|
Observing Problems ... Providing Information ... Presenting Rational Solutions |
|---|
|
Updated Edition: November 2020 All Rights Reserved A MAN NAMED POGUE It is time to speak for the honorable dead who have done their best to help humanity, but ended up getting virtually "kicked in the teeth" for their noble efforts. In the 1900's, there lived a rather inventive man in Canada whose name was Charles Nelson Pogue. Charles Pogue was born on September 15, 1897(1) and, the best records which the writer has been able to find indicate that Pogue quietly exited this life on February 15, 1986(1)(2). After what was done to Pogue and the apparent blocking of his incredible fuel system in the earlier 1900s, it appears that he just wanted to be left alone and he became very elusive. As the common story goes, starting in the late 1920's, Charles Pogue began to experiment with various fueling systems on engines and ultimately designed and produced a very special type of fueling system which allowed for high fuel mileage and good performance in automotive type engines. It is said that this special Pogue-designed fueling system allowed early Ford V8's and other engines, which were in standard weight sedans of that day, to obtain approximately 209 miles per gallon of gasoline. What is more, it is said that when using the Pogue fueling system, these engines displayed good performance and acceleration. At this point, there is one thing to state. As the reader progresses through this presentation, there is a decision which they should begin to make in their minds. Are the stories about Pogue obtaining around 200 miles per gallon in a standard-weight car a bunch of nonsense, or is there possibly a chance that there could be some truth to that which has been said about the amazing Pogue fueling system? Before anyone fully makes up their mind about Pogue on this particular issue, let us start to look at some important facts. TRUE POTENTIAL It should be noted that there is an incredible amount of fuel mileage potential in each gallon of gasoline (or in any other type of hydrocarbon fuel), if the fuel is first properly prepared and then properly used in the basic engine of an ordinary motor vehicle. For starters, it takes a properly designed and constructed "fuel preparation" system. As the facts are considered, especially the things presented in the paragraphs which follow, something becomes very apparent. In the 1920's and 1930's, it does appear that Charles Pogue was "at least a few steps ahead of the crowd" in his thinking and his inventions. Now, let's get down to business and look at some important facts. The September 1926 issue of Popular Science (1), on page 49, under the entry titled 'Why You Need So Much Gas,' declares that if the full energy capacity of a gallon of gasoline were used, "a small car could go 450 miles on a gallon." The entry states further: "As it is, the engine wastes ninety-seven percent of this precious energy." Now, you did read that correctly. In other words, the way engines and their fueling systems are set up, these engines waste up to 97% of the energy capacity which is available in each gallon of gasoline. And, there is more to this story. On page 53 of the April 1940 issue of Popular Science (1), on page 53, is an article titled 'Super-Gasoline for Your Car.' It states: "When the service-station pump rings up a gallon of gas, you are getting enough fuel, engineers say, to run a light car on a level road for 480 miles, if every heat unit could be harnessed by an automobile engine! But the very shape of ordinary gasoline molecules, experts have found, precludes getting much of their fuel value out of them. So laboratory workers are taking the molecules apart and putting them back together in new and better forms." Now, there some things to get firmly established in our minds. Once again, the article quoted in the paragraph immediately above speaks of a light car traveling 480 miles on a level road, using just one gallon of gasoline. The entry quoted two paragraphs above speaks of a small car traveling 450 miles, using just one gallon of gasoline. The two entries above were from 1926 and 1940. In 1926, the Ford Model T weighed more than 1500 pounds (1). And in 1940, a Ford Deluxe weighed in at around 2970 pounds (1). Let us now consider a 1935 Ford Deluxe, which would have been a car available during the latter part of Pogue's experiments. A 1935 Ford Deluxe weighed about 2600 pounds (1). Now, let us look at the weight of a 1980 Datsun 310. This particular car weighs about 1970 pounds (1). Looking at a mid 1960s Volkswagen Beetle, it weighed in at 1600 pounds (1)(2). The first generation of Honda Civic weighed in at 1500 pounds (1). Then there is the Morris Mini-Minor of the early 1960s. Its lightest version weighed about 1279 pounds (1). All of these small, light cars which have been mentioned got less than 40 miles per U.S. gallon of gasoline, under normal driving conditions on level ground. In other words, they traveled less than 1/12 the distance which is potentially available from each gallon of gasoline. Well, let's go really light weight. The Peel P50 from the 1960s weighed only 123 pounds, but, even at this extremely light weight, this car got only about 100 miles per gallon (1). That is nowhere near the 480 mile per gallon energy potential in one gallon of gasoline. So, it does appear that something is just not being done right. But, that is what happens when the greedy are in control of things and they do not allow extremely efficient systems to get to the market and to the general public. So, what was Charles Nelson Pogue doing in the early 1930s, that he could get around 200 miles per gallon out of a standard size car using an early Ford V8? SORTING OUT THE TRUTH There is a considerable amount of information and disinformation on the Internet regarding Charles Pogue and his fueling system. Some people say he accomplished his objective of extremely good fuel economy, with good performance. Others declare that Pogue could not have accomplished this feat. A number of those in the latter group often give a variety of reasons, some of the reasons being somewhat distorted or even very skewed. Some of the various stories about the Pogue system, which can be found floating around on the Internet, are found within pages accessed via the links below. Even to the writer, a few of the things stated in certain of the pages could possibly be a bit questionable. But, even in those pages, there is often found some bits and pieces of valuable truth mixed in. Now, what is the real truth in this somewhat confusing matter about Charles Pogue and his special, high-mileage fueling system? Well, in this present page, as we search for the real truth, let us begin to take a closer look at the Pogue-type fueling system and sort out the facts from the fiction. It is time to understand much better what Charles Pogue appears to have actually accomplished back in the 1930s, before he was shut down. As a starting point, the author has linked below some of Pogue's main Canadian and United States Patents for his various carburetors and fueling systems. For the Canadian patents, the links lead to a Summary page. In the Summary page, click on the dark colored "Documents" button. Toward the bottom of the Documents page, there are links to see the Drawings, Claims, and Descriptions. A careful study of the Canadian and U.S. patents which are linked below is highly recommended. A thorough understanding of these patents and their drawings should help toward being able to then understand much better the principles of operation of the Pogue system which shall be discussed in this presentation. (CA_289771_1929) (CA_353538_1935) (CA_358727_1936) (US_1750354_1930) (US_1792239_1931) (US_1809531_1931) (US_1938497_1933) (US_1997497_1935) (US_2026798_1936) Pogue's original fuel system, which was patented in the United States in 1930, is said to have been installed on a farm tractor from that time period. Looking through the patent drawings, there is no question about it... Pogue's various systems were very creative. What is more, the evidence indicates that he often got favorable results. The author has studied the Pogue patents closely a number of times over the years, the first time being in the early 1980s. From further research over the years, the chemistry involved in these Pogue systems and how they actually operated has become rather clear. It is obvious that the Pogue system did more than simply vaporize the gasoline. There was actually a chemical conversion of the gasoline which was the initial fuel used in this system. From his study and research, the author does have reason to believe that Pogue actually accomplished what the rather impressive stories generally state. Once the nature of the system design and processes which Pogue used are clearly understood, as they are laid out in this presentation, it should become rather clear that these Pogue systems could allow for very high fuel mileage, with good performance. WITH A BIT OF HELP Starting in January of 2006, this fuel system website which you are now viewing began to be built. It was originally hosted at http://desakrisson.topcities.com. In the early part of 2015, the "desakrisson.topcities.com" site, for unknown reasons, was permanently eliminated from the "topcities" server. After that, the site was rebuilt and moved to this present location. After the writer was well on his way in building the original "topcities" site, he got an email from a man in eastern Canada. This particular man was one who had his own high-mileage and alternative fuel-system site. This man was interested in some of the information on the writer's site. During our communications, this man also spoke about some of the things which he had learned about the earlier fueling system created by Charles