Anyone ever hear about this supposed carburetor invented by Charles N. Pogue in the 30's?

I just heard about this on an Urban legend TV show yesterday. They said it was real, but didn't elaborate more on the subject.

What have you guys heard about it? What are some of the supposed drawbacks to it?

I heard they may have used them on military vehicles in WW2 but removed them as soon as the use of the vehicle was not needed.

I read about this contraption quite a while ago. I believe that it was an "evaporative carburetor" in that a reservoir of gasoline was maintained in a chamber with a float valve and exhaust heat was applied to the gasoline filled chamber to completely vaporize the liquid into gasoline. The intake to the engine was taken from the chamber and outside air was drawn into it. The carburetor reportedly worked but it sounded like an explosion could very easily happen with this design. One backfire or misplaced spark and------BOOM!!!! There was a book wriitten about these 200 Pogue and Fish carburetors of the day but I have not seen a copy in some time.

------------------
87GT 3.4 Turbo- 0-60 5.2 seconds -Best
Engine Controls, ECM goodies, Chip
re-programming & odd electronics stuff

Of course, with a modern understanding of physics and chemistry it's easy to see how a 200 mpg carb would be impossible in what we would think of as a real, practical car. The amount of energy contained in a gallon of gasoline is known very, very accurately, the amount that can be turned into real crankshaft energy is well known, and the amount of that energy that is blown out the tailpipe and radiator as waste heat is well known. To do 200 mpg would only be possible on a few hundred pound vehicle moving at fairly slow speeds as to not lose energy to air resistance.

And, if you took that same engine and put a modern fuel injection system with O2 sensor feedback on it you'd probably get 250-300 MPG, all other variables left the same.

JazzMan

Here is a little information on the carburetor:

Jan. 3, 1935 J1-A,1,21 CARBURETION, POGUE, Pat.#353538 (Canadian) Charles N. Pogue is issued a Canadian Patent for a High Mileage Carburetor. (see 1/7/36) (See 1981, Ultra-Lean carburetors)

Here are a couple of books available:

"SECRETS OF THE 200 MPG CARBURETOR BY ALLAN WALLACE" (C) 1980 published by Premier Publishers Fort Worth Texas.

"VAPOR CARBURETION CONVERSION SYSTEM" by Ray Covey, published 1984 by Carb Research Center in Foyil, Oklahoma 74031.

"HIGH MILEAGE VAPOR PHASE CARBURETOR" in 1982. by C.R.C. Box 1, Foyil, OK 74031.

"SECRETS OF SUPER MILEAGE CARBURETORS" by Reno Sales (c) 1982. Published by Premier Publishers P.O. Box 16254 Fort Worth, Texas 76133.

The all seem to be vapor system to basically break down the gas first before.

quote Originally posted by EngineerBill: "VAPOR CARBURETION CONVERSION SYSTEM" by Ray Covey, published 1984 by Carb Research Center in Foyil, Oklahoma 74031.

I think I have this buried in my motor library somewhere. I'll try to dig it out and post it.

As I recall the gas was 'distilled' in a box chamber through coileded tubing in the exhaust stream and delivered to the carb in a vapor state.
I had instructions on the "how to" but I'm not sure I still have that stuff.

Sort of similar to propane conversion.

[This message has been edited by Indiana_resto_guy (edited 07-04-2005).]

Don't forget Smokey Yunick's "Hot Vapor" engine.

https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum1/HTML/050026.html

And if 100% vaporization of the fuel was such a big factor in efficiency you'd see all the fleet operators converting over to propane which much of the time sells for less than gasoline on a $/gallon and even $/btu basis. The fact is the efficiency of an internal combustion engine running on propane vapors is not a lot different than one running on fuel infected gasoline.

A typical internal combustion engine is about 30% efficient. If that's getting 30 mpg installed in a car then you need something like 200% efficiency to get 200 mpg. Ain't gonna happen.

This efficiency rating has little to do with how much unburned fuel is going out the exhaust (which is a very small percentage even in an engine that is running rich). The efficiency has a lot to do with the amount of heat that is leaving in the exhaust gases (>1000 'F) and the heat that is rejected into the coolant. Large heat losses to these two locations are pretty much unavoidable.

...then there is this article that I came across some time ago as well...

