PICC Pre-Ignition Catalytic Converter

[putztastics]

The PICC, Pre-Ignition Catalytic Converter is a breakthrough new technology that could get your car up to five times the gas mileage!

Pre-vaporizing and reacting fuel in a catalyst before injecting.

Interesting.

[automotive breath]

The PICC, Pre-Ignition Catalytic Converter is a breakthrough new technology that could get your car up to five times the gas mileage!

Pre-vaporizing and reacting fuel in a catalyst before injecting.

Interesting.

I think thats the same thing MPGMike was talking about here earlier.

I actually do make a living from fuel economy. I don't sell simple
resistors, we do address the computer, and we are 100% EPA compliant...

...Without spamming an ad here, our kit averages about 85% increase
in mileage with some going over 3X. It is doable to say the least.

Mike

[Dodge Freak]

Oh no, not these BS ads again.

We had these already in the 70's, I am still waiting for my 50-70 mpg V8 motor to come in the mail, ha ha.

[MadBill]

Don't know about the PICC device, or on minute percentages of injected H2 (can we call it homeopathic hydrogen?) but I did consult for over a year with a major Canadian university working on hydrogen/Natural gas mixture-powered late model GM trucks, and from 100% hydrogen down to 3%, nothing unexpected occurred.

[putztastics]

I thought the company Mike was involved with was in NJ.

I don't recall the catalytic converter/vaporizer part either.

[bobqzzi]

Don't know about the PICC device, or on minute percentages of injected H2 (can we call it homeopathic hydrogen?) but I did consult for over a year with a major Canadian university working on hydrogen/Natural gas mixture-powered late model GM trucks, and from 100% hydrogen down to 3%, nothing unexpected occurred.

but, but , but, but the website says I can get 200mpg!!!

[putztastics]

Well how much of the fuel actually burns in the combustion chamber? Does anyone know the percentage?

We know its not all as there are unburned hydrocarbons in exhaust for the converter to "burn".

If we increase the amount of fuel that's vaporizized before the chamber wouldn't the amount of unburned hydrocarbons in the exhaust go down?

This is why the high mileage thing has always made some sense to me. Liquid fuel doesn't burn so with vaporizing the fuel 100% like Smokey did in his hot vapor engines wouldn't the mileage will increase? It seems the mileage did in cars with Smokey's hot vapor engine, why did it? Or was he lying too?

[Dodge Freak]

Its too bad Smokey died. I have not hear anything about his motors since then.

I understood he was talking with some big name people, then he passed away.

The rumor long ago was every time somebody came up with an idea to save alot a gas, the oil company's would buy the patten off them and hide it forever.

But you would think by now the cat would have been out of the bag, if it was true.

As for Smokey's ideas gosh, I hope nobody paid him to keep it off the market.

[automotive breath]

I thought the company Mike was involved with was in NJ

http://www.energyempire.com/training.html

[putztastics]

That's who my neighbor is hooked up with so hopefully I'll hear how it goes for him.

You gonna try these mods AB?

[bobqzzi]

Everything about that site screams scam.

Look at the example they give for the fuel improvements:


"Can you imagine what being able to burn all the gasoline in your engine would mean to fuel savings? Here’s what our scientific testing has shown: In one test at our Research Facility, we got 9X the fuel efficiency from a gas guzzling 318 V-8 Chrysler engine. We ran a 318 V-8 Chrysler engine on a brand new state of the art dynamometer (the same testing equipment that Detroit uses) at 3,000 rpms under a 50% load for an hour. This test condition approximated an 8 cylinder van with a 318 engine, traveling up a 30 degree incline for one hour, at 65 miles per hour. Before the PICC modification, the engine used 18 pounds of fuel. At an average weight of 6.15 pounds per gallon for gasoline, that would equal 2.93 gallons of fuel. Converting that into miles per gallon, it got around 22 mpg.

The researchers then switched the fuel injection process to the PICC Modification and ran the engine under the exact same conditions for another hour. Now, the engine used only 2 pounds of fuel instead of 18 — an increase in efficiency of 9x. In other words, the vehicle traveling at 65 mph up a 30 degree incline for an hour would have obtained almost 200 mpg! When they shut off the engine, the researchers reported that it coasted on the plasma for another two minutes. "

First, 22mpg in a van at 65mph..on a 30 degree incline which is about 55 percent grade.

And then they managed to improve that 9 times.

And exactly where is the "plasma" that it runs on for 2 minutes?

There is a word for their claims, and it is "lies"

[Dodge Freak]

If anybody really believes they got 200 mpg on a Mopar 318 motor well they believe just about anything.

The auto makers are pulling their hair out worrying how they get an average of 35 mpg by the year 2020.

Where is the feds to stop these people. Talk about false advertisement, this takes the cake.

Somebody is most likely getting rich off this BS too

[Brian P]

Well how much of the fuel actually burns in the combustion chamber? Does anyone know the percentage?

In the case of a modern properly calibrated turbodiesel engine, it is >99%. (Seriously - it's true.) For a gasoline engine, it's not that high, but it is still a high percentage.

We know its not all as there are unburned hydrocarbons in exhaust for the converter to "burn".

