Log in   •   Sign up   •   Subscribe  feed icon

VAPSTER Fuel System Offers Huge Increase in Fuel Mileage

Vapor delivery systems are nothing new. It is a well known fact that the vapor from gasoline burns, not the liquid, which is why we get all the videos of people trying to put out a match in a tank of fuel. Taking this fact, it becomes apparent that we could greatly increase the efficiency of our engines by vaporizing the fuel before it is ignited. Gerald Rowley has developed a system that does just that.

VAPSTER Fuel System InstalledVAPSTER Fuel System Installed
His design is called the V.A.P.S.T.E.R. This is an acronym for Vaporizing Accessory Producing Superior Tuned Engine Response. The system takes advantage of the fuel which is at ambient temperature and preheats the fuel to a specific range. Pre-heating fuel below its flashpoint does two things. First it conditions the fuel to burn more completely by exciting the fuel molecules and secondly the heat helps break down the longer molecular chains of hydrogen and carbon to burn more readily.

When the fuel is not heated or catalyzed before going into the cylinders the result is unburned fuel being forced into the vehicles catalytic converter. So much fuel is wasted by in the exhaust and the catalytic converter. Mr. Rowley has several models to preheat and the condition the fuel. Some models use the exhaust heat from the engine. Some models use electrical heat in addition to engine heat from circulating water and oil. The fuel is drawn from the vehicles main fuel tank then conditioned in a specialized pre-heater before entering the fuel rail of the engine. The heated fuel will partially change state and provide a cleaner and more complete combustion inside the chamber.

How A Vapor Fuel System WorksHow A Vapor Fuel System Works
The benefits of the system are numerous. Probably the highest on everyone's list is the substantial increase in miles per gallon. Aside from that, tailpipe emissions are greatly reduced and thanks to the more efficient burn, your engine will last longer.

Of course, Mr. Rowley has more than enough test data to verify the effects of the system. He himself has the prototype system hooked up to an early 90's Mazda MX6, which would usually see about 30-31 miles per gallon on the highway. On one test with a reporter on board he was able to travel 45 miles on a gallon of gas. These specific tests were run from a separate 1 gallon fuel reservoir manually separated from the main tank of fuel of the car, a 50% increase.

There was also a large scale test done that yielded very similar results. A total of 10 tests were completed, with as many variables as possible kept the same. These tests were completed by a local third party scientist who is a renowned PHD and owns his own testing laboratory. Once the testing was complete, all of the data was compiled and then averaged to get a more accurate representation of the results. The test yielded an amazing 28.71% minimum increase in fuel economy.

Electric Version of the SystemElectric Version of the System
Mr. Rowley also has Beta Testing underway with local fleets in his area. In addition, he is in talks with a local University for testing his designs on diesel engines.

Recently, testing at a certified emissions testing facility in the Southeast US was completed. The results showed 25% reduction in emissions from the baseline set-up of the vehicle. Currently, a second patent has already been submitted supplying updates to the previous patented system. I am sure plans for production are being discussed. I will help spread the word as soon as they are available. Check back for updates on the system.

VAPSTER Fuel Systems

George Delozier
Motorized Innovations
InventorSpot.com

Comments
Dec 4, 2008
by Anonymous

Another gas scam

Smells of another gas scam. In order for this to work, carburetors must be very inefficient. The truth is that they're not. Very little unburned gasoline leaves a modern internal combustion engine.

There's a simple reason that no one else has thought of this before: it doesn't work..

With dialogue like this: First it conditions the fuel to burn more completely by exciting the fuel molecules.

Exciting fuel molecules? Has anyone here taken high school chemistry? Certainly the reporter hasn't. Which is and of itself worry some, and cast a pale on the whole web site.

Dec 4, 2008
by Anonymous

What's wrong with 'exciting

What's wrong with 'exciting fuel molecules'? Heating something up is the very act of adding thermal energy and thus 'exciting' the molecules which makes them more prone to vaporise - ie, have enough energy to escape the liquid state.

Anyway, my big question is what is the weight and size implications of this idea? And, I wonder if merely routing the fuel line through a heat exchanger (the radiator), to partially heat up the fuel, would enhance combustion sufficiently to offset the additional weight of the plumbing?

Dec 5, 2008
by Anonymous

Why they use a early 90 MX6?

Why they use a early 90 MX6? Those must be hard to find right now. Why can't they use a 2000 model? Old car use carburetor ans they don't run efficient anymore; yet they weight only low 2000lb. Replace an inefficient carburetor with a efficient one, you would get 30% improvement right there. That's exactly the controlled test got. Right now any useful improvement should be done base on fuel injection system.

Dec 5, 2008
by Anonymous

Fuel vapor

Sorry, but I am not buying this story for several reasons. A tiny amount of energy is used in the compression stroke to bring the fuel up to near the flash point in the ICE engine. Doing this externally probably can not be more efficient. The combustion and power conversion of fuel in the modern gasoline engine has been optimized so much that little is to be gained unless you change the basic engine cycle. See comments about high school physics above - I agree. As to unburned fuel in the exhaust I disagree again. There is an O2 sensor that tells the engine controls how much fuel to inject for proper combustion. Excess fuel is only delivered during warm-up in cold weather. If the catalytic converter had a constant supply of unburned fuel running through it two things would happen. One, it would burn up quickly. Two, the exhaust emissions would be way too high.

Now having said all that, I still applaud anyone out there who is tinkering with things like this. I don't believe that you need to be an expert in the laws of physics to invent a new technology. If you try enough times you can come up with entirely new technologies and then you can let the physicists figure out why it works.

