a large fuel reservoir" idea has the merit of getting us to think about clarifying which fuel inertia we are talking about. Since the idea amounts to not much more than a very short main jet I see no good reason for you to object that "it would preclude the use of most of the fuel distribution aids that contribute significantly to the carburettor's ability to provide good starting, running, and driveability characteristics".

In connection with Motorhead's preceding post about slowed evaporation of the fuel, I wondered whether an accelerator pump would more usefully deliver a spray rather than a compact stream. Fuel injectors do that.Cuddlyable3 18:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

---

My point about manifold pressure rising and slowing the evaporation of the fuel was that this effect is an ADDITTIONAL reason for the needing an accelerator pump. The EFFECTIVE fuel/air ratio leans out even though there is the correct amount of bulk fuel present; it is of no use if it doesn’t evaporate. Accelerator pumps definitely ARE designed to atomize the fuel. The fuel jets squirt directly into the venturi (exactly where the main jet injects its fuel) where it is violently accelerated by the air flow. Many carbs have been built without accelerator pumps. The Gast/Lectron motorcycle racing carb being a shining example, delivering superb power and responsiveness. ( http://www.fastbygast.com/Catagories/Products/Description/How%20it%20works.asp) By careful attention to the responsiveness of the jet circuits, it is possible to get first class performance without using an accelerator pump.--=Motorhead 23:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The fuel/air mixture forms in two stages: 1) Fuel is drawn from the jet into the airstream by the Bernoulli principle. 2) The fuel aerosol is accelerated by friction with the airstream. This acceleration takes a finite time, due to the finite mass of the fuel, so in the final fuel/air mixture, fuel is associated with an older part of the airstream than it first entered. This association-lag is innocuous during steady-throttle operation, but if the throttle is suddenly opened the amount of fuel is temporarily wrong (i.e. too weak mixture) for the new faster airflow. This temporary "lean" condition can cause an automobile engine to falter under acceleration.

The above explanation is my present understanding. In it, the inertia (mass) of the air is not considered as a factor. I believe it is irrelevant and that the same things would happen if the air were replaced by a fluid having same or greater mass than the fuel.

Motorhead, we are talking about the fuel/air ratio, with no distinction about the state (droplet - aerosol - atomised - evaporated ?) or combustability of the fuel, which should be separate issues. Thank you for giving the link to a carb that seems to need no accelerator pump. I mention the venerable SU carburetor as another example.Cuddlyable3 11:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the explanation you have quoted other than it is incomplete and thus can be misleading. The effect described is presented as a major factor when in fact it is a small modifying influence. Working in the research department of Homelite I have used a Strobotach to look down the intake of a chain saw running at full throttle on the dyno. It could be seen that the instant the port begins to open the fuel is smashed into an aerosol and drawn in with the air with NO apparent delay in moving with the air. On the other hand the instant the port closes and air flow stops, the fuel can be seen to continue flowing out of the main jet in a stream that crosses the venturi and hits the far wall until the next inrush of air hits it. This shows the inertia of the fuel in the jet well. Just as it resists stopping it resists accelerating. The main jet will establish an average flow that matches the average air flow under steady running conditions. Under those conditions the flow of fuel from the main jet is very nearly constant and NOT intermittent as might be assumed. If the explanation you have quoted were the whole story then engines with one carb per cylinder would barely run at all with a heavily stratified and patchy charge.

As far as air/fuel ratio goes, consider an engine starting in sub zero weather. Even though the fuel/air ratio is correct, the engine fails to start unless there is some kind of enrichment added. So the EFFECTIVE fuel/air ratio is all that matters. So the state is an important factor. Yes there is some association-lag. Yes there is a loss in evaporation and Yes there is inertia lag in the fuel jet. Add it all up and you need an accelerator pump to fill in the gap on certain types of carburators-Those which have long main jet passages and which do not expose the main jet to vacuum signal unless and until the throttle is opened. It happens that of these factors, the inertia lag is the most prominent.--=Motorhead 00:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Motorhead thank you for describing research you have done. Air has mass (about 1.2g/L at sea level) and liquid gasoline has mass (I guess about 900g/L) so neither substance can be accelerated instantly, and Newton's second law is obeyed. Similarly, air flow in the venturi cannot stop the instant the port closes. Could the continuation that you observed of fuel to flow from the jet after the port closed be due to the inertia of the moving (invisible) air column at least as much as that of the fuel column in the jet? I gather that you have built a carburetor and so could quote actual numerical volumes of the two columns to answer this question.

Having a volume of compressible air between the carb(s) and the intake port(s) gives a smoothing of the venturi flow that aids efficient carb design, but that is a wider subject than the title of this thread. The engines with one carb per cylinder that I know of are either 1) small utility engines with no special demands on acceleration, and 2) high performance engines in sports or racing vehicles (see Image:1961 Ferrari 250 TR 61 Spyder Fantuzzi engine.jpg). Here the trumpets added to extend the intake columns are obvious.

