One LIE exposed
I often get asked “How far it is possible to travel on a gallon of gasoline“.
The short answer is “A lot farther than most people think!“
I have written several books (and am writing several more) to answer that question.
Here’s a free preview of my upcoming eBook “Double Mileage, Guaranteed“.
There are a lot of facts that are not generally known and in this blog I’ll give one example… and a few of my pet peeves for spice 😉
Remember as you read this, and begin to understand that double or triple mileage is possible (for anyone) and practical (if implemented at the OEM level), that around 60% of the oil that the USA currently ‘consumes’ comes from outside it’s borders.
Not only are you paying for twice as much fuel as you need to, but the USA could be 100% energy independent (within its own borders) in less than two years if very simple technologies that have been known for over 100 years were implemented now.
The cost of implementation of EXISTING practical high mileage technology (even if 100% financed by the government) would be LESS than the cost of the wars the USA fights to preserve it’s ‘right’ to cheap oil.
From my book ‘Extreme Mileage, 101‘:
“The 14.7:1 air:fuel ratio is one example of the many facts that have been ‘skewed’ and/or ‘mis-used’ by the Vested Interest as part of their methods to prevent competent people from developing the means to go over 200 miles on a gallon of fuel. The last 200+ mpg inventor that was able to go public before being suppressed was Charles Nelson Pogue, a Canadian” (google him for more details).
The sad fact is that we have been taught several lies for over a century; the particular lie I’m addressing here is that gasoline internal combustion engines require a 14.7:1 air:fuel (by weight) ratio.
This is true for EXTERNAL combustion
but it is NOT true for INTERNAL combustion
And this is easily proven false if a person does one simple calculation, which I’ll show you below.
This simple calculation is NOT REVEALED to mechanics. It is cleverly avoided during all instruction. It helps that most mechanics don’t really like math, so don’t go looking for inconsistencies in what they are taught.
I call the 14.7:1 air:fuel ratio a LIE because there is NO reason for this knowledge to be withheld from mechanics (or the public) EXCEPT to keep them from understanding that high mileage is possible.
This is lying by miss-applying facts and lying by not telling the whole truth.
I was shown this math by a brilliant high mileage researcher named Allen Wallace back in the 70’s. This proof is so simple, so easily proven and once known, so obvious that the ONLY explanation for it NOT to be taught is that it is deliberately avoided.
I’ll walk you step by step through the simple calculation, so you can prove, using any vehicle of your choice, that you have been (and are being) lied to.
Forgive your mechanic and/or teachers for not knowing this, they were taught the lie and quite literally do not know the truth. Once a mechanic starts working ‘in the trade’, they have a vested interest in continuing the lie.
See if you can persuade them to do this simple calculation using any vehicle of their choosing; you’ll see how they’ll do just about anything to NOT do this calculation! They are afraid to do anything that might prove their training (indoctrination) wrong!
You can use high school math to calculate your actual Air:Fuel Ratio (AFR).
Gasoline internal combustion is normally considered stoichiometric at 14.7:1 air:fuel ratio by weight.
The 14.7:1 AFR is true for external combustion (which is why the ‘chart’ is generally used to ‘prove’ the lie). This is lying by miss-applying a fact, because this ratio (chart) is NOT true for internal combustion, as you will soon see…
To calculate your ACTUAL AFR you need to know:
1. The engine’s displacement, in cubic inches (convert from liters).
2. The engine’s rpm at 60 mph (use a tachometer)
3. The gph at highway speeds (60 mph ideally, it just makes the math easier).
If you know your mpg at 60 mph, you can calculate gph.
(people using metric will need to convert, I haven’t done a metric example yet)
4. Your engine’s volumetric efficiency at rpm of 60 mph (most can assume 70%) If you want to know your VE exactly, calculate it using the method below.
All vehicles have a speedometer, quite a few have a tachometer but few have a mpg (or gph) gauge, or MAP (or vacuum) gauge or intake air temperature gauge or humidity gauge… so until recently it has been a challenge for the average mechanic (even if he was so inclined) calculate the actual AFR of any particular vehicle. Thus the LIE has remained hidden…
Modern technology has made it easy to calculate ACTUAL AFR for most vehicles that have an OBDII port.