200 mpg probably won't be attainable - especially with all the widgets we hang off motors, but major increases in gas mileage are definately out there to be had. I have personally seen two home built units installed and operating in the past. (Neither of which I would recommend to anyone here to try -- nor would I want to reproduce myself.)

One was called something like a "nay box" (or perhaps "neigh box") which was essentially an aluminum box which was packed with steel wool. It circulated hot gas around in it & drew in the air across it. It was tuned by sliding closures across various openings in the box. Not practicle and definately dangerous, but the fellow pulled down around 50 or so mpg on a late 70's model cadilac. An interesting experiment at best.

The other unit was a bit more sophisticated in that it used a positive displacement pump that you manually tuned the rate to adjust the fuel mix based on motor speed. The gas was pumped through a home made heat exchanger that was fabricated from a pipe packed with strands of steel wire. The exchanger was wrapped with nichrome wire, ceramic coated, and powered by a hefty alternator (obtained from a wrecked ambulance). It heated the gas to about 800 F or so and dumped it into the throttle body. Again, not practicle but they were simply experimenting with the point of systems using volatilized gasoline. This unit (on the same caddy) put out over 80 mpg and was thought to be able to obtain about 100 mpg.

Both units had major practicality issues and were not safe. As well, while obtaining the higher mpg the power of the motor dropped dramatically. Bottom line, the new electric hybrids blow this technology out of the water.

quote Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: ...then there is this article that I came across some time ago as well...

So we have a high power, low weight engine that needs no air, doesn't pollute, runs cool, and can run for 75,000 miles without refueling? Not only that, but a 100 hp version of engine also produces 12kW of surplus electricty just by running. How did he manage this? By developing cold fusion that runs at 130°F external temperature. And he did this in the 70's but nothing has come of it. Gee, I wonder if this is real.

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: And he did this in the 70's but nothing has come of it. Gee, I wonder if this is real.

More on where it's gone here http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue51/papp.html

------------------
Fiero Fiesta - July 24, 2005 - Calgary, Alberta <--- click this LINK

3.4L S/C 87 GT www.fierosound.com
2002/2003/2004 World of Wheels Winner &
Multiple IASCA Stereo Award Winner

Actually allot of fleets do use propane...

Besides fuel cost they also have much lower emissions and get various tax breaks for doing it.

The main reason this isn't common beyond fleet operations is lack of fueling stations. Many places that sell propane for camping/grills either can't or won't fill propane vehicles. (It may not be legal in some areas. Taxes and Fire codes may block it.)

------------------
Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.
(Jurasic Park)

The Ogre's Fiero Cave (It's also at the top of every forum page...)

Remember one thing, If you want power then you have to pay. If you want miles per gallon, then you loose power. You cannot have both.
Don

Speaking of different kinds of engines...check this out

http://www.rotoblock.com/

http://www.rotoblock.com/howitworks.shtml

[This message has been edited by texasfiero (edited 07-05-2005).]

quote Originally posted by theogre: Actually allot of fleets do use propane... Besides fuel cost they also have much lower emissions and get various tax breaks for doing it. The main reason this isn't common beyond fleet operations is lack of fueling stations. Many places that sell propane for camping/grills either can't or won't fill propane vehicles. (It may not be legal in some areas. Taxes and Fire codes may block it.)

Sure they are doing it for emissions and green image PR. If you really got 6X the mileage it would absolutely be 100% participation. Heck they would be building the refueling facilities like crazy for even a 20% efficiency gain. 6X efficiency gains by just pre-vaporizing the fuel are pure bunk with no basis in thermodynamics.

At least with the Papp engine (noble gas) technology there is a basis - cold fusion. If you buy into that then the thermodynamics can make sense.

[This message has been edited by sanderson (edited 07-05-2005).]

Happy investigating....

http://www.rexresearch.com/auto/carbusp.htm

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: So we have a high power, low weight engine that needs no air, doesn't pollute, runs cool, and can run for 75,000 miles without refueling? Not only that, but a 100 hp version of engine also produces 12kW of surplus electricty just by running. How did he manage this? By developing cold fusion that runs at 130°F external temperature. And he did this in the 70's but nothing has come of it. Gee, I wonder if this is real.

Not quite, it requires 60 kW per 100 hp to run.

An electric motor of the same draw would produce about 80 hp and weight far less. It would also use far less power at lower speeds.