Whenever you read an article like this one please stop and think. There have been fuel pretreatment attempts going on for many years including magnets, water, heat, filters, etc. None of them work as touted. They attract some media attention and I suppose a bit of investor money, then disappear. All this history makes it even tougher for someone who might have a legitimate solution in this area. Think. Ask questions. Find your own answers. Learn to think at ThinkerJoe.com

Dec 5, 2008
by Anonymous

Vapster

RE Fuel Vapor:

Similar lack of science over the hydrogen boosting scam. People are so desperate that they'll believe anything. I've just about concluded that anything advertised on TV is bogus.

The lack of basic science training in our society is very concerning. The hydrogen booster guys keep saying that the reason it doesn't work is that the O2 sensor is backing the engine off due to the added O2 from their booster.

Hogwash!. The amount of O2 that they are adding is miniscule. A simple calculation shows that.

The bottom line is money. There's a butt ton of it being made on bogus devices, herbal products, homeopathy, etc.

I love tinkering, but in the end, BEFORE YOU BUY IT!, you need to see if it passes a simple test of logic. A little high school chemistry goes a long way.

The real issue here is why reporters are promoting this stuff without doing their homework.

Dec 5, 2008
by Anonymous

Education for the Masses

It appears the Doubting Thomases make up the majority of the population. For your information this technology has been around before the Wright Brothers. If your readers study their history books and go back 100 years, the Wright Brothers used a fuel vaporizer on their first powered "Wright Flyer" model. It is sitting there today at Kitty Hawk, N.C. The Wright Brothers were the first to construct an all aluminum block engine and used the heat from the top of the engine to vaporize the fuel and suck it into the cylinder head. Nobody believed the Wright Brothers either. So, why should they believe me. It doesn't matter, there are numbers that do.

The Germans used this same technology to extend the range on their V-2 rockets.

When I first got the patent, I wrote to all the auto manufacturers to see their interest.
Their reply, "Oh no, we have are own in house engineers working on this." Right!!! That is why I have it installed on a half dozen models and they don't have a single one. Yes, this system is on 4 types of fuel injected engines, 4 cylinders (2.0), 5 cylinders, and 6 cylinders (3.0 and 4.0 liters). Soon to be installed on diesel engines.

You see the picture is an install on a 2007 Canyon 5 cylinder. It works on everything I have installed it on, 1999 Ford Explorer, 2001 Ford Ranger, 2007 Canyon, 1993 Mazda, etc.

The American Public and the World for that matter just doesn't get it, yet!!!. The catalytic converter was the best thing invented by the auto industry for the oil companies. That way you can't see the amount of fuel that gets wasted and burned after the combustion process. The amount of fuel that is wasted is 25-40%. Right the public doesn't know this. In addition, the public doesn't know that the mandated corn fuel (the great Ethanol scam) gives you 30% less fuel mileage than regular blend gasoline.

So, that is why I laugh at these Auto Makers begging for money to stay afloat when they have been feeding the public a bunch of crap gas hog engines all these years.
They should be asking the oil companies because they have such a good job of selling vehicles that suck down their products. So On their Epitaph you can write "They should have listened to the ones that really know their dirty secrets."

"So maybe they will listen now" Vapster Inventor

Dec 6, 2008
by Anonymous

conspiracies.

I love people who promote conspiracies. It's such a weak arguement. True fuel vaporization has been around for a long time. But modern internal combustion engines do not "waste" 30% of gasoline. The inefficiency of internal combustion engines is inherent in the design itself. This reminds me of the 100 mpg carburetor that Big Oil surpressed. If you believe that then I've got WMD's in my backyard I can sell you.

As for doubting Thomases, I'm a PhD in Chemistry with 10 years of bench research. And I can tell you there is an incredible amount of fraud today in the aftermarket gas mileage boosting arena.

Hydrogen boosting, magnets on fuel lines, cyclone air turbine etc, all scams. So if you have something new, expect the get grilled.

I'll be very surprised if this works. But if it does, then congratulations, you'll be rich. The auto companies will pay you dearly. They're not stupid.

But remember we've been burned, and not so much by big oil or Detroit, but by a constant stream of hucksters who are just selling snake oil.

Dec 7, 2008
by Anonymous

Carburetors VS Fuel Injection

First of all, most engines today don't have carburetors they have fuel injection. Carburetors were so inefficient, the engine manufacturers went to fuel injection.

Secondly if you passed fourth grade you know that when water is heated to 212F it has a phase change and turns to steam, thats called exciting the molecules.

Dec 7, 2008
by Anonymous

exciting molecules

I've taken 3 years of advanced organic in graduate school and I've never heard the term "exciting the molecules".

It's imprecise and inaccurate. The only time "excitation" is used is in reference to raising the orbital level of an electron.

I don't think it makes much of a difference to an internal combustion engine if the fuel is preheated.

The combustion temp of the engine is soo much higher.

and yes, i've passed 4th grade. After the PhD, I did med school in 2 years.

Dec 7, 2008
by Anonymous

doubting Thomas's

There is a reason why people question devices such as this one.

There is an incredible amount of fraud in the aftermarket gas boosting arena.

It's not those of us that question these devices that are the enemy, it's the hucksters who sell obviously bogus devices to desperate people.

If this works, this guy will find an buyer, Cessna, Mercury, Ford, Toyota, the Chinese military. The whole world is looking for a solution.

If it doesn't sell, then i'd question the validity of the device.

Meanwhile it's an uphill battle, in a field littered with fraud. You have to prove that you're just not another huckster..

Jan 15, 2009
by Anonymous

Horsepower / BTU "correction"

Sorry spelling error
"when the engine gets hot the fuel is usually vaporised at the intake valve and in the carburettor"
the last word should read " combustion chamber "

I remember years ago Drag racers would run the fuel through a "cool can" filled with dry ice to help get more power.
Wouldn't heating fuel be a step in the wrong direction???