F2 Navigation   |  Options  |  Login  |  Register  |  Status  |  FAQ  |  Upload Pics  |  Work-Safe Bookmark and Share


Back to Index | Reply to Topic

Page: 1 2  | Previous  Next | First  Last

  AVFS - Inventor says you can run car on the FUMES from gasoline instead of the gasoline 14.7 mp 4 oz
.
Unregistered

"Hi,

My name is John Weston, the inventor of a fuel system called the Air/Vapor Flow System, referred to as AVFS, and would like to present this to everyone who is into automotive, energy saving systems, environment and new ideas that are a benefit to our society. Not to mention our economy, since the AVFS has been proven to get 14.8 miles on 4oz of 87octane gasoline, witnessed by Mr. Greg Martin, a reporter for the Charlotte Sun-Herald of Port Charlotte Florida.
I developed the AVFS to operate an engine on the gasoline vapors which eliminates liquid gasoline from going to the engine. This does away with any unburned fuel in the exhaust (meaning no need for the EGR system) and reduces the emissions by up to 70 % and possibly even more now (since I am doing further R&D).
With the reporter riding along with me when he was doing the story on the AVFS in the local news paper, we were able to drive 14.8 miles on 4 oz. of liquid gasoline going to the AVFS tank that I had developed and adapted to the 1992 GEO Storm GSI, using the simple materials I was able to afford at the time, being some pvc tubing and fittings, some electrical conduit tubing and a plastic tank that was actually manufactured to be a tank for windshield washer fluid. That added up to be about 460 miles of driving if we had gone through a gallon of gasoline during the ride for proving that the AVFS does actually work and was being witnessed by the reporter so he would be able to be honestly writing a true story.
My reason, hopes and desires for presenting the AVFS in this manner is that perhaps someone would be willing to either come here or have me brought to his/her facility or business, regardless of small or large selection of automobiles or equipment operated by gasoline engines, and give someone the opportunity to see it function in person, on any vehicle chosen to have the AVFS adapted to, the aspects of the AVFS and perhaps present it or assist financially as a means of helping get the AVFS in use for the sake of our environment, economy, energy savings and ability to stop buying so much oil from out of our country.
I thank you for your time and efforts in reading this email and for your response and other actions.
. . .

I did file a patent registration on it before presenting it to others. Plus, being a certified paralegal helped to put together several other AGREEMENTS that are signed before others are shown the whole working of the AVFS. I am hoping this will reach some people who will be able and interested in sponsoring or investing soon. Hate to say, but am at a financial stand still currently and open for sponsorship(s) from $10.00 and up. Even small amounts help in big ways.

Sincerely,
John Weston
17481 Harris Ave.
Port Charlotte, Fl. 33948
(941) 380-2138
AVFSman@aol.com
"


from: http://ideaexchange.timallen.com/viewtopic.php?t=5315

also: http://fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/energy-news/?p=968



?????????????????? What do you think?
KiRBy
No longer in operation.

12071 posts

Scam.
.
Unregistered

I tried his anti-virus and the results were not stellar.

Just sayin.
Hopium
Registered

399 posts

Consider this another of the 200MPG carburetors that never made it to market because the the oil companies had the inventor killed.
.
Unregistered

Hopium said:Consider this another of the 200MPG carburetors that never made it to market because the the oil companies had the inventor killed.



There is a lot of sense in what he is proposing. You can ignite a gas station with a cigarette, and even with static electricity.

The mechanics and details of his work would be beyond me, but he is simply proposing burning the highly flammable gases that arise naturally from the liquid gasoline instead of the liquid gasoline.

Is that how an internal combustion engine works anyway? IDK. The gas goes in, oxygen is added, then a spark = kaboom, ignition. Is that what a car engine is doing anyway?

I don't think liquid petroleum burns - it must be the fumes which we know do burn.

So what is giving him such better results?
.
Unregistered

Gasoline is specifically formulated to vaporize, that is the whole point of gasoline. By vaporizing the fuel, you get a much more even gas to air mixture within the cylinder so that when it sparks you get even compression. Anything to make it vaporize better would be helpful and probably use less fuel.
.
Unregistered

. said:Gasoline is specifically formulated to vaporize, that is the whole point of gasoline. By vaporizing the fuel, you get a much more even gas to air mixture within the cylinder so that when it sparks you get even compression. Anything to make it vaporize better would be helpful and probably use less fuel.



I was thinking Scam poster is probably right - except at the one link, a company did buy his idea for quite a bit of money. They tested it and found that it was getting better gas mileage, but it produced higher smog. Eventually the company dropped his idea and their R&D project because the patent is not unique, so they don't want to go in that direction because they cannot make money without a unique patent!

Hmmm. I wonder what he is on to....
Gary
Registered

2078 posts

If one has to drive a 1992 Geo Storm for this to work then I'd rather have the Gulf be full of oil.
.
Unregistered

Gary said:If one has to drive a 1992 Geo Storm for this to work then I'd rather have the Gulf be full of oil.
\
:genyconnor:



If you were wise, you would be figuring how to have transporation when you have no more gas stations. When your dollar collapse, no one is going to be delivering gas to your corner. You won't have a job, you won't have money, you would fortnate to be able to go get something to eat or water over there.
.
Unregistered

direct fuel injection is so gay
.
Unregistered

some guys claim to increase mpg by lowering the RPMs
Gary
Registered

2078 posts

. said:some guys claim to increase mpg by lowering the RPMs

That seems to work. When I turn my engine off and push the car it uses no fuel at all!
Hopium
Registered

399 posts

. said:There is a lot of sense in what he is proposing. You can ignite a gas station with a cigarette, and even with static electricity.

The mechanics and details of his work would be beyond me, but he is simply proposing burning the highly flammable gases that arise naturally from the liquid gasoline instead of the liquid gasoline.