Pogue. Some of the things which the Canadian man told the writer, then helped the writer to more fully understand what was actually happening within the Pogue system. What the Canadian man told the writer caused some of the writer's previous research to suddenly "click" with what was being said. In other words, "the lightbulb" went off in the writer's mind. Now for a few tidbits of information, that "the lightbulb" has a chance of going ON in the readers mind. The Canadian man said that Pogue heated the gasoline in his fuel system until it was converted into a gaseous fuel. But, when the fuel was cooled back down, it remained in a gaseous form, rather than converting back to gasoline in the liquid state. This cause "lightbulb number one" to go off in the writer's mind. The Canadian man also said that the engine using the Pogue fuel system could operate without a cooling system. With further research, "lightbulb number two" went off in the writer's mind. The two important pieces of information noted in the paragraph above can readily help to allow a person with the proper knowledge to fully understand what was actually happening in the Pogue fueling system. Once the conditions are clearly understood, which would allow the conditions stated above to both be true, then it is understandable how Charles Pogue could get around 200 miles per gallon out of early Ford V8s in standard-weight cars of his day. AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE The page linked via the button below contains an important piece of information which tends to verify to the writer that the man from eastern Canada was telling the truth about the things he knew about the Pogue system. All of these things help to make the writer realize that he is on the right track in what he believes about the Pogue system and the way it operated and how it was able to allow cars to get somewhere around the claimed 200 miles per gallon. The page linked below speaks about the car which was owned by Charles Pogue. In the 1930s, the engine of this car had been fitted with one of Pogue's special carburetors or fueling systems. It is said that this car of Pogue's was driven for many miles with his special carburetor installed. At a later date, the car was sold and then passed through many owners. The 12th owner bought it in 1988 and restored it to its original, unmodified form. Somewhere along the line, one of the owners disassembled the engine in this car and found that it had burnt valves and a rather uniquely cracked block. When the 12th owner tore the engine down, they "found 36 hairline cracks in the block -- all from being run too hot using Pogue's carburetors." These 36 hairline cracks help to tell an important part of the story about what Pogue was actually doing with his special fueling system. For one, these numerous cracks which were said to be in the original engine block of the Pogue car tends to verify what the Canadian man told the writer in the earlier 2000s, that Pogue was not using the cooling system on the engine that was using his carburetor. And, it appears that a lot of miles were put on that engine which had the Pogue carburetor installed, before problems began to be noticed. A BIT OF REALITY Well, knowing what we now know, we could all look back and loudly proclaim that Pogue really should have been using some form of a cooling system, especially when using his fueling system in the way he had it set up. But, because of his research, the writer has reason to believe that if Pogue had set things up just a bit different, he could have run his system for quite a period of time, without damaging the engine block or the valves. Now, there are those who may greatly knock Charles Pogue for doing things which may have damaged an engine block or two. But, you know what? Pogue had the guts and ambition and intelligence to get out there and actually do something. He went out there and actually tried something, so he could learn what worked and what didn't, even if it damaged an engine block or two along the way. Pogue was in new territory and virtually "flying by the seat of his pants," and learning a lot of important things as he went along his chosen path. Yes, Pogue may have still had some very important things to learn, but, once the full story is understood, it is extremely clear that he was basically on the right track, even way back in the early 1930s. It may be true that he possibly damaged some engine blocks and burnt some valves along the way, but there is an old saying that goes something like this: "We fail toward success!" Pogue was actually getting off his rear and experimenting and learning, so he actually deserves a whole lot of credit for what he did. Before anyone makes any derogatory statements about Pogue and his damaging of an engine block or two, we should really think about the numerous engines which even the major automotive manufacturers, plus also drag racing enthusiasts, have damaged or destroyed during their periods of research and development --- and sometimes damaged or destroyed very quickly. So, if the true story were told about the equipment damaged or destroyed by the "big boys," even with their research and development teams, plus loads of money to put behind their projects, Pogue would possibly then look like an extreme genius in comparison. BACK TO THE BASICS It is often stated that liquid gasoline does not burn. The same is stated for other liquid fuels. It is stated that only the vapors which are properly mixed with air are able to readily burn. This is all very true and this knowledge is applicable to the Pogue fueling system. Yes, in Pogue's system, he initially did convert the liquid gasoline into gasoline vapors. But, there is actually a lot more to this story and the patent drawings, both Canadian and U.S., help reveal the truth. In the Pogue system, it appears that he initially superheated the gasoline vapors in a chamber where there was not enough air to support combustion. What happened then is that the gasoline vapors were "cracked" or gasified into lighter weight gaseous components. What was actually created from the original liquid gasoline in the Pogue system was a much larger volume of gaseous fuels which are similar in nature to things like methane, butane and propane. You might loosely say that Pogue created something like an early, non-pressurized form of a propane-type of fueling system for use on automotive or industrial type engines. After the gasoline vapors traveling through the Pogue system were fully "cracked" or gasified, the new lighter weight, gaseous fuels which had been created were then properly mixed with a sizable portion of air, just prior to the induction of these gasified fuels into the intake manifold and the engine cylinder. This excellent fuel mixture would have burned very cleanly and very thoroughly. And, with the proper setup, the fuel would have burned with an acceptable rate of flame travel in the engine cylinder. Properly set up, no engine damage would have occurred. But, in Pogue's case, he was still experimenting and learning, so it appears that some engine damage may have occurred. Now, there is a truth which needs to be firmly fixed in our minds. An ordinary lean fuel-air mixture is the most explosive mixture. A lean fuel-air mixture, when used in a properly designed system with the proper combustion control features, can also be the most powerful or the most power-producing mixture. There is now another truth which needs to be understood. A properly designed and set-up Pogue-type of fueling system could have produced excellent power and performance from the engine, with drastically reduced or virtually no harmful pollutants coming out of the exhaust pipe. With the use of a properly designed and set-up Pogue-type of fueling system, there would be virtually no unburned hydrocarbons (HC) or carbons monoxide (CO) coming out of the exhaust system. But, there is still more to this story. In a properly designed Pogue-type of fueling system, with the proper combustion controls, it is possible to keep the nitric oxide (NOx) emissions drastically reduced and fully under control, all without the use of any type of complicated computerized controls or any type of expensive catalytic converter. This ultimately translates into low cost and very simplified green energy. By the way, the widespread use of properly designed and modernized Pogue-type of fueling systems would translate into a drastic reduction in the need for petroleum to be pumped out of the ground. The widespread use of properly designed Pogue-types of fueling systems for internal combustion engines, in both transportation and industrial type engines, could also mean a drastic reduction in air pollution. So, at least for the numerous consumers and the environment, it would be a total win-win situation. It would only be the rich oil "boys" and those behind them, plus those invested in their stocks, that would be complaining. ENERGY STORED IN GASOLINE It is time to consider some information about gasoline. This information should help the reader to better understand at least some of the potential of a properly designed and set-up Pogue type of fueling system, which could potentially be used on gasoline and modified diesel type of engines. These systems could potentially allow for very high fuel mileage, with low or virtually no harmful emissions. Let us now begin to consider the amount of energy which is said to be stored in a typical gallon of gasoline. About two-thirds of the way down the page linked via the button further below are found the following words, which are said to come from page 14 in the July 1924 issue of Popular Mechanics: "Were all the energy of one gallon of gasoline to be harnessed for the performance of a single purpose, experiments show that it could be made to provide sufficient heat to raise the temperature of 15,000 gallons of water one degree. Put to work, it could furnish enough force to lift 50,000 tons of coal one foot off the ground, raise the Woolworth building five and a half inches. Applied to a small auto-mobile, the power is great enough to elevated a light car 450 miles in the air or to propel it at twenty miles an hour for 450 miles over a level road." Another page which contains this information is linked here. So, the energy contained in one gallon of gasoline is supposed to be enough "to lift 50,000 tons of coal one foot off the ground." Now, that 50,000 tons of coal is a whole lot heavier than a 1-1/2 to 2 ton motor vehicle. So, that same gallon of gasoline should contain the energy which would be sufficient to vertically lift a typical motor vehicle to a much greater height than merely one foot off the ground. And again, the preceding paragraph clearly states that the energy in just one gallon of gasoline in enough to elevate a lightweight car very high into the air. The page linked by the button below also notes that the energy in a gallon of gasoline is enough to raise the Woolworth building 5-1/2 inches off the ground. And again, the Woolworth building is much larger (1)(2)(3)(4) and much heavier than a typical motor vehicle. The first preceding linked page states that the Woolworth Building weighs 233,000 short tons (466 million pounds) or 208,000 long tons. The second preceding linked page, from the National Park Service, gives an estimated weight of 223,000 tons for the Woolworth Building. There is now something important to note. The quote from the page linked below states that the energy in one gallon of gasoline "is great enough to elevated a light car 450 miles in the air or to propel it at twenty miles an hour for 450 miles over a level road." The 450 miles stated for elevating a light car into the air is obviously a misprint, so a potentially more realistic value will be presented in the information below. The following information comes from the article which is linked via the button below. The article is about Charles Pogue and his very special carburetor. Now, let us begin to consider another view about the amount of energy which is contained in just one gallon of gasoline, especially when it comes to how it could potentially lift a typical car vertically into the air. "In an imperial gallon of gasoline there are 145,000 British thermal units, more or less. This is the equivalent of 113 million foot-pounds, or 57 horsepower-hours. This would lift a 3,000 pound car 37,660 feet straight up in the air; or a little over seven miles --- [which would be like traveling vertically the equivalent of,] from the bottom of the Dead Sea to the top of Mount Everest, and then some." Now, an Imperial gallon of gasoline is larger than a U.S. gallon of gasoline. So, looking at things further, a calculator on a page linked here indicates that there is about 124,884 Btu's in the smaller U.S. gallon. If the figures given for the Imperial gallon, as given further above, are correct, this may indicate that the energy contained in a U.S. gallon would hypothetically be able to send the 3,000 pound car only about 32,435 feet (or, only about 6.1 miles) into the air, if all the energy contained in that gallon of gasoline could be used for vertical launching or lifting purposes. FOOD FOR THOUGHT Well, what is there to say? The information in the paragraph above does definitely give some food for thought. Think about it! The energy potential contained in each U.S. gallon of gasoline is theoretically enough to blast a car vertically, in the direction which rockets commonly travel, for more than six miles into the air! Are you grasping the concept of this amount of potential energy which is said to be contained within each U.S. gallon of gasoline? Now, there is something important to make very clear. Folks, it may be a stimulating thought, but we are not into turning cars into rockets. All we want to do is roll an ordinary car along a typical roadway. This means more or less horizontal, rolling travel, with a few hills or inclines mixed in. This type of vehicle travel takes far less energy per mile than does a vertical lift of a 3,000 pound vehicle far into the air. The horizontal, rolling travel of a vehicle, therefore, allows for a much greater amount of miles per gallon, than does a vertical launch. Once a few more of the basic concepts and principles, plus fuel conversions and chemical processes involved in the Pogue system are clearly understood, then it becomes easier to understand why the Pogue system could have worked as well as some have claimed. Once the proper things are understood, it is much easier to understand how the Pogue-type of system could allow an engine to produce phenomenal fuel mileage, with good performance. A PROPER UNDERSTANDING For another chance to look at and study the various fueling systems designed and built by Charles Pogue, the links below access both his Canadian and United States patents. For the Canadian patents, the links lead to a Summary page. In the Summary page click on the dark colored "Documents" button. Toward the bottom of the Documents page, there are links to see the Drawings, Claims, and Descriptions for each patent. Using the drawings and information from the Pogue patents, it is time to work toward a proper understanding of the vaporization, gasification and fundamental chemistry behind the fuel cracking and reforming processes which can readily occur within a properly designed and constructed, Pogue-type of fueling system. Once the drawings and applicable processes for the Pogue-type of system are clearly understood, there is something which should become very clear. With a clear understanding of the design and operational principles of the Pogue-type of fueling system, it becomes evident that Charles Pogue, using a standard automobile of his day, could readily have obtained high fuel mileage. This high fuel mileage, along with good performance, could have been experienced with early automotive-type engines, even in the 1920s and 1930s, when using Pogue's specialized fueling system. Once again, when the Pogue system is clearly understood, it appears that it could have readily allowed an engine to operate very efficiently with drastically reduced or eliminated unburned hydrocarbons (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions in the exhaust. With the proper design and set-up of this type of system, which would include proper combustion controls, there could also have been virtually no nitric oxide (NOx) emissions from the exhaust. In other words, Pogue's system could have allowed an engine to operate with a very clean, very environmentally-friendly exhaust output. And, there is more to consider in this story. There is something even much better to consider in all of this. In the properly designed and constructed Pogue-type of fueling system, the high efficiency, high fuel mileage, with extremely low or non-existant harmful exhaust emissions, was accomplished without any expensive computers and without any complicated and expensive emission control systems. By the way, are you beginning to feel that possibly we have virtually all been manipulated and ripped off, or possibly even snared or enslaved through our vehicles? Well, keep reading and eventually you may understand the real truth about why all of this has happened, especially to U.S. citizens, plus who it appears has been behind this enslavement agenda. By the way, before President John F. Kennedy was brutally assassinated in Dallas, Texas, on November 22 of 1963, it appears that he said something very important, which may apply in the situation which we are now considering. The following words are attributed to President Kennedy: "There's a plot in this country to enslave every man, woman and child. Before I leave this high and noble office, I intend to expose this plot." These words from Kennedy are found in the following linked pages: (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7). But, it appears that "they" could not have President Kennedy exposing the plot, so "they" brutally assassinated Kennedy and sent him home "in a box."(1) That appears to be what greed can cause powerful or corrupt people to do. LOOKING CLOSER AT THE POGUE SYSTEM Looking at Pogue's 1936 patent (link), the first step in the process was to bubble air through a reservoir of liquid gasoline. As seen in the patent drawing, the reservoir of gasoline is attached to the bottom of the left-hand spiral-shaped heat-exchanger. In the Pogue system, the gasoline vapors from the bubbler reservoir then passed upwards into the spiral-shaped heat-exchanger, which heat-exchanger was superheated by "the gaseous products of combustion from the exhaust manifold." Now, the exhaust gasses coming out of the exhaust port of an engine may be somewhere in the vicinity of 1400 degrees Fahrenheit. By the time these superheated gases got to the heat exchanger, they may have been at least a few hundred degrees cooler. This brings us to another important point. The auto ignition temperature of gasoline is generally somewhere between 477 and 536 degrees Fahrenheit (1)(2)(3)(4)(5), or potentially even higher in certain cases (1)(2), depending on the blend or fractions in the gasoline, along with other variables. So, there is something extremely important to understand about the Pogue system. For safety reasons, the fuel-air mixture obtained from the gasoline bubbler reservoir would have needed to be within a certain set of parameters, so it would not ignite in the superheated, spiral-shaped heat-exhanger (or "fuel cracking" chamber). Possibly the fuel-air mixture entering the cracking chamber needed to be extremely rich. It appears that it would have had to have been too rich to allow for its combustion within the superheated environment of the spiral-shaped heat-exchanger. The over-rich fuel-air mixture, as it moved through the superheated environment within the spiral-shaped heat-exchanger, would have experienced a chemical change. A large share of the molecules of the superheated gasoline vapors, because of insufficient air for true combustion, would have simply "cracked" or been gasified and possibly turned into something along the lines of synthesis gas or something of a gaseous nature which would be similar to propane. Synthesis gas and propane fueling are spoken about in the following linked pages and videos: (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8), and yes, gasoline or diesel fuel can readily be turned into something like synthesis gas. That appears to be exactly what Charles Pogue was doing with his special fuel systems in the latter 1920s and 1930s. Unfortunately, because of the resistance which it appears that Pogue was receiving from outside forces, his amazing system was not refined and brought out in mass production for use by the general public. It should be noted that for the cracking or gasification of the gasoline to occur, so that it could be converted into synthesis gas, the heat-exchanger in the Pogue-type of system would have had to have been kept at a temperature which was above the autoignition temperature of the gasoline vapors, so the reaction could readily occur. The higher the temperature of the cracking or gasification chamber, the faster the reaction can occur and the higher can be the volume of gasified fuel created in a given amount of time. Let us look again at the drawing on page 2 of 6, in Pogue's patent from 1936 (link). From the first spiral-shaped heat-exchanger in the Pogue fueling system, the "cracked" gases then went into the second spiral-shaped heat-exchanger (shown on the right side in the patent drawing), where they were potentially heated even further, which would have finished off any cracking or gasifying of the fuel. From the second heat-exchanger, the synthesis gas was mixed with air in the carburetor, and from the carburetor the gasified fuel passed into the intake manifold of the engine and onward into the engine cylinder, where it was used to fuel the engine. Now, there is something extremely important to note about the Pogue fueling system. Yes, it is obvious that there was a lot of good thought which went into the design and construction of the Pogue system. At the point where the gasified fuel exited from the heat exchanger section into the airstream in the carburetor venturi, there was a fine-mesh flame arrester which is noted by the use of number 25. Looking at the patent text on Page 4 of 6, in the lower part of the left-hand column, it states: "To prevent the engine from backfiring into the vapor chamber 2, the ends of the passages are covered with a fine mesh screen 25, which, operating on the principle of a miner's lamp, will prevent the vapors in the chamber 2 from exploding in case of backfire, but will not interfere substantially with the passage of the vapors from the chamber 21 into the air tube 23 when the valve 24 is in open position." The Pogue design was very good for its day, but it could readily be improved upon using the information and knowledge which is currently available. Now, there are some who state that additives added to gasoline at a later point made the Pogue system rather ineffective. But, the writer believes that there are modifications which could readily be made to a Pogue-type system, which would then allow an internal combustion engine to operate efficiently and in an environmentally-friendly manner, using virtually any type of gasoline or diesel fuel as the initial fuel fed into the system. HYDROCARBON CHEMISTRY Above a temperature of approximately 500-degrees Fahrenheit, in the proper environment, complex gasoline molecules (and even the molecules of other heavier-weight hydrocarbons such as motor oil, bunker oil from ships, or crude oil) begin to rapidly break down into a much larger volume of lighter-weight molecules. In other words, the large hydrocarbon molecules which make up the initial fuel are actually "cracked" or gasified. Once again, in this cracking or gasification process, a much larger volume of flammable, lighter-weight gaseous molecules are produced from a relatively small volume of liquid hydrocarbon fuel. The cracking process is commonly used in the petroleum industry in refineries (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6). It appears that Charles Pogue decided to build a cracking and reforming unit which would fit under the hood of a car. The truth of the matter is, with the proper modification of Pogue-type technology, using modern technology, a fueling system could readily become a multi-fuel system, which would allow automotive-type engines to operate on quite a number of different base fuels, and not just on gasoline. If this type of fueling system were widely used today, it could greatly reduce the strain on, or need for, oil refineries. BACK TO THE EARLY DAYS Let us look once again at that April 1940 issue of Popular Science (link), which was spoken about near the beginning of this presentation. Let us consider that article which is found on page 53, which article is titled 'Super-Gasoline for Your Car.' The following words are found in that article: "When the service-station pump rings up a gallon of gas, you are getting enough fuel, engineers say, to run a light car on a level road for 480 miles, if every heat unit could be harnessed by an automobile engine! But the very shape of ordinary gasoline molecules, experts have found, precludes getting much of their fuel value out of them. So laboratory workers are taking the molecules apart and putting them back together in new and better forms." Now, there is something very important to consider. Charles Pogue, in the 1920s and 1930s, using the systems which have been discussed in this presentation, was basically "taking the molecules apart and putting them back together in new and better forms," via the process of thermal cracking, with possible reforming, to one degree or another. As a result, Charles Pogue is said to have obtained exceptional fuel mileage, with excellent performance, from a reasonably well thought-out and designed, experimental fuel system, which was even installed on some early Ford V8 engines in standard-weight cars. POGUE'S START WITH EFFICIENT CARBURETORS A page linked here contains mainly a story about the 1929 Imperial car which had been owned by Charles Pogue. About one-quarter of the way down the page, it starts telling the story about what caused Pogue to begin creating highly efficient carburetors. In the earlier 1900s, Pogue did some farming and this farming included the use of a tractor. On the issue of how the carburetor ideas and experimentation got going, the page states it like this: "Pogue's interest in carburetion, it is claimed, came from an incident that happened while he was still farming. The story is told that a can of gasoline had been placed alongside the field he was working so he could refill the tractor he was using. As the heat of the day built up, the gas in the can expanded and eventually exploded. It was then that Pogue developed the theory that if gasoline could be completely vaporized from its liquid state, it would burn more efficiently in an internal combustion engine." Years ago, the writer saw a picture of Charles Pogue standing beside a farm tractor on which was installed his first experimental carburetor. That carburetor looked like the one shown in the U.S. patent linked here. It should be noted that the carburetor in the patent is of an updraft design, where the air/fuel mixture moves in an upward direction through the carburetor unit, rather than in a downwards direction like most modern carburetors. Because of the design of the intake manifold on Pogue's farm tractor, an updraft design of carburetor was used. Looking into the text of the patent linked in the paragraph above, on this first carburetor system which was fitted on Pogue's tractor, there was "a vaporizing chamber, [and a] means for heating the vaporizing chamber from the exhaust gases of an engine." So, right from the start, Pogue was exhaust heating the gasoline, in order to vaporize it. The purpose of Pogue's first carburetor design was "to economically produce a dry properly proportioned combustible mixture from a liquid fuel." What is stated above is all that the first design of Pogue carburetor did: it was made to vaporize the gasoline. The first design just made lots of gasoline fumes and heated these fumes enough so that they were converted into a dry gas. The dry gasoline vapors were then mixed with the proper amount of additional air and then sent into the engine for combustion. But, there was actually more to this first carburetor design. It was designed to be a multi-fuel system. It was designed in a manner which allowed a gasoline engine to be fueled with "gasolene, kerosene, crude oil, or other liquid fuel." Yes, it could operate on different fuels. There is something very important, which should be noted about this first carburetor system which was designed and built by Charles Pogue. On page 4 of 5, at line 38 of the left-hand column, the patent states: "If it is desired to introduce water vapor into the combustible mixture, it may be done through a pipe 43 connecting the side of the conduit 40," which pipe, as shown at the top of the patent drawing on page 1 of 5, is located downstream of the throttle on this updraft type of carburetor. The water vapor was injected at the outlet of the carburetor, where the combustible fuel-air mixture would be exiting into the intake manifold of the engine. So, it appears that Charles Pogue was very thorough in the design of his fueling system, for water vapor is good for controlling the rate of combustion in the engine cylinder. But, there is more to tell in this story about the use of water vapor, or even steam, along with the fuel charge. OTHER'S USE OF WATER WITH FUEL Starting in 1980, the writer produced very primitive water vapor and steam injection systems for use on his vehicle engines. When using steam injection, he got noticeably more power out of the engine, plus obtained about 17% better fuel mileage. The use of steam injection also allowed for a much cleaner burn in the engine cylinder. The old engine the writer was using for his experiments originally had a problem with carboning of the spark plugs, but once the steam injection system was installed, the spark plugs never again had any carbon on them. In Pogue's use of water vapor in the carburetor on his tractor, it appears that he may have possibly been borrowing the idea from an earlier dual-fuel tractor, or from one of the other earlier fuel systems. The Rumely Oil Pull tractors were built in Indiana, from 1910 to 1930 (1)(2)(3)(4). The first model of this tractor could be fueled by gasoline or kerosene. About this tractor, the first page linked above states: "The engine featured a special carburetor designed by John Secor and W.H. Higgings [sic] that injected water to help control the combustion process." The special Secor-Higgins dual-fuel carburetor which was used on the Rumely Oil Pull tractors is spoken about in a page linked here. That page also includes a sectional-view drawing of the carburetor. One important thing to note about the use of the Secor-Higgins carburetor is that the engine was started on gasoline and once warmed up, the carburetor was then switched over to operate on the kerosene/water mixture. Information the writer saw years ago stated that the use of water with the kerosene allowed the engine to operate efficiently on this fuel, without carboning up the engine. About this dual-fuel carburetor, the linked page states: "The fuel supply system of the Rumely Oilpull tractors is arranged so that kerosene, distillate and other low grade oils may be burned successfully. This, the Secor system, so named after its inventor, does not involve specially designed engines as any motor intended for operation on gasoline can be used successfully with kerosene if fitted with a Secor-Higgins carburetor. This is not a new system, by any means, because it was developed over fourteen years ago and has received practical application in thousands of power plants used for agricultural purposes during this period." So, the concept of using multi-fuels in a gasoline type of engine, aided by the use of a water mist in the carburetor to control combustion characteristics in the engine and to prevent carboning in the combustion chamber, was not new at the time when the Secor-Higgins carburetor was first used on the Rumely Oilpull tractors. The basic process of using heavier fuels mixed with a mist of water in engines had already been developed fourteen years prior to its use on the Rumely Oilpull tractors. This would place the original use of the fuel/water process back to the mid 1890s. A publication from 1917, which is called Dun's Review, Volume 29, gives information about another kerosene/water system from those earlier days. On the right-hand side of page 57 (link), it speaks about the Kerosene Motor Company and their K.M.C Transformer. The page states: "The K.M.C. transformer does not burn the kerosene, but transforms it into a rich, heavy gas by the heat from the manifold, and in this form it is drawn into the cylinders, where it explodes with a clean combustion. No liquid kerosene ever enters the cylinders, from the very nature of the construction of the transformer." Looking further at the linked information for the K.M.C. Transformer system, it must be noted that in this system, the car was, like some of the later systems, first started on gasoline and then switched over to the use of the alternate fuel and water combination once the engine was warmed up. This seems to have been the common procedure with virtually all of these earlier, dual-fuel or multi-fuel systems. There is something important to look at, when it comes to the K.M.C. transformer from 1917. The page linked above states: "The manufacturers state that these transformers have excellent records to their credit. One car, for example, made a record of 36.7 miles on a single gallon of kerosene. It is said that a run of 30 miles to the gallon is common..." The page speaks of these fuel systems being used on Ford automobiles. Now, the typical Ford Model T of that day only got from 13 to 21 miles per gallon (1)(2), so the Transformer allowed for quite an improvement in miles per gallon of fuel. So, why haven't our modern vehicles been doing much better? At this point, there are some things which need to be said. In the things stated above, the writer is not in any way trying to downplay the importance of the Pogue system. In the writer's mind, it is important to understand, from the things stated above, that there were actually fuel systems manufactured by companies in the earlier 1900s, prior to the Pogue fuel system, that used water in conjunction with the fuel. But, it appears that none of these earlier systems were designed in such a way that they allowed for that high-fuel-mileage to be obtained from the engine, as was common when using the Pogue system. The important thing about the ultimate Pogue system is that he mainly used gasoline. In his first system, Pogue converted the gasoline into a dry vapor and then, along with water for combustion control, sent the fuel charge to the combustion chamber of the engine. There is something which can now be noted about the use of a dry vapor. When converting a saturated or "wet" fuel vapor into a truly dry vapor, there is quite an increase in the volume of useable fuel. That is what Pogue did, starting with his first system used on his farm tractor. And then add water or steam injection to control combustion rates and reduce emissions, as indicated in the pages linked below, and you may possibly have one of the best setups available. LOOKING AT MORE OF THE POGUE PATENTS Charles Pogue was quite the experimenter. From his first fuel system designed for his farm tractor, Pogue then started to work with fuel-vapor systems on cars, as his general quest for higher engine efficiency expanded. Information about Pogue's second U.S. patent which is highlighted in this presentation, is accessed via this link. The title of this patent from 1931 is Means for Forming Combustible Mixtures. In Pogue's second type of fueling system, whose patent is linked above, air which had been heated by the exhaust from the engine was piped into the vehicle's main fuel tank. In the tank, it appears that the heated air just passed through the tank and collected any available gasoline vapors. There was also an agitator in the gasoline tank which would help to stir things up and create the needed gasoline vapors for use in the engine. The third U.S. patent Pogue obtained is linked here. It appears that this particular patent is for a reconfigured and improved carburetor which would have worked on Pogue's old farm tractor. This design also preheated the combustible fuel mixture and used water vapor to control combustion in the engine cylinder. The fourth U.S. patent for a Pogue fuel system is linked here. Then, the fifth of Pogue's U.S. patents to be discussed is linked here. This carburetor is the predecessor to the Pogue carburetor which is most commonly shown or illustrated through various sources of information. And finally, information for the sixth and most famous of the U.S. patented Pogue carburetors is linked here. We are not yet done with this Pogue story and the thought which went into his amazing fueling system. At this point, let us turn our attention to a very interesting subject. Let us turn to a subject which can help reveal how Pogue could run with a very lean fuel mixture and still get good performance and acceleration, without seriously overheating the engine. POGUE'S FUEL ENRICHMENT CIRCUIT There is more to understand about the Pogue fueling system and how he got that extreme high fuel mileage out of his test vehicles. There is also, physically, more to know about the Pogue system, than people are commonly told...especially told by the uninformed naysayers or by the intentionally deceptive ones who have not studied or do not have the ability to understand Pogue's patent drawings. As we start this part of the discussion, check out the patent drawings for the most famous version of the Pogue fueling system (Patent No.: 2,026,798), which patent drawings are found in the page linked here. In the linked patent drawings, it can be seen that Pogue did have a variable metering valve in his fueling system which could allow for richening up the fuel mixture during times of vehicle acceleration and when the engine was under load. This is something which most people are not told about the Pogue system. The valve which allows for richening or leaning the fuel mixture is found as number 24, which is the rotary plug valve found on the linked patent drawing. And for simple, light-load cruising, Pogue could close the valve to a large degree and run on an extremely lean fuel mixture, which allowed for incredibly high fuel mileage. Once again, in case anyone was reading so fast that they missed it, Pogue's test vehicles could still accelerate good when they were using his specialized fueling system, because he had a variable fuel enrichment valve in his fueling system. The proper use of this fuel enrichening valve helped prevent detonation from occurring in the engine cylinder, whenever the engine was under a loaded condition. This enrichening system is what allowed the overall Pogue fueling system to properly work on standard vehicles of his day and allowed them to readily get super-high fuel mileage, yet, with good performance and acceleration. Looking back to an earlier part of this presentation, it stated that Pogue did not use the cooling system on the engine to which he had attached his special fueling system. From what he observed, Pogue thought he could operate the engine just fine without a cooling system. But, as we also learned earlier, it appears that the original engine from one of Pogue's cars that he used in some of his tests had burnt valves and numerous hairline cracks in the engine block. Nevertheless, Pogue was on the right track and he just needed some refinements to his overall system in order to prevent any chance of engine damage. LEAN MIXTURE CAUSES OVERHEATING ? Moving onward, the pages linked below present the common thought among a lot of people who are into cars and internal combustion engines, that leaning the fuel-air mixture can cause overheating of the engine. But, every now and then in these forums, you find someone who really understands their stuff. Once again, it is commonly believed that a lean engine runs hot. A typical, slightly leaned engine running hotter is generally true. But there is actually much more to the real story, as we shall see further down in this presentation. LEANING FOR INCREASED COOLING Now, it is time to get into some very interesting and very revealing information which relates to fuel/air mixtures and engine combustion characteristics. The forum accessed via the link below begins with the question found on the button. The first people to respond begin to answer this question in the commonly declared way --- that a lean engine runs hotter and may overheat. But, about half way down the page, starting with the entry by "Ron," the discussion begins to get interesting, as we learn some real truth about engine combustion characteristics. Ron states: "Leaning does create 'hotter' exhaust gas temps (EGT) compared to a rich mix. But, further leaning will cause EGT to drop also. You are then 'on the backside' of the power curve." Yes, clearly note that there is the "backside" of the power curve. Once you go "over the hump," things begin to cool during combustion in the engine cylinder. The further you go, the more things cool --- of course, to a point, when the engine is actually too lean to run. Ron states further: "As you lean an engine when it's @ 75% power or so you'll see the EGT climb in temperature. Most gas piston engines without turbo will get up to 1000 degrees F easy. But, as you continue to lean, you'll note the EGT start to diminish." And then: "We lean aviation engines constantly due to altitude (air density) changes. Most of the piston engines create their max h.p at "peak" EGT. A turbo-charged aviation engine will run 3-400 degrees hotter on the EGT than non-turbo-ed." Good info, Ron! Ron does add the following important piece of information to the discussion: "The fuel burn per hour can be substantially reduced by leaning the mixtures. Often 10-25% reduction. Engines can be damaged by operating at high power settings with too lean of a mixture. Valve, head, or cylinder damage will likely occur." It is true that you do not want to be running at high power settings with too lean of an air/fuel mixture, especially when running with standard, basic engine setups without additional combustion controls. At this point, there is something very important to note and to once again be reminded about. There are well-established ways to prevent overheating, or detonation, or engine damage at high power settings, even when running with a lean fuel/air mixture. One of these ways is by the use of water or steam injection for combustion control. Once again, the use of water or steam injection for combustion control and to prevent detonation is spoken about in the pages linked below. As a further note, during a time of heavier research in earlier years, the writer read that steam is one of the best anti-detonates available. About half way down a page linked here, it states: "Steam (water vapor) will suppress knock even though no added cooling is supplied." Now, let's get back to the forum which was linked further above, but is also linked below. Right after Ron, in the forum linked below, there is "Matt NMO," who states: "Lean fuel mixture does not make an engine run hot. The mixture setting for max power creates the most heat. If you adjust your carb to lean or rich from the max power setting it will result in lower EGT readings. You can use extra fuel to cool an engine but this also has draw backs like increased build up of carbon/lead. On the other hand you could just get some modern injectors and use air instead of fuel to cool the engine its way cheaper." So, what is that which Matt is stating above? At least in his aircraft engine, it appears that he is using additional air, instead of additional fuel, to cool the engine, at least when cruising. But again, there is the potential to run with lean mixtures, even under acceleration or when the engine is loaded, by the use of water or steam injection to control detonation. Now, back to that forum and what Matt has to say. Matt speaks further about his real life experience: "I like letting the engine operate with max airflow (carb butterfly wide open) and then adjusting temps by adding or subtracting fuel (like a diesel engine). Most old school A&P's come close to having a stroke when you talk about operating a piston engine in this manner." Hey, if Matt's method works out well for him in his airplane engine, what can we say. Hey, if it works, it works! Why should anyone get upset or speak negatively about his method if it has been working out fine for him? What Matt has been doing with his airplane engine may somewhat be showing what Charles Pogue was heading towards in his day with automotive engines, to one degree or another. But in the case of Pogue, he was using a gasified fuel, rather than a liquid fuel. More about that later. At this point, there is something found in the page linked below which is worth considering, especially when it comes to what Matt is speaking about above. The page linked below is speaking about car engines, but the same general concept can also apply to airplane engines. The page states: "A lean burn mode is a way to reduce throttling losses. An engine in a typical vehicle is sized for providing the power desired for acceleration, but must operate well below that point in normal steady-speed operation." And now, there is more to consider in this story. The page continues with these words: "Ordinarily, the power is cut by partially closing a throttle. However, the extra work done in pumping air through the throttle reduces efficiency. If the fuel/air ratio is reduced, then lower power can be achieved with the throttle closer to fully open, and the efficiency during normal driving (below the maximum torque capability of the engine) can be higher." And, that is exactly what Matt was doing with his airplane engine. Once again, note very closely that it takes extra work, on the part of the engine, to pump air into the cylinder as it is forced to suck the air through a partially closed or restricting throttle. Having the engine work harder to suck the air through the partially closed throttle ends up reducing the efficiency of an engine operating under that condition. To increase fuel economy or miles-per-gallon, the engine has to operate in a condition where its efficiency in increased. Well, it does appear that Matt --- the airplane pilot noted further above --- has things figured out rather well. Once he is cruising merrily along in his airplane at his desired altitude and is in virtually a steady-state condition, he just runs his engine with the butterfly on the carburetor in the wide open position. Then he simply adjusts the temperature of the fuel-burn or the power produced by the engine "by adding or subtracting fuel." By leaning or richening the fuel mixture from a given starting point, Matt is adjusting the temperature of the fuel-burn. By adjusting the temperature of the fuel-burn, Matt is actually adjusting how much the gases of combustion need to or could potentially expand or, when confined in a cylinder, how much pressure they will build to produce torque or power output from the engine. When simply cruising along in a level, steady-state condition, it only takes a small fraction of the power which the engine is capable of producing to keep the airplane or other motor vehicle moving along just fine. And, once again, by leaning out the fuel mixture using the proper methods, while under the proper conditions, the temperature of the engine cylinder is reduced. So, engine cooling can be increased by proper leaning of the fuel mixture. The bottom line is this. You just need to know what you are doing, in order to avoid engine damage when operating with a very lean fuel mixture. And now, everyone, "Hats off to Matt," for this particular airplane pilot seems to have it all figured out. COOLING WITH A VERY-LEAN MIXTURE There are some further things along the current line of thinking and examples to consider about lean fuel-air mixtures in an engine. The page linked below starts with these words: "It's a common bit of tuning advice that a too-lean air-fuel mix will make your engine overheat. But there's more to it than that." Then the page states: "If you've ever tuned a seriously modified performance car, or even just fiddled with a carburetor, you've probably heard an old bit of advice: Running lean will make your engine overheat. It's good guidance to follow, but it's a little over-simplified. In fact, a very lean air-fuel mix will make your engine run cooler." Now things begin to get a bit interesting. The linked page states further: "If you lean out past 14.7:1, all the way to something like 17:1, your engine will run cooler again. It just won't run smoothly." Well, that situation of rough running is the way it is when running with a very lean fuel mixture with a liquid fuel system. But, running with a very lean mixture can definitely make an engine run cooler, and that is what Pogue was doing in his system. Now, let's begin to consider why a standard engine will generally run rough when running with an extremely lean fuel/air mixture. When using a standard carbureted or fuel injected engine, a "splatter-type of mixture" comes from the carburetor venturis or from the fuel injectors. The venturis or injectors provide a spray which is made up of non-uniform-sized fuel-droplets in the intake air stream. This is where the problem begins when trying to run with a very lean fuel mixture in the standard engine fueling systems. It is true that with an extreme lean mixture, when using a system which provides a spray of non-uniform-sized fuel droplets in the intake air stream, the engine "just won't run smoothly." Again, that is what happens when using a gasoline "splatter mixture." With the non-uniform "splatter mixture," the different cylinders cannot receive identical fuel charges. Some cylinders may run leaner, while other cylinders may run richer, plus, one fuel-air charge to a cylinder may be a bit different than the ones which follow. The different and constantly changing fuel charge to each cylinder and between cylinders can make for rougher running of the engine. Now, let us consider the way that Charles Pogue was doing things in his fueling system in the earlier 1900s. He was sending a truly gasified fuel into the engine, rather than a "splatter mixture." When using a truly gasified and uniform fuel-air mixture, as can readily occur when using a properly designed Pogue system, things are very different. When using a truly gasified fuel with a uniform fuel mixture, each cylinder can more readily obtain virtually the same fuel charge. In this case, the engine can run smoothly, while running very lean. GOING "OVER THE PEAK" In the page linked below, the answer to the question about lean mixture and engine overheating is somewhat similar, in basic philosophy, to that given in the pages linked in the sections above. The page linked below shows that when running a real lean mixture, the excess air actually cools the engine. A really lean fuel-air mixture is not to be used when a lot of extra power is needed, unless you have other combustion controls in place, which controls could include water or steam injection, rather than fuel enrichment. But, for getting more cruising distance out of your standard fuel system, when not under higher load, the very lean mixture may be the way to go. That appears to be exactly what Charles Pogue was doing with his high-fuel-mileage, specialized fueling system, way back in the 1920s and 1930s. There is another important thing to note in the first answer given in the page linked below. That answer states: "Contrary to the general impression, furthermore, cylinders do not get hotter and hotter the leaner the mixture. In fact they get hotter up to about the best-power mixture, which is around 100° F. to the rich side of peak, and then begin to cool quite rapidly." The page states further: "It is sometimes said that one should not operate on the lean side of peak EGT because even though cylinder-head temperatures are dropping, an oxygen-rich exhaust corrodes valves. In practice, however, this does not seem to be a problem." THE IMPORTANCE OF EQUAL FUEL DISTRIBUTION The pages linked below present additional information which can apply to this discussion about fuel mixtures and leaning the fuel-air mixture. Check them out and see what further things they have to say. As a note, the pages linked below come from the aviation crowd, but when it comes to fuel mixture leaning in a standard equipped engine, the information is still of some value when it comes to automotive type engines. Generally, all of these engines, whether aviation or automotive, are using a type of fuel system which provides a non-uniform-droplet-size, liquid spray of fuel which is mixed with the incoming air that is headed for the engine cylinder. When it comes to fuel mixture leaning, the second linked page states: "The best economy range can be very useful but its proper use depends upon equal mixture distribution to all cylinders..." It appears that equal mixture distribution to all cylinders is the main, key issue, when it comes to leaning the fuel-air mixture which is used in an engine. With the extremely important piece of information, which is noted above, firmly fixed in our minds, let us now turn to consider some of the important features of the Pogue fueling system. Now, the Pogue-type of fueling system is quite a bit different in nature from standard carburetion or fuel injection. A DRY, GASIFIED FUEL CHARGE Charles Pogue was sending a dry, gasified fuel into the engine, rather than a liquid spray of non-uniform-sized fuel-droplets. The use of a dry, gasified fuel more readily allows for the necessary "equal mixture distribution to all cylinders." In the Pogue system, this equal mixture distribution to all cylinders and equal burning characteristics in each cylinder then allowed for the use of an extremely lean fuel-air mixture under a large share of driving conditions, without causing overheating of the engine and without causing rough running. The specific conditions noted above, which is what occurs when using the Pogue type of fueling system, all translates to that much higher miles-per-gallon with good performance which was provided by vehicles in the 1930s, when using the Pogue system. BACK TO THE AIRPLANE CROWD The pages linked below, which are from 2004, all start with the following words: "Never operate your airplane engine lean of peak exhaust gas temperature. These guys aren't buyin' it." The pages go on to speak about an Advanced Pilot Seminar which was happening every two months at a small airport near Ada, Oklahoma. In these seminars, pilots learn the proper way to lean their engines for "cooler operating temperatures, fuel savings on the order of three gallons per hour for a typical six-cylinder engine in a Beech Bonanza, and reduced life-sapping carbon deposits on the valves and pistons." The pages linked below give some history associated with the adjusting of fuel mixtures in airplanes to the lean side of peak exhaust gas temperature (EGT), which allows for cooler engine operating temperatures. Page 3 gets into the heart of the matter, that being, what worked in one piston engine should work in any piston engine (which should include automotive type engines), when it comes to fuel leaning. Now, people are commonly taught that an engine will have a melt-down if the fuel mixture is adjusted to the lean side of peak EGT. But, when the fuel which each cylinder receives is equal, then engine fuel mixtures can readily be operated on the lean side of peak EGT, where cylinder temperature drops off nicely and fuel economy increases nicely. Again, what works in one type of piston engine should readily work in virtually any other type of piston engine, when using a properly designed system with the proper combustion controls. Other pages with information relating to operating engines with the fuel mixture adjusted lean, or to the lean side of peak EGT, are linked below. Further information on this very interesting subject should be able to be found on the Internet, with a bit of diligent research. SOME THINGS TO NOTE At this point, there is something very important --- a very key issue --- which must once again be noted. In all of the airplane type of fuel systems which are spoken about in the sections above, a liquid fuel "splatter mixture," which is made up of non-uniform-sized fuel-droplets, is sprayed into the air stream which goes into the engine cylinder for combustion. In this "splatter mixture" which is being used, the individual fuel droplets are of a large array of sizes. The droplets in the "splatter mixture" commonly range in size from microscopic to relatively large, with each size of fuel droplet potentially acting different in the airstream in the intake manifold. The larger, heavier fuel droplets may come out of suspension in the airstream, when the airstream comes to bends in the intake manifold. In the bends, the larger, heavier fuel droplets may, by centrifugal (1) or centripetal force (1), be thrown to the outer wall of the bend and wet the wall or form a puddle at that point (1). Once thrown to the outer wall of the bend, the droplet may spread out on the wall and become vaporized and then rejoin the passing airstream which is heading for the engine cylinder. This situation of larger droplets being thrown out of the airstream and then being spread out on the intake wall, where they vaporize and then re-enter the airstream (1)(2), can constantly change the nature of the fuel charge which makes it to each of the individual engine cylinders. This type of activity which occurs within the intake manifold can have an effect on fuel distribution to the various engine cylinders (1)(2)(3). Then, the different sized fuel droplets would have different burning characteristics in the engine cylinder or between cylinders. This causes rough running of the engine. RETURNING TO CHARLES POGUE In the Charles Pogue fueling system, he was doing something completely different than that which is commonly done in standard airplane or automotive fuel systems. Pogue was vaporizing the fuel first, then he was "cracking" or gasifying the large amount of fuel vapors which were created in the first stage and converting them into even a much larger volume of higher octane rated, gaseous fuels. The "cracked" or gasified fuel which was created in the Pogue system, in its general nature, would have been