You can buy a ‘reader’ like the Scan Gauge (click) that will tell you simultaneously the:
1. MPH,
2. RPM,
3. GPH,
4. MAP
5. IAT
Make sure your scan gauge MPH matches your vehicle speedometer at 60 MPH (if it doesn’t, you can calibrate the scan gauge (I also check my speed with my GPS).
Also it’s a good idea to set your engine displacement and run a few tanks of fuel through your vehicle, so you can calibrate your scan gauge, so that its estimated fuel usage and your actual fuel usage match.
Then set the scan gauge for IAT, RPM, GPH, MAP and go for a drive on a flat road with no wind.
Once you hold a steady 60 mph (using the vehicle’s speedometer) for a few minutes, simultaneously record the IAT, RPM, GPH, MAP.
See the 3 minute video of me using the scan gauge (click) to find real world RAW data using my wife’s 2008 Aveo 5, which has electronic fuel injection. Engine E-TEC II, 1.6 L (97.638 cu in) DOHC I4 – with 5 speed manual trans.
Finally, go to your local weather station (I could access mine online) and get your local weather report (you need this to calculate Volumetric Efficiency).
You’ll need local temperature, pressure (hPa or mb) and air humidity %.
My current local weather is here: http://pentictonweather.co.nf/
Calculating Volumetric Efficiency
Before calculating your ACTUAL AFR, you will need to know your engine’s Volumetric Efficiency. The below calculation will get you pretty close.
I’ve included some conversion calculator links to assist you.
Convert the Scan Gauge readings to the same scales as the local weather measurements, so you can calculate the efficiency ratio.
Convert psi to hPa with pressure conversion calculator
http://www.sensorsone.co.uk/pressure-units-conversion.html
Convert °F to °C
http://www.wbuf.noaa.gov/tempfc.htm
Calculate ambient air density using temperature (°C), barometric pressure (hPa or mb) and humidity %.
http://www.brisbanehotairballooning.com.au/faqs/education/116-calculate-air-density.html
A Scan Gauge on my wife’s Aveo 5 recorded:
@ 60 MPH
8.9 MAP (intake manifold absolute pressure in psi) = 613.63 hPa
39°F IAT (intake air temperature) = 3.89°C
1.76 GPH
2630 RPM
The weather station tells me:
There’s no wind,
1.9°C
1009 mb (barometric pressure), and
66 % humidity
Intake manifold = 3.89°C, 613.63 hPa, 66% humidity = 0.7691 kg/m3
Local ambient = 1.9°C, 1009 hPa, 66% humidity = 1.2758 kg/m3
0.7691 / 1.2758 = 0.60% VE
Convert kg/m3 to lb/ft3
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/density-converter-d_1038.html
1.2758 kg = 0.0796 lb/ft3 weight / density of local ambient air.
Now let’s do the AFR calculation:
I traveled on a flat road in near calm wind on the morning of February 18, 2014. I used a scan gauge (previously calibrated).
1. We multiply 97.638 ci * 0.60 (volumetric efficiency) to get the actual air sucked in per engine displacement = 58.58 (cubic inches).
2. We divide 2630 rpm by 2 to get amount of air the engine’s cylinders (displacement) sucked in air/minute = 1315.
3. We multiply 58.58 (actual air per displacement) * 1315 (intake displacements per minute) = 77032.7 (cubic inches of air per minute).
4. We multiply 77032.7 * 60 (minutes) = 4621962 cubic inches of air per hour.
5. We divide 4621962 by 12 by 12 by 12 to get 2674.75 cubic feet of air per hour.
6. We multiply 2674.75 * 0.0796 (ambient density of ft3 of air) = 212.91 lbs of air per hour.
7. We multiply 1.76 * 6.073 (weight of US gallon of gasoline) = 10.69 lbs of fuel per hour.
8. Finally, we divide 212.91 by 10.69 to get 19.92:1 actual AFR.
19.92:1 actual AFR!
This is with the engine under load, driving normally at 60 mph!
Yes, I know that the fuel mixture varies all the time from ‘rich’ to ‘lean’ and lean is leaner than 14.7:1, but check the AFR charts… They’ll tell you that gasoline will NOT combust properly at 20:1 unless ‘lean burn’ technology is used.
(I’ve heard of 60:1 with ‘extreme lean burn’ technology but doesn’t that just further make my point that 14.7:1 is a lie?).
I assure you the Aveo doesn’t have any kind of ‘lean burn’ technology installed; it is 100% stock at the time of this test.