Is that how an internal combustion engine works anyway? IDK. The gas goes in, oxygen is added, then a spark = kaboom, ignition. Is that what a car engine is doing anyway?

I don't think liquid petroleum burns - it must be the fumes which we know do burn.

So what is giving him such better results?



Liquid gasoline isn't what burned in an engine. The fuel is atomized or vaporized if you will by the intake system and mixed with air at a ratio of roughly 10 to 20 parts of air per part of fuel, ideal being 14.7 to 1 for stoichiometric combustion in a normally aspirated gasoline engine.

The numbers he's throwing around don't stand the BS test. He started with a car that gets 40-50 MPG. With his magic it now gets 400 MPG? That's an 8-10X improvement. Translate that into air/fuel mixture ratios and you're looking at power producing combustion at ratios as high as 200 to 1. All with some fuel system and intake gimmick? Not likely since even ultra lean burn engines are rarely over 50 to 1 and they're more lab experiments than practical. They're also designed that way from the start with super high compression, forced induction etc.

It's easy to explain his results. They're lies. They've allegedly been seen only by some unknown folks at NBC. When an independent lab confirms them they'll be a lot more believable.

.
Unregistered

. said:Hi,
Thanks for posting again. I know what you mean about others being open for trying to take the AVFS idea, soooooo, I did file a patent registration on it before presenting it to others. Plus, being a certified paralegal helped to put together several other AGREEMENTS that are signed before others are shown the whole working of the AVFS.
I am hoping this will reach some people who will be able and interested in sponsoring or investing soon. Hate to say, but am at a financial stand still currently and open for sponsorship(s) from $10.00 and up. Even small amounts help in big ways.
_________________
AVFSman, Inventor of the Air/Vapor Flow System--- "AVFS"

:lmao:
.
Unregistered

Anyone want to buy a bridge? It runs on fumes.
.
Unregistered

Hopium said:Liquid gasoline isn't what burned in an engine. The fuel is atomized or vaporized if you will by the intake system and mixed with air at a ratio of roughly 10 to 20 parts of air per part of fuel, ideal being 14.7 to 1 for stoichiometric combustion in a normally aspirated gasoline engine.

The numbers he's throwing around don't stand the BS test. He started with a car that gets 40-50 MPG. With his magic it now gets 400 MPG? That's an 8-10X improvement. Translate that into air/fuel mixture ratios and you're looking at power producing combustion at ratios as high as 200 to 1. All with some fuel system and intake gimmick? Not likely since even ultra lean burn engines are rarely over 50 to 1 and they're more lab experiments than practical. They're also designed that way from the start with super high compression, forced induction etc.

It's easy to explain his results. They're lies. They've allegedly been seen only by some unknown folks at NBC. When an independent lab confirms them they'll be a lot more believable.



Thanks!

My limited understanding would be that the gasoline liquid goes in, it is put under high pressure, so that more gas or vapor comes out, it is mixed with oxugen and sparked = combustion. Eh?

So it seems that car manufacturers using computers to regulate all that would have already designed as much efficiency v safety v smog laws into their designs.

And what he is proposing is that there is something inefficient in current engines - that he is somehow squeezing more energy out of this system than current car designs. Thank you for clarifying - it is in no one but Big Oil's best interests to waste gasoline.


(Of course, there is a great deal of loss on grid electrical systems and we all have to pay for that loss and pay for never ending recurring payments to the grid. Clearly, it would be more efficient in all non-urban setting for each structure to have its own electrical generation source if possible and be off the grid -and I do believe that this is possible and hidden because THEY cannot make money that way. Last thing THEY want is self-sufficieny of anyone or anything. If we lived like the Amish, we would not need THEM for anything.... Did I ever tell you that the Amish will save millions? they have maintained the old ways that none of us know any more, and they will save millions teaching their low tech... but not yet)
.
Unregistered

. said:Anyone want to buy a bridge? It runs on fumes.



Do the math.

What is the wasted energy factor on a standard modern engine?
.
Unregistered

An ultra high compression engine might be able to produce that kind of efficiency someday, but with existing materials it would have to weigh as much as a tank to withstand the pressure. The added weight would negate any gain in efficiency.
.
Unregistered

this already exists, it's called a DIESEL
.
Unregistered

/
.
Unregistered

. said:direct fuel injection is so gay



I'll call Porsche right away and let them know. :tool:
.
Unregistered

If your car was using more fuel than it needed for proper combustion the plugs would be black and foul out pretty quick.
.
Unregistered

From Popular Science, December 1957, page 79:
"The fuel, of course, goes along in suspension." "... Raw, indigestible fuel slobbers into the cylinders --- into some more than others." "... Slobbering engines are fuel hogs."

"Gasoline in the liquid form does not even burn, much less, explode. Only the vapor that comes from the gasoline will burn. Therefore, to mix raw gasoline with air, and attempt to explode it in an internal combustion engine is a very wasteful, costly, and polluting practice. It also shortens the life of the engine and exhaust system."

"Today's auto engine wastes 75% to 80% of the gasoline energy..." Science News Letter, October 2, 1948, page 221.
.
Unregistered

. said:Do the math.

What is the wasted energy factor on a standard modern engine?



Overall efficency on a typcial modern IC engine is about 25% - so even if you could get both the thermal and mechanical efficiency up to 100% then you would "only" get a 4x fuel consumption improvement.

The numbers that are quoted would imply an overall efficiency of 200-250% - which is clearly impossible.

So it's a scam.
.
Unregistered

that is maybe 20% to 25% of the fuel that got burned. What doesn't burn does not even get measured.

Page: 1 2  | Previous  Next | First  Last

Back to Index | Reply to Topic

 
Quick Reply
Moniker:
Message: