Dark

One Simple Trick to get 100 miles per gallon with less pollution!

Zeek on Earth
Subscribe
Views 1 023 157
84% 8 663 1 569

I take the time to educate you on some simple concepts regarding fuel consumption and pollution. Then I give you the concept behind my invention that is capable of producing the results titled and discussed.
Canadian Patent #: 2,876,642

Science & Technology

Published on

 

Mar 28, 2017

Share:

Link:

Download:

Loading link...

Add to:

My playlist
Watch later
Comments 80
tony c
tony c 9 days ago
That's a good question, It seems like all the greats were killed before their projects got famous. The big powers companies made sure their investments kept making them money
amir ibrahim
amir ibrahim 13 days ago
is there anyone is autorized to refurbish cars am intersted
ACCESS DENIED
ACCESS DENIED Month ago
Don’t be so sure we’ll run out of oil. Look up Abiotic oil
Steve S
Steve S Month ago
Needs to get to the point sooner.
Michael Stanton
Michael Stanton 2 months ago
patents.google.com/patent/US4177779A/en
Michael Stanton
Michael Stanton 2 months ago
Tom Ogle Carb. 1970s fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/energy-news/?page_id=787 Actual scientific journal publications exist that show Shell Corps. progress on the repressed tech.
DOUG HUNTER
DOUG HUNTER 2 months ago
vapor carbs used to work UNTIL all the additives (that is what they are for -so the last third of a tank won't vaporize) ...God bless the good...doug
Radomir Tanase
Radomir Tanase 3 months ago
Nice try. But , you cannot apply new technology for brainwashed population that get to the level they denied everything out of their existence if is not came from mane steam channels. Wait for reality to wakeup them, and only then they are paying any attention to you.
Reginheraht Weiß
Reginheraht Weiß 3 months ago
This is a good solution to burn rate, power and efficiency, however it does not seem safe. Like you've already mentioned, gas can only ignite when it has oxygen to react with. If these are already mixed inside a high pressure tube, a premature ignition would be explosive. There are two main variables to consider: Pro: The earlier they are mixed, the more efficient the burn will be. Con: The earlier they are mixed, the higher the chance of a premature explosion will be + the more explosive it will be, as there is more fuel/oxygen to react. This is where you find a balance. With the methods already in use today, the risk of fuel combusting before reaching the engine is almost zero, as the fuel lines are sealed off from oxygen.
Kenny J
Kenny J 3 months ago
I'd sure love to install this device on my vehicle if I knew where to get it. Great video anyway, thank you. 👍
laughmed864
laughmed864 3 months ago
Never trust a big mouth Canadian
Carlo Vincetti
Carlo Vincetti 3 months ago
He can tell you that it is possible. If he shows you how to make the gasoline into a gas from a liquid he would be killed for doing so by entities with an interest in seeing him no longer breathe. Why? Because billionaires in the oil business dont like to see the money they get change at all if it is less money than they currently get. You can find out how to get the item he is speaking about by researching the patent number. He is not here selling anything. He is just educating you but giving you the ability to obtain the item by giving the patent number. He is definitely not stupid.
Anton Geshelin
Anton Geshelin 3 months ago
This is such a load of BS. The combustion process has been 98 to 99% efficient for the last 50+ years. Hence, getting the last 1% is only going to improve the fuel efficiency by 1%, AT THE MOST!! Fuel does not need to turn into gas to ignite e.g. dynomite. The fire triangle was invented to explain how to fight fires for firemen. All gasoline is completely vaporized because of heat of compression before the spark plug fires. Fuel injection has been around since WWII i.e. 1940. Fighter plane with carburator would stall flying upside down or at high g's. Adding less fuel to a gas engine will result in detonation or very high burn temperature and destroy the engine. There are ways to get around this i.e. diesel and stratified combustion. Gasoline is NOT a good lubricant. It is NOT used to lubricate the cylinder walls. Engine oil is used for lubrication. 