Well not working from a schooled mind here, but rather from common
sense... It would seem that in the atomization of the fuel a significant
amount of heat would be lost therefore negating any positive mileage effect
of heating it. Additionally, that heat would be lost to the airstream which
is not going to be of any advantage for power either. It seems (at least to
me) that in and of itself heating the fuel and/or air does offer slight
advantages in one direction (mileage) at the cost of the power and visa
versa. Is the gain worth the cost???
Just like air fuel ratios there is optimal and going richer or leaner
only offers a slight adavantage depending on whether you are looking for
mileage or power. Thus, with the exception of a turbo (or supercharged) car
that generates excessive heat cooling or heating the fuel and or air is like
the "taste great, less filling argument." It is both and neither.
To put this issue back into perspective the initial question regarded
vaporization of the fuel as opposed to the typical atomization. I therefore
would pose three questions to that:
1. I understand that fuel is heated to a vapor. Assuming that a standard
butterfly valve is used to control air flow how would one control the actual
fuel ratio. It seemed that a pool of fuel is heated to provide the vapor. I
also assume that to either be constant, or at least unable to respond to
instantanious changes in air supply. Thus, how in this system is air fuel
ratio maintained with throttle input variation?
2. Once the vapor enters the cooler airstream is it possible that it would
condense and negate the advantages of being a vapor?
3. Just how oderous would this be in a real world application. Imagine the
aroma of this still heated fuel long after the engine has been shut off (can
you say "fuel porcolation"). The enviromentalist would have an ozone layer
meltdown (so to speak).
It seem that this is a "drawing board" issue that can quickly turn into a
dog chasing it's tail.
Tom Witt B9470101
|