* Login   * Register
It is currently Wed Aug 20, 2014 3:22 pm

View unanswered posts | View active topics

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]

Post new topic Reply to topic

 Post subject: Tom OGLE Vapor Fuel System
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:18 pm 
Contributing Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 11:15 am
Posts: 217
Location: incoming

aka Oglemobile

In 1977, Tom Ogle demonstrated a 351 ci. Ford getting over 100 miles per gallon. He used a multiple vapor system that had a 3 gallon tank.

He received patent number 4,177,779 Dec. 11, 1979, which described "A fuel economy system for an internal combustion engine which, when installed in a motor vehicle, obviates the need for a conventional carburetor, fuel pump and gasoline tank. The system operates by using the engine vacuum to draw fuel vapors from a vapor tank through a vapor conduit to a vapor equalizer which is positioned directly over the intake manifold of the engine."

In 1981, Ogle died at the young age of 26. The technology has never been developed.

I came across this watching a documentary about Oil.

How legitimate is this ? Has anyone been able to reproduce this ?

Saints need sinners.

 Post subject: Re: Tom OGLE Vapor Fuel System
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 8:01 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:22 pm
Posts: 1637
Location: Portland, OR
It’s possible, but I’d have to throw a few big caveats on that.

First, I can’t seem to find any controlled experiments or tests for his system. Something like running the engine in isolation to the car with carefully measured amounts of fuel, Purging the entire system with a nitrogen flush to ensure no extra fuel left over then running the tests, or an energy flux analysis at all inputs and outputs to determine the true system efficiency.
The only tests I can find referenced are demonstrations Ogle conducted for reporters. None of them sound very controlled and none of them look like they were conducted by an impartial 3rd party, which opens up the opportunity for bias or tampering.
Most of his demonstrations sound like they follow the same theme. Drain the tank, pour in “about 2 gallons” then drive the car for along ways without stopping. There’s no mention of any precise measurement of the fuel put in the tank, how much was actually used, his driving method, any impact on the performance of the car (how was engine power effected), or any mention of a purge of the system before starting; particularly important if you’re trying to accurately measure how much vapor is in the system before you start.
Additionally, all of the reports of experts reviewing the system are stated the same way. “Automotive Experts” reviewed the system and could find no hoax. Any time you see an “Expert” referenced but they don’t tell you who the expert is or what there particular expertise is, that a big red flag

The biggest problem though is the intent of his “Black Box”
The whole point of the vapor fuel system was to increase the burn efficiency of the fuel (make it burn more cleanly and efficiently). But that completely overlooks that real reason cars don’t get good gas mileage. Most modern engines burn the fuel extremely efficiently; they just have a hell of a time converting all that energy into useable mechanical motion. Even if you burnt the fuel with perfect fuel air mixture and 100% efficiency, which ostensibly, is what Ogle’s system was supposed to do, you still wouldn’t be able to pull 100 mpg out of a standard 4 stroke because it wastes too much of the available energy converting it into motion.

At best it looks like the guy made an engine that ran very lean, sucking a lot more air then fuel. With that kind of setup you’d use very little fuel to run the engine and it could run along time, but the engine would be very low on power. That’s how most of the standard drive super high MPG cars do it today. They just sip a little fuel at a time, but they barely have any acceleration, and their top speed is extremely limited.

1.Prior attitude effect. Subjects who feel strongly about an issue—even when encouraged to be objective—will evaluate supportive arguments more favorably than contrary arguments.
2.Disconfirmation bias. Subjects will spend more time and cognitive resources denigrating contrary arguments than supportive arguments.
3.Confirmation bias. Subjects free to choose their information sources will seek out supportive rather than contrary sources.
4.Attitude polarization. Exposing subjects to an apparently balanced set of pro and con arguments will exaggerate their initial polarization.
5.Attitude strength effect. Subjects voicing stronger attitudes will be more prone to the above biases.
6.Sophistication effect. Politically knowledgeable subjects, because they possess greater ammunition with which to counter-argue incongruent facts and arguments, will be more prone to the above biases.

- Charles S. Taber & Milton Lodge - Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs

 Post subject: Re: Tom OGLE Vapor Fuel System
PostPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2011 10:57 pm 
Senior Member

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 6:36 pm
Posts: 709
Location: Louisiana
There's another (really BIG) downside you forgot. Running lean causes the heads to run hot and will eventually burn up the valves and guides.

I tend to be skeptical of any system promising magical fuel economy numbers. Having a patent is no guarantee the mechanism actually works.

"I experimented with Masculinism when I was younger but it made me feel like such a sniveling pussy, I had to give it up." - Glasperlenspieler

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group

Home l Common Sense l Hardcore History l Donate l Community l Merchandise l Blog l About Us