2-stroke engines must add it to the gasoline. Natural Gas, and many other gasses have been used as fuel. The atomization is better but in the overall picture of fuel efficiency, it is just that 1% (actually less). So, what is the problem?? This is old news. (Look up Carnot. In 1850's he proved that the best that can be done in any possible engine converting any fuel into heat to make mechanical work is much much less than 100%, closer to 50%). Modern gasoline engines run at 80% of what is possible at that compression. So, if there was no heat loss through the radiator, no friction, perfect combustion, etc. we could get another 25% MAX. Heat engines just waste a lot of energy by their nature. Here is a simple explanation of why this is. When the cylinder is making power and moving down in the power stroke, the molecules inside that cylinder are bouncing and spinning all over the place. It is a complete chaos. If we could line them up, as if fired from a gun battery, and make them just bounce off the piston and transfer all of that energy to the downward motion, then we would get 100%... but this cannot be done. This is a very profound discovery (lookup Boltzman) and rules everything in the universe, including quantum physics! (and helps us answer the theological question of whether it is hot or cold in Hell. Hell is cold at absolute 0!)
Perlito Cabauatan
Perlito Cabauatan 3 months ago
I hope this comment will not be deleted. Our invention on fuel savings and cleaning engine exhaust pollution nuvinuvi.blogspot.com thank you.
udmbfck x
udmbfck x 3 months ago
So here we are almost 3 years later after the video....This skeptic wants to ask: What happened? Why is this not in development now on its way to production? Why are no manufacturers interested in extending the life of ICE vehciles, which is a lot cheaper than changing their manufacturing equipment (initial capital investment in the BILLIONS of $$$ which they may or may not have readily available) to EVs? Wait a minute, the original application was on December 30 2014! That's over 5 years ago! And....no one is interested? REALLY? Oh Please.....don't IDIOTICALLY tell me that it is the Oil Companies that are holding this back.....They are now threatened by the EV industry, which is favored in the market and politically in the dominant Progressive media circles of the day.......don't you think Oil Companies want their fuel to power ICE vehicles for many more decades to come? That they want more ICE vehicles produced? Or do they want to hit the MPG efficiency wall once and for all and go extinct sooner than later? patents.google.com/patent/CA2876642A1/en
Ronnie Childs
Ronnie Childs 3 months ago
This is just one of those scams that simply will not go away. It was around, I remember, at least as far back as the mid 1960's.
El Gwat
El Gwat 3 months ago
I looked up this patent application. Ridiculous. Hire a professional man. I can imagine what it is kind of, but the patent application doesn't really describe anything. This patent application lacks any of the detail necessary to obtain a patent. Much like this video, it is full of platitudes. The only thing you get from it is that there's a bubbler of some sort which causes bubbles to traverse a gas tank, which causes vaporization of the gasoline. Oh wait, my summation is much more descriptive that what is actually stated in the application. And here are his claims: I Claim- The Fuel Saver/ Collector will reduce fuel consumption on the Global market to a fraction of what it is today. I Claim- The Fuel Saver/Collector will reduce greenhouse gasses on a Global level to a small percentage of what is presently created by the burning of fossil fuels. I Claim- The Fuel Saver/Collector will transform decomposing material into a usable fuel product for combustion, rather than emitting methane into the atmosphere. Maybe you should at least read a couple of patent applications before you file a pro se patent application to get an idea of what it should look like.
JohnSays
JohnSays 3 months ago
There are a lot of patents for vapor carburetors. An engineer at GM came up with a vapor carb that would give 250 mpg. In a not to unexpected turn of events, the fuel companies responded to this threat to their bottom lines. They have added shellac (for lack of the proper term) that causes vapor carbs to become totally gummed up over time to stop the vapor carb threat... I'm assuming Zeek on Earth does not know this. The idea is extremely good and can be made workable with gasoline that is not "shellaced." Hint: there is none available to us. For all of you who seemed to miss the "one simple trick." The trick is to first vaporize the liquid thus providing a fuel that will burn up completely and not leave unburned hydrocarbons. Everything he is saying is correct. Also, for those of you too smart to listen to the whole lecture on how an engine works, please think of the people who literally do not know and so would not appreciate the simple trick without a basic understanding of 4 cycle engines.. Again, the trick is to eliminate the liquid before it gets in the engine. The attempt at making better and better injection systems is to get finer and finer mists to increase efficiency of gasoline engines. The reasoning behind that is that the finer the mist, the more of it that will turn to a gas and burn before being expelled. Nothing is more efficient than gas vapor: It cools the burn chamber and then burns perfectly. Another way to think about this: You fill your tank with gasoline and then drive down the road and some of your gas (money) is dribbling onto the ground. The more and faster you drive the more money you lose. You are paying to eject some of the gasoline into the environment and not to power your vehicle. That waste stops if the liquid could first be turned into vapor. Then all your money goes to moving the vehicle.