What do you think is going to happen to the AFR when I cut the fuel consumption by at least 50% while maintaining full power / performance and decreasing both exhaust temperature and all pollutants?
INTERNAL combustion engines COMPRESS the mixture which, among other factors, move all the molecules closer together, allowing leaner mixtures to be burned.
True it’s NOT a stoichiometric mixture but it doesn’t NEED to be. It’s OK if there is excess oxygen as long as the fuel is completely burned at the correct time to convert the heat energy to mechanical energy.
~ This is one of the facts not taught to mechanics and a KEY piece of knowledge for achieving high mileage.
Even the government (EPA) posts that only 39% to 45% of the fuel is burned in the engine, the rest being burned in the catalytic converter… So wouldn’t they’re saying my wife’s Aveo 5 is actually burning a 39.83:1 AFR? I’m thinking these people need to get their lies straight… But wait… Lies can never be straight .
General Example:
Let’s make a general example of a 350 ci engine, running 2000 rpm at 60 mph and 70% volumetric efficiency (volumetric efficiency is how much air actually makes it into the cylinders); the vehicle getting 15 mpg at 60 mph.
Remember, with a four stroke engine, that air is sucked into the cylinders only once every two revolutions; so 2000 rpm is only 1000 intake strokes per minute.
The engine would pump (((((350*0.70)*1000)*60)/12)/12)/12) = ?? cubic feet of air per hour. (A mechanics instructor once told me an internal combustion engine is mainly an air pump).
At STP a cubic foot of air is approximately 0.0807 lbs; so this engine would pump 784 pounds of air an hour.
http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae650.cfm
In average conditions a US gallon weighs about 6.073 lbs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline
This 350 ci engine, running at 2000 rpm @ 60 mph and getting 15 mpg would use 4 gallons of gasoline in an hour. 4*6.3 = 25.2 pounds of fuel per hour Using the above givens, the engine is using (784/25.2) = 31:1 air:fuel ratio by weight. This is under ‘load’, not just idling!
So, you can see that ‘normal’ combustion (which actually wastes 90% of the fuel) in a ubiquitous 350 ci engine IS ALREADY and ACTUALLY over 31:1, even before applying ‘lean burn’ or combustion enhancement technology.
This is why I tell people that the 14.7:1 ratio is a LIE when applied to internal combustion.
NOTE: The 350 ci engine example above was with a carburetor (I consider carburetors to be equivalent to a toilet bowl, flushing fuel into an engine). Electronic Fuel Injection has the potential to be MUCH more efficient than a carburetor, but the potential ISN’T being used.
BTW, its pretty easy to get a 350 ci engine to be doing 25 mpg (without hybrid technology) by just gearing it up (That makes a 51.85:1 air:fuel ratio) and it’s definitely possible to get 200 mpg with no loss of power or performance using vapor fuel technology that was proven by FORD in the 1940s)…
Imagine what 200 mpg does to the mythical 14.7:1 air:fuel ratio.
See my book ‘Extreme Mileage, 101‘ for more details on how my brother and I achieved over 200 mpg in that 1/2 ton pickup truck.
So… how does this knowledge help YOU?
The high mileage and fuel efficiency concepts concealed by this LIE are vital to know if you are to REALLY go farther on a gallon of gasoline… or help your customers save fuel.
1. Because once you know that you have been taught a LIE, (I’d hope) you will be more willing to examine the rest of the truth. There are lots more FACTS that you were NOT taught. Also you should be more willing to ignore ignorant skeptics that are vested in the LIE.
2. Because once you see that internal combustion air:fuel ratios are ALREADY much leaner than ‘officially’ admitted, you raise the next questions like… “What really happens in a combustion chamber?” and “Are there ways to further increase combustion efficiency?”
The answer to the first question has been well researched. The bottom line is that only the portion of gasoline that is vapor, when the spark plug fires, is the fuel that is actually converted into mechanical power. This is another of the KEY points NOT generally taught to mechanics. It’s the same with diesel fuel, it must be converted to vapor and mixed with oxygen before it can combust.
(Timings below were calculated for a 292 ci straight 6 GMC engine at 2000 rpm, but are generally applicable for all reciprocating piston internal combustion engines.)
Conventionally, only about 10% of the gasoline is vapor when the spark plug fires… Because of the way the piston, connecting rod and crankshaft all interact, the combustion must be completed within 5 to 7 milliseconds (from ignition BTDC) for the resulting pressure from the heat energy to be efficiently converted to mechanical energy. Only gasoline in it’s vapor state, already mixed with air, can combust that fast.
