Shell takes advice of Inventor nitrogen enriching their fuel

If you re-read my original posting, you'll see that "my" discussion about the combustion process is focused on the importance of "nitrogen". I was not fuel "type" specific.

Since alcohol based fuels are also mixed with "atmosphere" containing some 72% nitrogen, I suspect nitrogen is still just as important as it is with gasoline.

Now, in your responses to this thread I started you focused on alcohol based fuels espousing thier superiority to gasoline. I agree that with alcohol based fuels there are some benefits, but you must concede there are also some disadvantages.

I will point out that the nation of Brazil made a very serious effort to get off petroleum based fuels, but has since rejected the idea. Don't know all the reasons, but the fact growing crops for fuel displaces crops grown for food causes a whole host of other issues.

I don't care to continue debating alcohol based fuels vs gasoline, but the reality is that while you and I argue over which is better, millions and millions of gallons of PETROLEUM based fuel is being consumed.

A small, incremental change (improvement) in what is in use now is worth infinitely more than something occurring in the future that isn't here, doesn't exist yet and may never exist the way you think.

Back to the purpose of my publishing this post: realized the significance and the role of nitrogen in / during the combustion process pending further / greater understanding which will inevitably come, and I wrapped it around Shell's new patented product.

This post was never about gasoline or alcohol, it was about a significant element, in fact the most dominate element present in / during the combustion process. You see, the truth is this: "you still do not get what I've been trying to say all along."

I've simply pointed out that in my opinion, the "internal combustion engine" is a "nitrogen molecule exciter". Why would I call it that rather than an internal combustion engine? Well, we wouldn't call an engine a spark distributor just because it had a distributor. We wouldn't call it a camshaft spinner just because it does.

Getting something to push down on the piston is the point of the device. Starting a fire and oxidizing something inside is merely a "means" of affecting what we've trapped in the combustion space to do something, that is to push on the piston in order to turn a crank and so forth. Therefore, the more significant or most significant action taking place is the exciting of nitrogen molecules. I therefore consider the combustion / oxidation process a secondary process.

Again, this isn't about the fuel "type", it's about another element present and involved in the combustion process.

OK Voyager, you still do not get what I've been trying to say all along.

Your whole premise seems to me to be saying, "I can make gasoline just as good a fuel as alcohol by adding a nitrogen compound." [I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm just trying to tell what it seems to me that you are saying in a few words to save space]

This is called an "oxygenate". This has been done for a long time in an effort to boost the efficency of gasoline. Alcohol is already an oxygenate and has been added to gasoline for this reason for years. E10(10% ethanol) is required by law during peak pollution periods in high pollution markets because its oxygenate qualities cause more complete combustion of the gasoline. The structural formula for ethanol is CH3CH2OH---the OH radical is the oxygenate and what makes ethanol an alcohol. The same OH radical makes methanol an alcohol with very similar properties, but ethanol is much less toxic and easier and safer to handle than methanol.
My position is that ethanol is a much better fuel than gasoline for internal combustion engines. From environmental, economic, poiitical security and many other standpoints.

I think we'd all be better off if we were filling our tanks up with ethanol instead of gasoline.

Biofuels can do anything that petroleum can, and they can do it better.

With the use of ethanol, we can still have high performance, efficient engines, without the pollution and greenhouse gasses from gasoline, at reasonable cost and with a minimum of disruption to the way we do things now. Our vehicles would remain essentially the same, we'd simply be able to make better use of a better fuel.

I don't question whether your formula to use a nitrogen compound to oxygenate gasoline would work---that is well established. What I'm saying is that we should not be using gasoline, because ethanol can already do what you are trying to be able to get gasoline to do.

"-------"A high compression ratio is desirable because it allows an engine to extract more mechanical energy from a given mass of air-fuel mixture due to its higher thermal efficiency. High ratios place the available oxygen and fuel molecules into a reduced space along with the adiabatic heat of compression - causing better mixing and evaporation of the fuel droplets. Thus they allow increased power at the moment of ignition and the extraction of more useful work from that power by expanding the hot gas to a greater degree."

I don't claim to be all knowing here, I've just been around the racing engines and racing engine development some, not to mention conducting more than 7 years of research and development myself. I've got lots to learn and I'll add, I'm not college educated in the relevant areas, I've just made lots of torque and horsepower, improved efficiency and mileage and so forth. I'm all real world.

Let's take this a little at a time:

1) "A high compression ratio is desirable because it allows an engine to extract more mechanical energy from a given mass of air-fuel mixture due to its higher thermal efficiency"

There's nothing explicit here that supports "higher thermal efficiency" automatically results from higher compression as I pointed out before. You didin't address what I said, you merely repeated and / or quoted something you don't quite understand.

2) "High ratios place the available oxygen and fuel molecules into a reduced space", This is called this "molecular proximity" as I stated before.

3) "High ratios place the available oxygen and fuel molecules into a reduced space along with the adiabatic heat of compression - causing better mixing and evaporation of the fuel droplets."

We do NOT want the fuel "vaporized" - unless it's Smokey's experimental engine.

It's true more compression ratio generates more "mixture motion" and likely better / faster "flame propagation" resulting in increased combustion efficiency, and indirectly then "thermal efficiency" to a small degree.

The manner higher compression ratios are achieved can also hurt combustion efficiency with areas where the flame front (the expanding combustion initiated by the spark plug) is literally "put out".

High compression ratios are not exclusive to alcohol / ethanol / methanol as you repeatedly state. I told you of a 16:1 engine running 92 octane gas. If you require proof, you can research it by googling Engine Masters Competition. It competed a few years back, maybe more recently also, I haven't stayed abreast of what those guys have been doing. I will tell you others have built and run 12 and 13:1 compression for pump gas associated with the competition.

I have personally run 11:1 + cr on pump gas without problem, and currently have a customer running 11.5:1 on pump gas without problem. Either one of these engines could easily be running 12:1 and perhaps 13:1 with only the most minor modification to accommodate the 91 - 92 octane pump gas.

4) "Thus they allow increased power at the moment of ignition and the extraction of more useful work from that power by expanding the hot gas to a greater degree."

This sentence is vague and therefore misleading and limiting to the students concept of what is and is not possible. Our understanding grows all the time. This sentence was written what, forty years ago?

It was Shell who made the claims about the addition of nitrogen. I spoke of the importance of nitrogen and yes, perhaps the addition of some extra - as in nitrous oxide - can increase combustion efficiency, or in other words reduce detonation.

Alcohol burning race engines do not make twice the power of gas engines, if built properly they can make about 20% more power for the reasons I've already stated, namely the benefits derived from the volume of fluid being pumped thru together with the cooling effects of alcohol.

I am not including exotic NITRO - methane or other such types of fuel. Hmm, NITRO - methane. Why does

------"I don't trust your sources Wetdog. You make claims but there is nothing to back up anything you claim to be true."--------

So far, I haven't seen any sources from you. I've answered your assertions check the very first sentence in the previous post.

-------"A high compression ratio is desirable because it allows an engine to extract more mechanical energy from a given mass of air-fuel mixture due to its higher thermal efficiency. High ratios place the available oxygen and fuel molecules into a reduced space along with the adiabatic heat of compression - causing better mixing and evaporation of the fuel droplets. Thus they allow increased power at the moment of ignition and the extraction of more useful work from that power by expanding the hot gas to a greater degree.

Higher compression ratios will however make gasoline engines subject to engine knocking, also known as detonation and this can reduce an engine's efficiency or even physically damage it."-------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_ratio

------"The world is full of people who merely want to enrich and / or aggrandize or who are just full of it. "------

Do you mean like "inventors" who make wild claims and advertising hype with no mention of what their actual invention is or how it works? Who claim adding nitrogen to gasoline significantly improves engine and fuel performance with no independent studies or comparisons to back up any claims that they make? So, exactly what IS your nitrogen that you are adding to the fuel mix? What is your patent number? What exactly is engine performance with and without fuels containing your "secret formula"?

I teach college level physics and chemistry.

All I've seen in your posts are hype and grandiose claims, I haven't seen anything that disproves anything I've said.

All I've said here is a rehash of what happened after the introduction of the first Model T Ford 101 years ago. The first Model T Ford was designed to run on ethanol. Henry Ford always thought ethanol was a better fuel than gasoline also.

Voyager, You said it well. I share your sentiment (NOT about the republican jibe, but everything else was spot-on). Simple fact is, when you argue with an idiot, it becomes increasingly difficult for those watching to know which one is actually the idiot. So the time has come to bid adue those who will not listen to reason or logic (you know, democrats!). Have a great day, and cheers, mate!

"indy cars typically develop 1200 to 1600 bhp with 3L Honda engines..."

There's a lot you don't know. Formula 1, gas or alcohol / ethanol / methanol? Top fuel? Pro Stock? Winston Cup? How about the motorcycle stuff?

What does this prove?

I don't trust your sources Wetdog. You make claims but there is nothing to back up anything you claim to be true.

I can find a dozen experts claiming facts which all contradict one another and you also. You fail to address what I've said. As a result, you are not having a constructive dialog but rather stressing your position as you perceive it, as you have chosen to believe, right or wrong.

The lack of a real dialog leads me to only one conclusion, that I am wasting my time with you as you have an agenda, despite any and all to the contrary, like the Republicans.

I have engaged what you have said by responding to it. You haven't shown me the same respect. It may be that you fundamentally misunderstand and / or don't perceive aspects of the overall equation or that you are in way over your head on the issue, not to mention lacking meaningful 'real world" experience.

The world is full of people who merely want to enrich and / or aggrandize or who are just full of it. With this "cat chasing it's own ass" dialog we are having here, I've got to conclude you are no different.

There are so many factors I or "rightytighty" presented here that you haven't addressed or that you have misstated or that you don't understand the "weight value" of. All facts are not of the same importance, some are more significant than others, some less.

Now, if I have miss-perceived you, and you actually are involved in a "technological way" to the real world, say so, but I seriously doubt you are. So, what kind of lie are you going to feed us?

I'm sorry for being short, but I've encountered this very thing for so many years by self appointed experts but who haven't taken the time to really know what they are talking about, that I can hardly stand it. Don't take it personally.

----"Proponents of alcohol / ethanol fuels overlook the reality that more energy is consumed than is produced. "--------

According to Argonne National Laboratories, the energy cost/return for petroleum is 1.23 : 1 the cost/return on corn ethanol is .73 : 1. This does not factor in the fact that besides ethanol, you also get DDG, high protein animal feed. About 3 gallons of ethanol and 26 lbs. of feed per bushel.

Other crops produce much more ethanol than corn. Sugar cane and sugar beets produce about 6 to 8 times the amount of ethanol per acre that corn does.

Ethanol can even be produced from wood, and we have be able to do this for over 100 years. Ethanol was made from wood in both Germany and the US in commercial quantities before World War 1, and during World War 2. Germany ran its entire economy including Panzer tanks,(faster and heavier than anything the Allies had), V1 and V2 rockets, the Me-163 Komet rocket plane, and the Me-262 Swallow, the world's first operational jet aircraft--on synthetic and biofuels made using the Fischer-Tropsch process first developed in 1924. F-T process is being used in a plant that Range Fuels is build right now in Sopperton GA, to produce 100 million gallons/ year of ethanol from wood waste from logging and milling operations.

Indy race cars typically develop 1200 to 1600 bhp with 3L Honda engines that run on 100% ethanol. This is not theoretical, it is being done right now. Tune in on Memorial Day and watch.

Ethanol is a better fuel than gasoline, it burns cleaner, is safer to handle, engines run cleaner and better with ethanol----and it is renewable, petroleum isn't, unless you want to wait several hundred million years to whip up a new batch.

I'd bet money the little 4 banger is turbo charged making the example misleading at best. And how many cubic inches.

Conveniently, there is no data about the engine build and the photograph chosen, again conveniently doesn't show or reveal anything about the engine.

I've got a buddy who builds turbo charged 350 cid gas engines making 1500 horsepower, and that's not the limit. The same 350 cid engine could make 2500 horsepower, on gas.

I'll add that water has an "infinite" octane rating. Water injection has been and is used on all types of applications for about a century. Adding water increases compression tolerance.

Proponents of alcohol / ethanol fuels overlook the reality that more energy is consumed than is produced. As eager as I am to get off petroleum based fuel, alcohol / ethanol is not a miracle fuel of the future any more than hydrogen.