I agree that having stoichimetric fuel/air ratio alone does not give easy cold starting. However the sentence that introduced this thread does not touch on that, nor do I see definitions of "effective" contra "ineffective" fuel/air ratios.

Where we can identify several causes for an event, in this case the temporary lean condition, we must be inquisitive about their relative magnitudes before settling on a conclusion about which one is most prominent. To what has been mentioned I add the finite lag of the float + valve assembly to adjust to a changed fuel flow demand.Cuddlyable3 13:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The flow observed from the main jet was not due to air flow because it was unperturbed, squirting cleanly straight across the bore, much like a water tap running at the lowest setting. The intake system length of 2 inches on the chainsaw means that the wave activity has little strength. Additionally, at the closed end of the intake system, there is little flow due to wave activity (regardless of how strong it is) because the downstream volume is so small. (This is one reason you would like to have the carb close to the valve and add the required length with a trumpet or velocity stack on top rather than have the carb at the outside end where it will recieve the strongest pulsation flow.)

There are cases where the effect you mention occurs- Longer intake systems with the carb at the inlet end. In those systems the wave activity will definitely draw fuel out due to air sloshing back and forth while the port is closed. I mentioned this chainsaw experiment to show the inertia difference in real terms.

When I said Effective it should be taken as the fuel /air ratio that is actually in effect. The un-evaporated fuel does not take part and so the mixture is “Effectively” lean, even though the presence of the proper amount of fuel shows that the Actual fuel / air ratio is correct. The engine behaves almost exactly as if it were lean.

Since gasoline has 780 times the density of air. It does seem obvious that there will be a large discrepancy in response between the two substances, especially at very high speeds.--=Motorhead 01:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Motorhead, I understand you interpret what you saw as: the airflow stopped instantly and then fuel continued to squirt for a time into the still air. I did not see what you saw and my problem with the interpretation is my knowledge that air cannot stop instantly, and is impossible to see directly. Therefore I want to look at actual masses in acceleration/deceleration that are involved. Movement of the air mass causes movement of the fluid mass. Gasoline indeed has about 780 times the density of air but mass = VOLUME x density. I am still hoping you will provide volumes to complete that equation for the two masses involved. Alternatively, please tell me the diameter and internal length of your main jet!

We must not have two conflicting definitions of the same word "LEAN". It is defined relative to stoichimetric air/fuel content ratio both in Wikitionary and in our Carburetor article by the sentence "Too much fuel in the fuel-air mixture is referred to as too rich, and not enough fuel is too lean." I contend that merely putting lean in between quotes as in the sentence that introduced this thread ("temporary "lean" condition") is an inadequate way of indicating that one has changed to a different definition, namely what you have described as "the fuel/air ratio that is actually in effect". That confuses observed/interpreted combustion result with prescription.

What you call wave activity, which I might understand as a pressure wave travelling at the speed of sound in the compressible air, has not been described in the sentence that introduced this thread. Does it need to be?

Newton's Laws are sometimes less than obvious where a fluid-becoming-a-vapour and a gas of very different densities and volumes interact.

(I think the first concern of the example Ferrari engine designers was to obtain maximum airflow by having as big inlet ports and as short and wide tube connecting each one to a carb venturi as they could manage. After that, the added air column mass in the trumpets gave them some deliberately tuned resonance that strengthens the pulsating inflow for a particular intended range of engine speed.)Cuddlyable3 01:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The diameter of the carb bore was about .750 inches and the length of the carb throat plus the port length was 2.5 inches. The diameter of the main jet was about .020 with a length of .375 . You can see some of this wave activity in action if you download the freeware engine simulator from Lotus http://www.lesoft.co.uk/

Of course the air does not stop INSTANTLY but in relation to the fuel flow and engine cycle it stops so quickly as to have no significant effect (on that particular engine). The fuel flows nearly constantly throughout the cycle showing the inertia of the fuel.

--=Motorhead 15:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Motorhead, thank you for providing dimensions. I calculate that in your example engine the ratio of volumes of air/fuel columns is 9375. The mass of fuel to be acc- or de-celerated in the jet is only 1/125 of the mass of moving air.

The Lotus engine software is interesting especially the documentation which I am reading. It seems to deal with steady-state models that do not relate directly to accelerator pumps. This handbook: http://www.grapeaperacing.com/GrapeApeRacing/tech/inductionsystems.pdf describes the technology.

In the case of Helmholtz resonant inflow (at the apropriate rpm) the airflow at the entrance has constant pressure and its speed varies in a sinusoidal cycle, while the air pressure at the inlet port varies sinusoidally. Cuddlyable3 20:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)