Meena devi dasi
Meena devi dasi 3 months ago
propane converter...
Manu Manu
Manu Manu 3 months ago
Good to reduce pollution, sure OPEC will increase price for oil to cancel the economic benefits.
Pepper Hunta
Pepper Hunta 3 months ago
he is saying convert ING liquid to gas before it enters the cylinders will give better gas mileage
Shawn Tooley
Shawn Tooley 4 months ago
First he said that liquid gas is needed to cool the inside of the carburetor and then he says he's devised a system to bypass this very necessary stage of combustion. Won't introducing gas vapor instead of liquid gas cause overheating?
The Carver
The Carver 4 months ago
Stanley Meyer, inventor of the water powered engine, had a meeting with some potential investors along with his brother, and died after telling his brother " they poisoned me". But ! if this dream were to become a reality it would only be because what oil we have left would last much longer, allowing the petroleum companies to make big profits for many more years, oh! and the gas pump prices would almost certainly go through the roof because they won't like to see any drop in their annual profits. Then there's the global car manufacturers that have spent heavily on electric vehicle technology, they're not going to drop all that for a "one simple trick" fix. Would be nice to believe that the primary reason behind this trick was to cut pollution, but it mentions 100 miles per gallon first, or was that really 70.
Paul Enzor
Paul Enzor 4 months ago
What a waste of my time! Explained nothing about how the product actually works!
JC and The Moto Heads
Try hho
Robert Maples
Robert Maples 4 months ago
Logically changing the liquid into a gas and use it for other things including vehicles would change that 400 million gallons of liquid gas to an even higher number. I agree that the gas would burn cleaner but it will not help lower the amount of fuel used.
Art Runningbear
Art Runningbear 4 months ago
A new gas was developed in the laboratories in the U.S. that will give all vehicles unlimited fuel, BUT the fuel companies and politicians agreed to accept pay of billions of dollars NOT to bring it out to the public. It is still there ? yes under wraps
Paul Meier
Paul Meier 4 months ago
Aside from telling me what is already known there is no instruction on how to build this thing or where i can get on installed on my vehicle or how much it costs or not even where i can buy one to install myself thereby making this video absolutely useless to the average person like me
Art Runningbear
Art Runningbear 4 months ago
a government program was using fumes to run a car, it was a small item added to the vehicle and it got about 1000 miles to the gallon
Art Runningbear
Art Runningbear 4 months ago
I have a 2006 Toyota and use Hydrogen set up that works great reduces gas and reduces emissions. However in the military we used gravity vehicles.
Stone Tool Company
Stone Tool Company 4 months ago
Pardon me, but you are full of BS.... GDI is the exception, not the rule.... very very few engines use direct injection. Also engines like the Ford Ecoboost of Subaru DIT use targeting to stratify the charge, so that they can burn very lean mixtures under some circumstances..... like a diesel. The wonders of vapor fuel is utter BS for a number of reasons. This has been tried and advocated for many years. It DOES NOT WORK..... PERIOD!!! This is utter bullshit, and I speak from many years of REAL WORLD EXPERIMENTATION. I've been playing with vapor fuel off and on for over 40 years, reading all the literature, and building various experimental systems. It is simply nonsense!! But persistent nonsense. I've done this on large generators and pumping engines running irrigation pumps where there is a fixed load, and I could control the flow of vapor and air, adjust timing in real time, etc. In other words FULL CONTROL OF ALL VARIABLES....... It simply is a fantasy, and utter bullshit. The proof of the proverbial pudding is the efficiency of propane and natural gas engines. There is less energy per gallon in propane than gasoline, but it is a fully vaporized fuel as it enters an engine. Efficiency per gallon of propane versus fuel efficiency per gallon ( or pound ) of gasoline is roughly proportional...... IF YOU BUILD THE ENGINE ACCORDING TO THE NEEDS OF THE TWO FUELS. Propane for example needs a higher compression ratio to be efficient, but even with an optimum engine it does not show the supposed dramatic benefits of vapor fuel. The reason for this is simple...... In a gas engine, the heat of initial combustion converts the fuel to vapor virtually instantly. I can promise you that you WILL NOT achieve these dramatic results, because they are not there to be had. It is appealing as much as I and most others hate oil companies, to believe in a vast conspiracy.... it does not exist, and never has. This is pure "pie in the sky". Having rebuilt literally hundreds of engines over the last 40+ years, and worked independently in a field that allowed me to experiment on fixed load engines as few people ever are able to, I can say with assurance of experience that this nonsense with the exception of the obvious truth that fuels must enter a vapor form to combust... which even a child knows who has watched anything burn. Petroleum fuels in internal combustion engines hit the wall at about 20% efficiency.. perhaps slightly higher with improved technology, but that increase is pretty minuscule. Improved efficiency is to be had from reducing loads, and improved transmission systems that allow an engine to operate in it's optimal efficiency range. The biggest potential gains are to be had in capturing a percentage of the waste heat, and using it for other purposes, as the waste heat is about 80% of the energy of the fuel. This technology exists in the form of change of state salts that can capture heat, as they change from solids to liquids, releasing that heat as they convert back, and that is where we need to be looking. Energy burned for propelling a vehicle, or for heating a building..... what's the difference? It's still fossil fuels burned, and carbon released into the atmosphere, and a depleted resource. You will NOT achieve huge increases in "gas mileage" until you start looking not at "gas mileage" but at fuel energy utilization overall. It's as simple as that. If the gas you burn not only takes you to to work and the grocery store and bar and shopping mall and Dodgers game, but heats your home.... or at least helps..... Then you win. If you focus ONLY on "mileage", you will beat your head against the proverbial wall and never get ahead!!
jeep2liberty
jeep2liberty 4 months ago
Nonsense!
Robert jaramillo
Robert jaramillo 4 months ago
It's actually depressing. Reading these comments, hints and suggests the future of our world will be.... What the French call "les incompatant". (That line is from the movie Home Alone) An Einstein type fellow once said something like "In the future, the only thing we'll have more abundant than the sun, will be stupidity!" Lol "an Einstein type". On another note, Excellent presentation sir! Some kids just don't understand how valuable knowledge is or have any respect for someone who is giving it out for free! Yes, I did quote Albert! I make corny jokes. Thank you for the video!
Rodney Kennedy
Rodney Kennedy 4 months ago
I'm working on an engine that works with urine from pot smokers. It will cruise at any mph.
Rhys Fox
Rhys Fox 4 months ago
run it on fumes
Josh Westegard
Josh Westegard 4 months ago
You are a genius!!!
Greg Olson
Greg Olson 4 months ago
This has been done before years ago. A buddy of mine in grammer school's Dad had a Chevy 350 in the 70's that got 100ish/mpg. He fought the gas companies for years. Finally settled out of court. He got $100,000, got to keep his prototype but could not share or further develop it. Not sure if it is exactly the same. With years of pestering him the only thing he would say is that the gas/air was pretreated before entering the engine. Sounds pretty similar. Oil and diamonds are more plentiful than we are lead to believe. We have several generations of fossil fuels left. Nuclear energy is the bad source. Fukishima is still to this day leaking 100's of millions of gallons of radioactive contaminated water into the pacific on a daily basis. The US and USSR have their leaks too! I am sure others do too! Every energy source has pro's and con's.
R. Cunningham-El
R. Cunningham-El 4 months ago
Nice. Now, where's the video proof of your "one simple trick?"
Wolfmaan
Wolfmaan 4 months ago
Suck, Squeeze, Bang and Blow - how an internal combustion engine works.
HG Mills
HG Mills 4 months ago
Since this video is so loaded with bullshit, if I convert the electrons of it to a gaseous state I should be able to power my entire home for a month (theoretically... lol)
Des Rynne
Des Rynne 4 months ago
One of the Rich families once said -If we cant meter it then we don't want it . Saying that it will never happing
Jim Alexander