The future is exactly what I stated much earlier in this thread, that is we will learn to "excite" nitrogen molecules without OXIDIZING anything.

Alcohol / ethanol based fuels is a temporary and misguided effort at best. Baby steps.

With regard to the thermal efficiency of gas engines, it's more like 30% with a race engine. Can't say about commuter engines. Alcohol is not 40% I'm sure.

-----"For this discussion to be meaningful, we've got to separate commuter engines / cars from racing engines / cars. You can't refer to them as one in the same."------

The engines we have on the streets today were developed and proven on the racetracks 30 years ago.
This has always been the case.

Yes, it is possible to tweak gasoline to obtain higher octane ratings. With the addition of such highly toxic substances as lead, MTBE, benzene, toluene and other compounds that are highly poisonous, or carcinogenic. This is bad news for the health of humans and all other living things, and the environment. The greater the the octane rating above 40 for gasoline, the more poisons that were added. Except in one case, ethanol---ethanol is non toxic, it is so safe that it is a standard hand wash in hospitals where health care workers wash their hands with it before and after every patient contact---many times per hour, all day long.
Racing gasoline is indeed higher in octane rating than ordinary pump gasoline. Sonoco 260gtx is also $8 per gallon when bought in 55 gallon drums--the cheapest way to get it.

-----" It's not possible to generate more heat with less BTU's. "------

No, but it is possible to make better, more efficient use of the heat that is produced.

-----"I seriously question the efficiency percentages you are quoting, and thermal efficiency for gas fuel race engines runs around roughly 30%."-----

These numbers are well known and well established. Rudolf Diesel first developed and demonstrated his engine to run on peanut oil.
Flex Fuel engines can run on either petroleum, or E85(85% ethanol) in any combination. However, the weak point is that these engines need to be low compression to handle petroleum gasoline. Engines designed and built to run on ethanol only can be much more efficient. Diesel engines are already high compression, this is the reason that they are so superior in applications calling for rugged durability and efficiency---trucks, train locomotives, heavy equipment, marine ship applications etc. Any diesel engine can run on biodiesel with no modification.
Any diesel engine can also run on ethanol with only minor adjustment needed to adjust the glow plug ignition temperature.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/04/scania-extendin.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency

For this discussion to be meaningful, we've got to separate commuter engines / cars from racing engines / cars. You can't refer to them as one in the same.

Compression ratio only affects "thermal efficiency" indirectly as it is not responsible for the volume of heat absorbed by the cylinder walls, combustion chamber, cooling system, pistons or valves, nor does it affect "directly" the volume of heat lost out the exhaust valve.

Increases in compression ratio speeds up the combustion process which lessens the duration of time heat is absorbed during the combustion process - yes, and increases combustion efficiency due to most likely molecular proximity.

Race engines run up to 15:1, sometimes more with race gas. I've personally run over 11:1 compression on the street on 98 octane pump gas. I know of an engine built to run 92 octane with 16:1 compression.

Combustion chamber technology has evolved quite a lot, allowing several points more compression with the same gas compared to years ago. Cylinder head material, for example aluminum due to it's heat transfer rate (reducing thermal efficiency) allows higher compression ratios still, plus thermal barrier coatings, fuel curve - air / fuel ratios, etc., etc.

It's not possible to generate more heat with less BTU's. Heat remember, is absorbed by the inert gases in the combustion chamber, primarily nitrogen and converted to work or force pressing on the piston.

I seriously question the efficiency percentages you are quoting, and thermal efficiency for gas fuel race engines runs around roughly 30%.

Thermal efficiency is the amount of potential energy(BTUs) converted into actual work in any system.

The governing factor in internal combustion engines is compression ratio. The more air that you can get into a cylinder, the greater the amount of work you can get out by combustion.

The factor that governs how much compression you can get in the engine is octane rating. The greater the octane rating----the greater the compression ratio you can achieve without having the fuel preignite and damage the engine. Backfire.
The octane rating of regular gasoline is 85-87, the octane rating of ethanol is about 115. With regular gasoline, you are limited to compresion ratios of about 9:1, even with expensive high test gasolines, you are still limited to less than 11: 1 compression ratios. With ethanol, you can easily acheive compression ratios of 18:1.

