|
The Secret Super High
Mileage Report
Chapter 3
Research
I read a book called "The Secret of the 200 M.P.G.
Carburetor" By Allan Wallace. It explained a simple vaporizing carburetor system and
discussed several of the systems from the past. I wanted to see for myself and set out to
build my own system. First I built a gasoline heater, then a hot water vaporizer, then an
electrical system for heat control, with a dual disk butterfly mixing control with which I
could vary air, fuel ratio from 10-1 to 1000-1. Finally while trying to find in a text
book the boiling temperature of gasoline,. I discovered the principles of Thermal
Catalytic Cracking (TCC). I read that the oil refiners take the heavy oil leftovers and
heat them above 747 degrees with water or hydrogen and break them down to smaller more
useable molecules. The idea hit, the system had to lower the boiling point to make a
difference with vapor because of the principles of refrigeration and compression. That is
to turn vapor back to liquid. Natural gas will stay vapor under our engine compression. It
struck me that this really could cause such a drastic mileage increase.
I took all I had learned and designed and built a system on my 1976
360 c.i. Dodge Maxi-van. It had a large catalytic chamber heated by the exhaust and
electric elements powered by additional alternators capable of reaching this 747 degrees
and beyond. I air pressure tested it at 100 lb. at 900 degrees. I also developed different
systems to feed heated gasoline, air and steam. It was very difficult to get ratio
pressures and temperatures stable. It was difficult to keep it balanced to run. The best I
ever got was 72 M.P.G. for about a 5 mile run as measured by my mileage computer.
I knew I was on the right track, but I also needed to computerize
the whole system including the two fuel injectors, steam injector and the temperature,
natural gas and oxygen sensors. All this would cost big bucks to do effectively. Also I
needed clean, additive free gasoline. It was at this time I decided to write a book hoping
to get financing to further develop the system. As well I felt it important that this
understanding was not lost. I thought possibly this technology had been misunderstood not
suppressed. I felt TCC could explain the mysteries of the previous inventions. The
publicity of the book would get the help I needed to get this done.
As I was laying out the book, it came to me that if I could prove I
was producing natural gas under analysis then it would help prove my theories correct.
I began phoning around to labs at colleges and universities and I
explained what I was doing a hundred times. Finally, in October 1987, I began dialogue
with Professor Eugene Cherniak, an analytical chemist at Brock University in St
Catharines, Ontario. After some initial checking of formula, I was told that there was
certainly enough merit to do some lab testing. It took a long time to set up and I was
anxious to publish my book and theories. I felt for a while that I was just getting jerked
around or put off; it was taking too much time. I went ahead and published my first book
before I knew the laboratory results. I wanted to be sure the idea was explained.
Finally, in the days before Christmas the gas cromatograph proved
that natural gas was produced in the process. The gas was then analyzed again, this time
making use of an ultra violet (U.V.) spectrometer. Again natural gas was indicated. The
actual U.V. test results can be seen on page 19. Specifically the graph indicates
molecular size and quantity and proves the presence of natural gas and other low boiling
hydrocarbons, proving my theories correct.
Professor Cherniak was sufficiently happy with the results to give
me reasonable assurance of the obtainablity of a research grant. I was told go home and
wait for a call.
After 2 weeks, anxious for news, I called for a progress report. The
news the Professor had was not good. He told me that although my ideas were sound, no
money would be made available. More ominously, he told me that the reason the project
would not happen was politics. The professor added only that he was not feeling well and
did not have the ability to pursue the matter any further. I sent a couple of hundred
books out trying to get help, none came.
It was not until June of 1989 that I finally persuaded the professor
to write a letter of recommendation. A letter that I felt was very conservative compared
to the jubilation that he had expressed upon our initial success. That Letter of
recommendation can be found on page 18.
The letter states that it would be very important to find funding
for this project that, "if it is successful, will bring (great benefit) to our
society which is currently plagued by inefficiency and serious pollution." He
promises in the letter that he will personally help me scientifically technologically and
financially. In fact there has been no such aid since the initial work and no help in
finding it elsewhere. I know he had a good heart about the idea but the responses he must
have met presenting the gas analysis must have scared or saddened him greatly.
If the politics that causes this sort of suppression were to occur
in the Arts, there would be violent protest from the general public.
Unfortunately, because of the degree of complexity of this subject
matter, full comprehension of the situation has eluded the general public. In publishing
my first book, I had many people who would tell me they understood it now. I heard many
different testimonies of other inventors, or stories of people buying new cars and getting
fantastic mileage with experimental systems that sneaked out of the factory. Only to be
taken back by the Dealers stating they were experimental and not ready for market. Two out
of every ten would give me a story back and I talked to hundreds of people.
Two years later I got an idea for a video. I found that if I talked
to people and showed them all the books patents and articles with my explanation, 90 %
believed me. I put it all on video with just me explaining it, just what was going on. It
is boring, not Hollywood, but it seemed most anybody who watched it believed and
understood. Many strangers told me so. I sent out 100 copies to various media and
environmental organizations. I got stupid rejection letters or was ignored. The worst was
Greenpeace. Supposedly they are working against global warming and carbon dioxide levels
but I was told it was their policy not to get into private enterprise and would do nothing
and that many people had approached him with similar ideas looking for help. My comment
was that if there were so many on the same track, possibly we were right and they should
look into this. The man I talked to there added "Sorry nothing could be done." I
said, "You are either working for the oil companies or stupid". He said "I
have never got any money from oil companies." I said, "Then there is only one
other option. Why would they ignore all this information when they are getting it from
many sources?
From the very start of combustion engine technology, leading
scientists complained about the very low efficiency of motors that were mass produced. The
automotive engineers claim it is around 20% efficiency. They claim 35% heat lost in the
exhaust, 35% heat lost in the radiator and 10% lost in overcoming friction and wind
resistance. Therefore 20% in propulsion.
However there is another way to look at this formula with amounts
and conversion factors well accepted in the engineering community. It is known that a
medium size car that gets about 20 M.P.G. can maintain 60 M.P.H. on about 12 H.P. To
produce this electrically, it would take about 10 Kilo Watt of power, figuring 746 Watts
per H.P.
10,000 W = 13.4 H.P. 1 B.T.U. of heat is produced by 1 .K.W. in 1 second
1 K.W. X 60 seconds X 60 minutes = 3,600 B.T.U.
10 K.W.H. of electricity = 36,000 B.T.U. of heat
10 K.W.H. = 12 H.P. X 1 hour @ 60 M.P.H. = 60 miles travel
There is approximately 20,000 B.T.U. per pound of gasoline and about
8 lb. per gallon. If you got 20 M.P.G. at 60 M.P.H. it would take 3 gallons for 60 miles
20,000 B.T.U. X 8 Lb. per X 3 gallons = 480,000 B.T.U.s
480,000 by gasoline 36,000 by electricity
This works out at factor 13.3 to 1 or 7.5 % efficiency
A car at 100% efficiency should get 13.3 times farther, 266 miles
per gallon. Now I am not trying to sell electric cars. I just want you to understand there
is tremendous room for improvement. If the numbers are correct and seeing as you can get
these figures and formula from many technical sources they probably are, then 100 M.P.G.
would be a true 40% efficiency. About 5 times better than what we are getting now. It is
quite within the realms of reality and not too good to be true.
| 