Jim Alexander 4 months ago
I believe this to be true. I burn wood for heat in my home. I always thought that wood just burned when it got hot enough until I read an article that explained how heated wood releases gases that burn. My stove has perforated pipes inside across the top that bring in air from outside (below) the stove. Me and my rabbit like to sit and watch fire that seems to shoot out of the holes while flames dance above the logs. Back in the 1970's there were stories circulating about similar concepts/devices. One guy claimed that a nail thrown up by his lawn mower blade pierced the gas tank with a small hole. He said it seemed to never run out of gas after that; his theory was that air entered the small hole and increased the the evaporation rate of the fuel - do you think "running on fumes" is a myth? I'm not a physicist but I've heard there is a calculation for the caloric (as in Energee!) content of an ounce of gasoline. A VERY small amount of gasoline will produce explosions comparable to those produced by TNT. Other people I heard back then used air pumps and an expansion tank of sorts to vaporize the gasoline before introducing it into the manifold. I feel it's only a matter of changing liquid gasoline to a vapor, safely, and mixing it with the appropriate amount of oxygen before or as it enters the cylinder. I kind of think that a small percentage of water vapor could also be introduced with it to increase the pressures produced - quite inexpensively. There are a lot of combustion engines on earth. We are burning our planet's blood and fouling the air.
perry lc
perry lc 4 months ago
10 mins in I’ve forgotten what this is about. So what is the 1 simple thing?
Joseph Pompa
Joseph Pompa 4 months ago
You show a 8 cyl engine and it gets 70 miles to the gallon but how do you do it you don't explain please explain Thank you
Ruth Fitzwater
Ruth Fitzwater 4 months ago
Thanks to all who commented and saved me from wasting my time watching the whole thing.
Mac Kreig
Mac Kreig 4 months ago
fact is a fuel injected non-diesel vehicle that has a properly functioning catalytic converter in its exhaust system puts out cleaner air than it breathes, there is a small amount of water a trace of hydrocarbons and CO2. What is the big offender coal burning powerplants used to make electricity. The reason automakers implemented fuel injection was not for performance it was because a ICE or internal combustion engine could not be made to run as lean as they do with a carbuerator. And heat is by product of the combustion process where you came up with this pyramid I wonder but the formula or target air/fuel ratio lamda or stoichiometric is 14:7 :1 no heat and really no chem reaction, remember physics no energy is ever lost it can be converted thus the atomized fuel is ignited converted to heat. what does this engine require 14 parts air, 7 parts fuel, 1 part carbon and a match to light it (spark plug).
Arno Kilianski
Arno Kilianski 4 months ago
A lot of good information and a lot of BS. Good bye.
Chris Roberts
Chris Roberts 4 months ago
Mo it wont, because big oil is getter richer and richer and richer. Make no mistake the rich are not to let you vite away their wealth. I think because without it they are nothing.
Chris Roberts
Chris Roberts 4 months ago
You all didn't hear what the "trick" as you call it was??? Pay attention much?
Charles McCreary
Charles McCreary 4 months ago
This informaition is correct. Implementation is more difficult. Metering small amounts of liquid fuel relative to volume of air is hard. Which is why most lawnmowers are finicky once dirty and hard to keep running. Metering small amounts of gaseous fuel relative to volume of air is harder... but not impossible. Now design it. Fuel is used to cool valve seats, oil to lubricate piston, and anti-freeze to cool block. With gaseous gasoline and air mixture you now probably creating lean condition...
chip sramek
chip sramek 4 months ago
SHILL ALERT !!!
MrRichinil
MrRichinil 4 months ago
For starters he never says how to get 100 mpg . Second it just plain cant work . If all these guys that promote these miracles their names would be plastered all over the news . FAKE . FAKE .
Steven Leber
Steven Leber 4 months ago
I did one better. Using just a crescent wrench and a flat blade screwdriver, I increased the horsepower on my 1969 Toyota Corolla to 850 HP with just one simple adjustment and I am now able to drive almost 3,000 miles on a tank of gas, which holds 4 gallons of gas. You may bullshit kanaydians, but don't try to insult the intelligence of an American, aye!
Ajax Ashford
Ajax Ashford 4 months ago
Bullshit. I can't create more than I take in. Somehow a gal of gas creates 24lbs of carbon gasses?
Bill Clegg
Bill Clegg 4 months ago