500 parts per million of hydrocarbons will trigger emission testing alarm bells. 500 parts per million of hydrocarbons is <<1% of the original fuel input. Suppose some magic miracle occurred that would allow this to be reduced to zero. It will increase combustion efficiency from 99% to 100%, which is impossible to achieve, but "suppose". The person filling the tank with fuel day to day won't notice the difference between 99% and 100% combustion efficiency.

If we increase the amount of fuel that's vaporizized before the chamber wouldn't the amount of unburned hydrocarbons in the exhaust go down?

Partially, to some extent, but only because pre-vaporized fuel can't centrifuge out of the air/fuel mixture, hit the cylinder walls, and end up in the crevice volumes. Substantially all of the fuel in the main chamber is either vaporized or in small enough particles to participate in combustion by the end of the compression stroke, even if it was drawn in as an atomized mist.

This is why the high mileage thing has always made some sense to me. Liquid fuel doesn't burn so with vaporizing the fuel 100% like Smokey did in his hot vapor engines wouldn't the mileage will increase? It seems the mileage did in cars with Smokey's hot vapor engine, why did it? Or was he lying too?

No, I'm a fan of Smokey Yunick, but there are a couple of points to be made here.

1, Smokey never made extraordinary claims that violate the laws of thermodynamics. Heck, he never made claims that went outside the bounds of feasibility with the internal combustion engine. He claimed 50 mpg for that Fiero (if memory serves), and that's not out of bounds with what we know today.

2, Smokey was comparing to technology as it stood in the 1970's and early 1980's. It's easier to make big improvements when what you're starting with hasn't already been refined to the Nth degree.

3, Smokey's hot vapor engine never had to get through modern NOx emission testing. I have a funny feeling that the NOx would be through the roof. In the world that we live in today, there's no point making an extraordinarily efficient engine that won't pass emission regulations, because if it won't pass emission regulations, the whole project is a non-starter.

[mpgmike]

Bear with me as this is going to take awhile. I won't short change anything.

First of all, I'm the guy that has developed the training program for the company. Second of all, I developed the electronic controller (O2ptomizer) for the HAFC program. Third of all, I'm the guy prototyping the PICC.

I'll skip the debate on the HAFC's ability to get 50% to 100% increase in mileage because the results have been speaking volumes on that already. As for the PICC, try to follow some simple chemistry and math.

If you take one gallon of Dodecane (C12H26), the heaviest element commonly found in pump gas, and break it down into Natural Gas (CH4), you must add more hydrogen (22 H atoms per C12H26 molecule). The process of breaking it down can vary from the Thermal Catalytic Cracking process the oil companies use, to the low energy Plasma process we are using. Run the fuel through the plasma, add more hydrogen, and you can get upwards of 12 gallons of Natural Gas coming out the other end. Sound incredulous? Don't take my word for it, check with a real chemist. The Natural Gas molecule takes up the same amount of space in the aether as does the Dodecane molecule. There are approximately the same number of both molecules in a gallon of that liquid. I think the technical term is Joules.

Converting gasoline into methane, ethane, propane, butane, etc takes energy. You don't get something from nothing. In the case of the plasma chamber, the energy comes from the exhaust; energy that is normally wasted. On some extreme prototypes, the tail pipe would form ice crystals as it would get so incredibly cold!

Common numbers (which vary from source to source) suggest that the ICE is about 27% efficient on gasoline, about 42% efficient on propane, and upwards of 60% efficient on natural gas. Gasoline has gobs more BTU energy than propane; which has more BTU energy than natural gas. Of the 3, gasoline is the more powerful a fuel, and natural gas is the more efficient fuel.

If we are able to convert gasoline into light HC molecules in our plasma process, then we are able to increase the volume of fuel (of course water is used in the process to provide the required hydrogen). The fuel that eventually goes into the engine is of lower BTU content, but in a form that the engine can digest better.

The versions on the videos burning gas and water; or gas, pickle juice, used engine oil, A-1 Steak Sauce, Coca-Cola, etc is the Dog-and-Pony Show version. There is ambient air drawn into the reactor. There is oxygen in the air. Combine a plasma field (the ionic part of the combustion process is similar), hydrocarbons, and oxygen and you get combustion. The engine is getting light hydrocarbons, CO, CO2, and H2O. The super efficient version is a closed system, where there is no oxygen present. Under these conditions no combustion takes place. Instead, all of the heavy HCs are converted into light HCs. No CO, no CO2, and no H2O.

The PICC is chemically, mathematically, and physically probable just from the info I just gave you. Where is the scam?!?!?!?!?

Mike

[MadBill]

...Common numbers (which vary from source to source) suggest that the ICE is about 27% efficient on gasoline, about 42% efficient on propane, and upwards of 60% efficient on natural gas...Mike

Mike, I won't stray beyond my area of expertise re the overall PICC discussion, but I spent more than 10 years in GM's Alternative Fuels Engineering group, during which time we engineered and EPA-certified at least six different natural gas and propane engine families, most being capable of switching between gasoline and the gaseous fuel. Despite the slight theoretical advantage of reduced pumping losses due to the charge displacement effect of gaseous fuel, the EPA mileage on a Lower Heating Value energy basis was in every case within a percent or so ± vs. gasoline on the same actual vehicles.