The liquid portion of the fuel is wasted. In fact, worse than wasted…
During the ‘initial’ combustion, the liquid fuel does vaporize and mix with air (takes about 25 milliseconds) and then combusts too late to be converted into mechanical power.
In fact, because the exhaust valves open about 30 milliseconds after ignition, this ‘secondary’ burning fuel would then be burning out past the exhaust valves. This is why mechanics are taught that if you ‘lean out’ the fuel mixture you will burn out the exhaust valves.
The ‘conventional’ way ‘they’ solve this ‘late’ combustion overheating is to pump EXTRA liquid fuel into the engine to QUENCH the combustion (when the ‘extra’ liquid turns to vapor it makes the fuel mixture too rich to continue burning).
Then ‘they’ burn all the excess fuel in the exhaust (using catalytic converters) where the fuel’s heat can’t possibly be converted to mechanical power.
There is so much fuel in the exhaust of ‘normal’ engines that I have successfully run engines using the exhaust of other engines as the fuel.
Catalytic converters are a pet peeve of mine… they use up hundreds of tons of precious metals (like platinum) for NO REASON other than to burn excess fuel outside of the engine. These precious metals could be better used to make highly efficient fuel cells, allowing vehicles to be converted to true hybrid electric and achieve (if done properly) 400+ mpg.
Note: Late combustion heat, if one chooses to use ‘liquid fuel’ technology, can be quenched with WATER. No need to waste ‘extra’ fuel to quench the combustion. And it has been well proven that efficient combustion of carbon fuels requires some water to be present. So if you ‘lean’ the liquid fuel, be sure to replace it with water and you will not burn your valves.
But in my not so humble opinion, the best combustion ‘cooling’ option is to simply use fuel that is already in the vapor state (adding NO liquid fuel to the engine).
Then there IS NO late combustion and fuel (heat energy) is efficiently converted into mechanical energy.
There is minimal pollution and the exhaust is cool. There is little or no exhaust pollution and no carbon buildup in the engine.
Pre-vaporization technology can double or triple the fuel economy of any particular engine. There are hundreds of patents to do this… Every one suppressed!
Too Bad this option doesn’t make money for the Vested Interest.
Vaporizing the gasoline is how the Pogue Carburetor achieved over 200 mpg (as publicly tested and proven by FORD). Another similar inventor was Tom Ogle.
It is an easily provable FACT that the ability to achieve high mileage, even extreme mileage, has been known by the automotive industry since the early 1900s.
The technology isn’t rocket science (people have been doing it in their garages for decades) and it’s not expensive if applied at an OEM level.
If engines were generally retrofitted with simple, practical, already proven vapor fuel technology (which can be done in any garage) the vehicle fuel consumption of the world would drop by 50%.
Please keep in mind that internal combustion engines ALREADY run on vapor, the liquid portion of the fuel is wasted; so why put liquid into the engine at all?
If you know some basic facts (instead of the lies), it becomes very easy to increase combustion efficiency.
As presented above, one way to high mileage is to simply turn the fuel into vapor before introducing it into the engine. Thousands of people have already done it, in MANY different ways (research the many thousands of patents for proof of that).
One example, from the 1800s, Karl Benz patented a cold vaporizing technology, an evaporative carburetor (like my HyCO 2A technology) and became one of the first high mileage innovators to be suppressed by the Vested Interest. He was allowed to build his excellent engines and vehicles, but only using liquid, not vapor, fuel technology. BTW another concept to understand is that if it wasn’t for compression the engine wouldn’t even run. Since only 10% (on average) of the fuel is vapor, the actual combustion mixture (the air:vapor fuel) would be too lean to burn if it wasn’t compressed. I hope you think this Blog was worth the time you spent reading it. If you do think so, please forward the permalink (below) to anyone else whom you think might be interested.
Also, I’m compiling all this into an eBook, ‘Double Mileage, Guaranteed’, which (for a limited time) you can pre-view for free (click)
A slice of George Wiseman’s fuel saving history: (click)
Fuel Mileage Suppression by Vested Interest (click) (click)
You can also add comments to the bottom of this blog if you log into your account (I love to see comments).
Till next time
May the blessings be
George Wiseman