i like how he said his invention hho was invented in the 70's and the guy mysteriously died of a heart attack at dinner with his wife and hour after a meeting with oil companies trying to pay him off....ruvid.net/video/video-im9KsCKaw2I.html
CONTACTLIGHTTOMMY
CONTACTLIGHTTOMMY 4 months ago
Jesus Christ man...spare us the RUvid video and make a working model of what you are espousing. These fruitcakes never do it because these crackpot ideas never work in real life...only on YT.
TIMMY NEELEY
TIMMY NEELEY 4 months ago
There is another inventor that has a engine that burns sea water. It burns over 40 times more then gasoline. Look it up. Look up Joe cell same thing a guy figured out a way and they killed him and shut another inventor up through intimidation. So be careful trying to save to world ask Jesus what happens
TIMMY NEELEY
TIMMY NEELEY 4 months ago
A guy was getting 200 miles a gallon doing same thing in 70,s they killed him and stole all his work. The men in black dont play you fuck with there money. Also oil is not fossil fuel and it's the second most abundant liquid in this world. People you all are brainwashed idiots. Wake up
Allen Wilson
Allen Wilson 4 months ago
Awesome Presentation !!! I've watched your video before but it was suggested by YT so I watched it again. Thank you for trying to educate our propagandized Brothers and Sisters !!!
Zeek on Earth
Zeek on Earth 4 months ago
Thank you.
Eric Scaillet
Eric Scaillet 4 months ago
By his incomplete video one can deduce that the liquid is atomised a bit more and hence less is used - so by the same token a gas conversion should save $ but it does not really.
pontiac411
pontiac411 4 months ago
Here is a real world test of running an engine on fuel vapor, it has been tested for decades, the problem with the (ICE) internal combustion engine) is thermal efficiency not fuel delvery, the best ICE (well developed NASCAR engine) has about a 30% efficiency, average engines are 25 to 28%... ruvid.net/video/video-IuGWHfWqWtg.html
pontiac411
pontiac411 4 months ago
Fuel does not cool and lubricate the cylinder wall, lubrication comes from the oil in the oil ring and cooling comes from the water jacket... fuel on the cylinder walls lead to increased friction, premature ring wear and increased blow by.
pontiac411
pontiac411 4 months ago
Oil is not fossil fuel, we have more of it now than ever before... How many barrels of oil do you get from a Dinosaur? How do you get them to all die in one hole to make an oil well?
jerry metcalf
jerry metcalf 4 months ago
This guy is a moron, my first clue? When he said " fossil fuel" which it is not, the material we call crude oil is of mineral origin and percolates from deep within the Earth's crust, the process pushed along by heat from the Earth's mantle of molten material, this guy is clueless, you can get extreme mileage from your cheap little rice grinder, until the heat generated by extremely lean conditions melts the Pistons. Then your done
Harley Me
Harley Me 5 months ago
what we all dont know, well I know gasoline is less efficient then a steam engine. I also know the effeciency is less then 40% ( meaning if you calculate how much is going in, and how much energy you get from it.. pathetic really and the end run, I KNOW that big oil will never release they're stranglehold on better fuels.. one proof is Stanley Meyer.. the guy who invented the car that ran on water (in ran on hydrogen/oxygen split from water) but he was poisoned to death... wonder why you'd kill someone if his stuff didn't work...
Steven Worley
Steven Worley 5 months ago
good points Harley. Tip for you, "then" and "than" are two different words. Check it out, you'll sound smarter. Fusion may be our savior once quantum computing is harnessed..... Until then, Shell Oil for me.
Harley Me
Harley Me 5 months ago
yup, its really easy, I get infinite miles off 0 gallons of gasoline.... because I'm splitting water with electrolysis and using the hydrogen and oxygen to run the car... lol dont give me any bullshit. gasoline = 87 to 94. and all of it doesn't turn to energy. hydrogen = 130 octane. and all of it is energy. so how bout 100 miles on 1 ounce of water... LOL get fucked oil company
Nick Rudd
Nick Rudd 5 months ago
That will cost the fuel companies millions, Dont expect help and get yourself insured.
Michael Bergman
Michael Bergman 4 months ago
Actually, it could extend their life and keep them relevant in the face of solar and wind power.
Mike Ransom
Mike Ransom 5 months ago
If this happened, government would have to increase taxes on gasoline to make up for their "revenue loss". This happens whenever government gets comfortable with any level of funding and then somebody gets clever and finds a way to reduce consumption of the base metric of the revenue stream. Example: San Francisco bay area residents were told they must conserve half their water during California's drought. The residents did, the water company's complained that they weren't receiving enough revenue. The water commission "adjusted" the water rate so the water companies were receiving the same revenue by supplying half the water.
PETER JOHN BRANDAL
PETER JOHN BRANDAL 5 months ago
We are in no way approaching a shortage of petroleum, in part due to the fact that reservoirs are much larger than previously thought, and in part due to advances in extraction technology. At the same time, advances in battery technology promise to make fossil fuels unnecessary by mid century. By that time, every car will be electric, and by 2080, every airplane and every boat will also be electric. Petroleum will continue to be used for basic power generation for a while, but even that will be short lived as solar and stored energy become cheaper than drilling for oil.
jj cale
jj cale 5 months ago
The liquid fuel does not lubricate the cylinder, unless it's a two stroke engine 😕 and then it is gasoline mix with ~2% mineral oil. But you are right about the liquid gasoline will cool the engine, ask any Nascar driver
Dennis Warren
Dennis Warren 5 months ago
Carburetors ionized gas already.
Matthew Fogarty
Matthew Fogarty 5 months ago
One huge problem is gasoline vapor is highly explosive and easily ignited. Smokey Yunick developed a hot vapor 4 cylinder in a Pontiac Fiero back in the late 80's, all that disappeared when he died. There's jokers on YT and other places that say they have his stuff, but I saw the originals at his shop in Fla. and the junk they have just ain't it. I know and older guy way up north that uses a modded diesel injection pump and return system and a ethanol/diesel mix in a Geo metro and gets 77 mpg, he's too old to compete in the mileage competition they hold upstate N.Y. every year but if he did he'd beat them by about 9 mpg. His car isn't fast but he only fills the tank once every 3 weeks and uses it less now but it was his daily transport for years. He used to make all his own fuel too, his advanced age has forced him to buy the diesel now.
Michael Brogan
Michael Brogan 5 months ago
here is a video for you to learn from! ruvid.net/video/video-hrRiBomPih8.html hope this helps your soul!
American made
American made 5 months ago
I've decided to buy a Tesla wish me luck
Dave Smith
Dave Smith 5 months ago
Sounds like a dirtier version of Brown's gas.
Tim Miller Installations
Warning: He's trying to fool people into thinking our cars pump out "4 to 6 tons of pollution per car per year". Fact: The 4 to 6 tons of weight consists mostly of the OXYGEN that the engine pumps through it and out the tailpipe. The oxygen is being counted in the weight too! The actual "particles of pollution" weight figures are never given to us by experts, because the amount is so tiny as not to be weighed. The truth is that 4 to 6 tons of "EXHAUST" ( mostly oxygen and very minimal tiny particles of actual "pollution" ) is pumped out of our cars. The person in the video is saying the weight and calling it "pollution" in a scare tactic manner. The 4 to 6 tons weight will be the same, invention or not, no matter what, since it is mostly oxygen that is measured for the weight figures. No one can call Exhaust "pollution" without calling Oxygen pollution, because it is mostly Oxygen that is coming out of the tailpipe. Oxygen should never be counted in any weight measurement or figures and touted as pollution! Measure the tiny particles of actual pollution and then we can talk pollution weights. When someone says "tons of pollution" they really are including all the oxygen in the exhaust also (which is deceiving), as it is nearly all oxygen in those tons, so don't believe the hype.
Ray Man
Ray Man 5 months ago
Just go electric ⚡️
John Vicary
John Vicary 5 months ago
i ran a vehicle with 2 fuels. lpg and petrol. on LPG i only got half the mileage of petrol and less power. finally gave it away as a bad joke
ray boone
ray boone 4 months ago
Similar to alcohol/methanol.
Dennis Warren
Dennis Warren 5 months ago
Energy content of LPG and gasoline are different. About 1.4 gallons of LPG is equivalent to 1.0 gallons of gasoline. So, your mileage (per gallon) on LPG would indeed be lower than on gasoline.
RevOlutiOn
RevOlutiOn 5 months ago
Of course it can, but I thought you wanted to reduce the so-called 400 million gallons, not increase its usage in just about everything except maybe the kitchen sink and power toothbrushes. Where are the savings then? Just heat the fuel before it reaches the injectors. Works well.
John Papa
John Papa 5 months ago
Dude, get to the point. We don't need a lecture. We already want better fuel milage.
Next videos
Rest in Peace.
6:26
Views 9 276 936
Prius MAX MPG Secrets
09:57