Thermal efficiency for gasoline engines runs about 20%, the energy content of a gallon of gasoline is 115,000 BTUs.

115,000 x .2 = 23,000 BTUs actual work.

The thermal efficiency of ethanol dedicated engines is 45%. The energy contained in a gallon of ethanol is 75,700 BTUs.

75,700 X .45 = 34,065 BTUs actual work.

You can do more work with one gallon of ethanol than you can with gasoline because ethanol engines are more thermally efficient than gasoline engines. Even though the chemical energy contained in ethanol is less than that contained in gasoline.

Watch the Indianapolis 500 on Memorial Day to see what ethanol as a fuel can do.

To the point of the "cooling effects" of alcohol / ethanol fuels and the benefits this provides: the same, or very similar results can be achieved with the use of technologies handed down from NASA and the aero space industry, that of thermal barrier and dispersant coatings.

All of this is off the topic of nitrogen's importance and significance to the combustion process. There are sooooo many areas which can be improved. Improvements can be improved. There is no limitation on the potential advancements, only our imagination and our focus to learn and explore the potential. Just imagine.

Having been involved in the racing industry and around "alcohol" burning race engines, I say with absolute assurance that alcohol requires nearly twice as much volume (of fuel) to generate an equal amount of heat (BTU's) or power.

Alcohol race engines can make on the order of 20% more horsepower in a well designed engine more than conventional race gas.

How does a fuel producing less BTUs make more power than a fuel producing more BTUs? It does so as a result of the "cooling" properties of alcohol together with the shear volume of alcohol being used - the greater volume of fluid being capable of absorbing a greater volume of heat. The cooling effect on the internal components of the engine allow more compression, timing and provides a denser charge - than conventional race gas or pump gas for that matter.

Again though, alcohol / ethanol fuels DO NOT get more miles to the gallon. What does this mean? Well, consider that everyone will be going to the gas station more frequently. There will have to be more shipments of fuel across the highways and rail system.

More trucks driving more miles on the highway means more oil changes, more tires, more accidents, more traffic. Are we saving anything? Is this better? Or, is there a better solution? I think yes.

It is not only easier but faster to affect positive changes which are incremental as opposed to those which require major overhauls.

wetdog,
Alchohol is a great racing fuel, however it is not so good for the real world. It requires nearly TWICE as much methanol to make the same amount of energy (BTU's) as gasoline. So the MPG claim simply doesnt makes sense. Think I am wrong? How much experience have you had with normally-aspirated alchohol powered racing cars? They require MASSIVE fuel pumps to deliver the extra fuel, the jets are twice as big, and everything in the fuel system must be specially coated to resist corrosion. Methanol is also highly toxic, more so than gasoline. To prove the point mathmatically, gasoline produces 18,400 BTU's per pound, where as methanol produces only 9400 BTU's per pound. hence the requirement for almost twice as much. So much for increased fuel economy.

Ethanol is also less efficient than gasoline, produces less BTU's (11,600 btu's/pound) than an equivelant amount of gasoline, again requiring much more ethanol to do the same amount of work as the equivelant amount of gasoline. But better than methonals paltry 9500 BTU's/pound. So it would seem ethanol would be a good compromise, right? Nope. The REAL problem with ethanol is how innefficient it is to manufacture. Did you know that ethanol equires more energy to produce it, than it produces itself? It is an energy-loss product. horribly inefficient, and the WORST type of solution for our future energy needs. Ethanol is great in small scale race fuel production, but terrible for mass production. Just one example is it takes over two gallons of water to produce the crops required for one gallon of ethanol.

Gasoline is so popular as a fuel because it is so efficient. No, it doesnt make as much power as ethanol/methanol in race cars, but it is much more practical in the real world. It has a tremendous BTU/volume ratio. I have seen 112 octane racing gasoline, so I am not sure what you meant about gasoline not achieving the same octane rating as the alchohol fuels note. As you know, the higher the octane number, the more controllably a fuel burns, and this is key in supercharged applications where detonation is a factor. Alchohol works fantastically in these circumstances, because there is so much more fuel in the a/f charge, the fuel absorbs much of the heat, helping control detonation even more so than just its higher octane rating.Thus allowing for even higher boost levels. It IS a kick-ass fuel, no doubt. However, in normally aspirated engines, alchohol also REQUIRES much higher compression ratios because it produces far fewer BTU's than gasoline. The fact that alchohol has such a high octane rating makes it possible to do this. Again, you have to run over TWICE as much alchohol as you would gasoline. (stiometric a/f ratio for gasoline is 14.7:1, for methanol, it is 6.0:1) Suffice it to say gasoline is at every street corner in this nation for a reason. It works. From production to delivery to use in an automobile, gasoline is, at the present, the most efficient fuel known to mankind, for the powering of automobiles on a mass scale. That is why it has been so successful.

My focus first is on stabilizing the combustion process as much as possible, more specifically the fuel to prevent or minimize the occurrence of detonation.

It seems to me detonation limits compression ratio and other parameters which would allow for greater engine efficiency, not to mention torque and horsepower.

I sure we will find other ways to excite the nitrogen molecules besides oxidizing life sustaining oxygen.

Good Thinking Voyager. as an ASE master automobile technician I'm sure we both know the beloved 14.7:1 Stoichiometric balance.

More air less fuel is the holy grail...substituting something in the fuel for air is truly a simple concept but I need more science. Anything shell does I concider a sales tactic.

Plain old alcohol will clean your engine. Plain old alcohol burns at a lower temperature than gasolne and gives off almost 0 pollutants. Plain old alcohol has an octane rating of 115 which gasoline can never achieve, even with the addition of extremely toxic and polluting additives, such as lead compounds.

With an octane rating of 115, this means that alcohol, ethanol, can use compression ratios much higher than gasoline and not preignite(knock---destroy the engine by igniting too soon in the cylinder).
The higher the compression ratio, the greater the thermal efficiency of the engine. This means that more of the energy in the fuel is converted to actual work. Engines designed to run on ethanol can achieve over twice the thermal efficiency of gasoline engines.
This is not new or revolutionary. This has been done for many years. Over 80 years as a matter of fact going back to the 1920's.

Indy League race cars have used alcohol fuel for over 35 years. The only fuel that the fastest most advanced race cars in the world use is 100% ethanol. They achieve 1200 to 1600 bhp and better milage from 3L V8 engines(smaller than in most passenger cars) because with ethanol they can reach thermal efficiencies close to 45% compared to 20% for most gasoline engines.

okay, well for innstance. The engine in my 2005 ford focus is a PZEV (Partial Zero Emmissions Vehicle) engine, which means at times (when the engine is operating at peak efficiency) the air coming out of the tailpipe is as clean, or cleaner, than the air going into the engine. Yet this little engine can make a good deal of power and scoot the little car respecably along. Similarly, if we compare the amount of horsepower current engines make vs thier 60s muscle car versions, what we have achieved is amazing. A brand new corvette with the base v-8 makes 430 horspower. Yet these cars burn very clean, and deliver 26-28 mpg on the highway.And yes, yes I DO get a thrill, and a great one at that, when a 600 hp (or more) v-8 fires up. Even more so when I rev it up and dump the clutch. I have driven a few of the cars that voyager has owned (including that tri-power GTO) and yep, it sure is fun. Whats amazing to me is how modern performance cars are so much cleaner and more efficient. They make more horsepower, from smaller engines, and burn MUCH less fuel. So thier brake-specific-fuel-consumption (how much horspwer is made from a given amount of fuel) numbers have gone way way down. And all that is with technology that has been developed with our current understanding of the internal combustion process. Still, the posibility we have it wrong, and there may be something we have missed that can make it even better, well that is exciting. I f there is something to this nitrogen molecule expansion theory, well, I hope it can be proven, and used to make even MORE powerful engines that burn even LESS fuel and burn even cleaner.

righty, you have a somewhat bizarre sense of humor... I would like to know what you mean by, "tremendous strides using our current understanding..." explain that one, homeboy...

I'll bet even you get a major thrill when you hear those 600 plus horses fire up...

BoyVoyager, how many carbon credits would you need to buy to offset all the smog that those carbs you built helped to create? And that GTO you had, didnt it have not one, not two, but THREE carbs???? Wow, what a polluter! Wait till Al hears about this, he may ban you from current!!!!!!!!! LMAO

By the way, why is that aircleaner stud offset like that?

okay okay already. VoyagerBoy, look. This whole thing about molecule excitment sounds a bit over the top to me. I know, its all so romantic to imagine an engine that doesnt burn petro based fuels. But is it reality? That is the question, isnt it? How do you test this theory? I mean, you have the hypothesis, the theory, and now you need to perform an experiment that proves the theory. So, has this experiment been devised? I mean if this isnt all a bunch of technical mumbo-jumbo, sprinkled in with a bunch more eco-centric romanticism, then prove the damn theory already. This is OLD news. YEARS old news. Prove it already. Or at least show some kind of progress being made in the experimental phase. If what you are saying is actually true, it would behoove you to drop out of film school, stop wasting your time posting on current, and figure this out. This could change the world, and yet all you have done so far is pontificate, flatulate and articluate about it (that was my Jesse jackson impression, not too bad!) Prove it man, prove it. Spoken only as one who has known you for 30 years can speak it. Come on, Tr...err uh, I mean BoyVoyager. If this is as big a deal as you say it is, can what I am saying here be wrong? If you are right, then who knows what potential is waiting to be unleashed in our current designs. But seeing as how we have made such tremendous strides using our current understanding, and not even trying to excite nitrogen molecules, can you really say that is what is taking place? Maybe it really is about burning air and fuel, and the resultant expansion of gasses driving down the pistons. Maybe nitrogen molecules have nothing to do with it. Either way, it is important enough a theory that it needs to be PROVEN or DISPROVEN. That way you can exert your considerable talents on forwarding our technology. Either way, you have a tremendous amount to contribute.As for now, go finish editing that wedding you shot so you can buy me a drink next time we meet.

Plato Tacius - it's all about improving the internal combustion engine's efficiency, be it applied to racing or commuter vehicles. Most engine innovations which allow increased mileage today come by way of the racing industries innovators, of which I like to think I am one.

If we have mistakenly believed an engine was an internal combustion device, but it is really a nitrogen molecule excitement device, we can make dramatic improvements if we then refocus our engineering toward how best to excite nitrogen molecules rather than how best to burn oxygen and a fuel. See the difference?

If we focus on and learn ways to improve the engine's ability to excite nitrogen molecules we will see significant advances in efficiency, reductions in emissions and gas consumption. All good things.

Furthermore, if we allow and accept that the label "internal combustion engine" is a misnomer, and we realize that isn't what we're really doing at all, we can begin to realize that we don't need to oxidize oxygen and a fuel to excite those nitrogen molecules, that there are much better, eco-friendly and renewable methods of doing so. Think, no gas consumption, no burning of that which we would all die without - OXYGEN.

I know, I know, I am SUCH a "meany"! By the way, the last two paragraphs didnt exist until I laid down some constructive criticism. So maybe my being "mean" improved the article. It definitley caused a response from the author, and he IMPROVED the article substantially. If thats what results from being "mean", then maybe being "mean" ain't so bad...

Some people just have to be mean...is it to make themselves feel more important..?

Consider if the concern shouldn't be whether the process proposed here reduces the carbon monoxide or other harmful emissions output...that would be the real gain - to help the environment... that should definitely be a consideration, don't you think, Voyager..? More efficient power is good, but let's improve the alr we breath also...

Ummm, who is this "inventor"? People, people, people, please. Who-What-When-Where-Why. Can we please achieve at least a 5th grade writing level? And all this talk of molecules being excited...who cares if the molocules are excited, when the reader is bored shitless by the story? The only GOOD thing about this story is the picture of that trick carburetor. Looks like a good old- fashioned holley double-pumper. Two thumbs up on the carb pic. Now let's encourage the author to take a remedial writing course.

no confirmation to this rumor you're spreading?

ur such a guy

(giggles)

You should so get royalties but due to inflation I want 5 Euros. You can transfer them to my non-existent Swiss bank account; the number is 0000000001212. But in all seriousness, Kudo's to you man!

Okay, I'll give you a quarter. Dang, I hate this inflation.