something along the lines of things like propane or butane. This gasified fuel created withing the Pogue system was then mixed with enough air to support proper combustion. Only then was the uniform fuel mixture sent to the engine cylinder. But there is still more to this story. Earlier in this presentation, it is noted that Pogue's fueling systems had a fuel enrichening circuit or valve built into them. This fuel enrichment system was used during times of vehicle acceleration or whenever the engine was under load. This fuel enrichment prevented detonation or the type of engine damage which could result from it, under these loaded conditions. When a vehicle was just cruising merrily along on a relatively level road or whenever the vehicle was coasting down a hill, the engine was made to run extremely lean in an environment which, when things were done right, would not cause any damage to the engine. From the available evidence, there is reason to believe that the Pogue fueling system worked very well and allowed an engine to obtain high fuel mileage, with good performance and acceleration. CONTROLLING ENGINE TEMPERATURE Let us now look at how to properly control the temperature of an engine, especially when dealing with a multi-cylinder engine. Generally speaking, equal or relatively identical cylinder mixtures in the various cylinders of a multi-cylinder engine can mean equal burn rates in the various cylinders. Generally speaking, equal burn rates in the various cylinders of a multi-cylinder engine can allow the engine to operate at a much cooler temperature than a multi-cylinder engine in which the cylinder mixtures and burn rates end up being different, and especially when being much different between the various cylinders. When the cylinder mixtures and burn rates are uniform in a multi-cylinder engine, there is not the problem which the writer will simply call lean/rich cylinder "fighting" when multi-cylinders are hooked to a common crank. To better understand what the writer is talking about, let us consider some examples of what can happen during combustion in a cylinder. Rich cylinders burn slower and cooler than do lean cylinders. Moderately lean cylinders burn faster and hotter. This generally would not be a huge problem until multiple cylinders are directly connected to a common crankshaft. Once multiple cylinders with varying burn rates are connected to a common crankshaft, the real problems can begin which lead to overheating in an engine. So, let us look at what happens when there are rich and lean cylinders. In a multi-cylinder engine in which the pistons are connected to a common crankshaft, the pistons in the slower-burning rich cylinders tend to hold back or impede the travel of the pistons in the faster-burning lean cylinders. This creates a problem because the heat from the lean cylinders which are held back in their travel has to go somewhere. In the situation spoken about above, what then commonly happens in this situation is that the heat from the lean and hot burning cylinders is then forced to go into the cylinder walls of the lean, hot burning cylinders, and from there, into the engine cooling system. This situation can potentially lead to an overheated engine. This situation which leads to the overheating of engines is generally more pronounced in a carbureted or fuel injected engine which ends up operating on a "splatter mixture" that is made up of non-uniform-sized fuel-droplets. An engine which uses a gaseous or gasified type of fuel and has uniform fuel mixture and burn rates in its various cylinders generally ends up running noticeably cooler and much smoother. CONSIDERING PRODUCTION LEAN-BURN SYSTEMS It is time to explore one of the original, electronically-controlled lean-burn systems in the United States which was used on carbureted automotive engines that were produced by a major automotive manufacturer. In this section, let us first begin by examining the Chrysler Lean-Burn system. Further down in this section will also be considered some lean-burn systems from other manufacturers. Chrysler, back in 1976, was the first major automotive company in the United States to come out with a lean-burn fuel and ignition system for automobiles. Chrysler came up with their new lean-burn technology as a way of reducing tailpipe emissions, rather than simply going to a catalytic converter which just burns up and wastes the excess fuel which is commonly flowing out of the exhaust port of an engine. The Chrysler Lean-Burn system used a feedback-type of carburetor (1)(2)(3)(4) along with the electronic spark control. The two pages linked below do a pretty good job of explaining the Chrysler Lean-Burn system, plus note some the the problems which various owners of Chrysler products of that era were experiencing. The first linked page states a couple of the good points about the Lean-Burn system, but then it declares: "Yet Lean-Burn quickly gained a reputation for unreliability." The page also states: "Plenty of frustrated owners, and their increasingly well-off mechanics, pulled Lean-Burn systems off their Mopars in the early days, reverting to a standard distributor." The second linked page speaks about the Chrysler Lean-Burn system as being "an early spark advance control system (introduced in 1976 and continuing to the 1980s) that was troublesome due to the nature of the contemporary electronic components, as well as the yards of vacuum hose and competent mechanics needed to keep it working." This system used a Spark Control Computer which, especially with age and because of its mounting location, could be negatively affected by heat and vibration. In the lower part of the second linked page, it speaks about a number of problems that various people had with the Chrysler Lean Burn system. It also speaks about how they fixed some of the problems associated with the system, as best they could. It also notes that the Lean Burn system aged quite poorly, creating various problems for owners. From the available information, it appears that there were some very serious problems which many people experienced with this Lean Burn system. The pages linked below access information from forums and people who have had to deal with the problems presented by the Chrysler Lean-Burn systems. It appears that there were a number of driveability issues associated with these systems, especially as they age. It appears that these systems also complicated things for owners who were trying to diagnose operating problems. For the most part, an Internet search shows that most people quickly became tired of dealing with these lean-burn systems and just wanted to get rid of them. Well, from the information available on the Internet, it appears that the Chrysler Lean Burn system created quite a number of aggravating problems for quite a number of people. Possibly it even helped the oil companies make some extra money because of the large amount of extra fuel which was often burned --- or was simply sent through the engine to become extra exhaust pollutants --- when many of these systems were experiencing problems. But, there may be another side to consider in this whole story. The problems which people experienced with Chrysler's Lean Burn system could have discouraged a lot of them from every wanting to have anything to do with leaner burning types of fueling systems for automotive engines. After having so many problems with the Chrysler Lean Burn system, they were possibly happy to go around wasting fuel, just as long as the engine ran well and was reasonably reliable. And, there is even more to consider. The bad experience which many people had with the Chrysler Lean Burn system may have caused them to more readily believe stories which said that the high-fuel-mileage, lean-burn fueling system of Charles Pogue never really worked as well as is stated by many sources. People completely disbelieving the information about the success of the Pogue system would have all worked in favor of the oil companies, so that they could keep getting their outrageous profits, at the motorists' expense. Now, let's look at a little trivial about Chrysler during the time of the Lean Burn system. This troublesome Lean Burn system was introduced by Chrysler in 1976 and continued in use well into the 1980s (1)(2)(3). In 1979, in the midst of the Chrysler Lean Burn era, during this time when many people were having problems with their Lean Burn vehicles and possibly sales were dropping, the CEO of Chrysler, Lee Iacocca, obtained a $1.5 Billion bailout for Chrysler from the U.S. government (1). Yes, taxpayer dollars were going to back an ailing private company. Okay, let's look at some trivia surrounding this man Lee Iacocca, who got that taxpayer-backed bailout for Chrysler. Lee Iacocca is said to have been a member of the Knights of Malta (1)(2)(3)(4). Now, the U.S. arm of the Knights of Malta (SMOM) was initially established on the East Coast in 1927. As a note, most of the founding members of the East Coast branch of the Knights of Malta "were tycoons of industry and finance."(1) Knowing the information above, there is reason to suspect that the powerful oil barons, like the Rockefellers and others, were connected to the Knights of Malta. So potentially, because of their Knights of Malta brotherhood, the automotive manufacturers and the oil companies may have worked together to make sure that only motor vehicles which wasted fuel were the type which got produced for public use. Anyway, it's just a thought to toss around a bit. By the way, in the early 1960s, President John F. Kennedy allegedly declared: "There's a plot in this country to enslave every man, woman and child." Well, after that, Kennedy did not last too long (1). There is one bit of trivia to note about these members of the Knights of Malta, which includes people like Lee Iacocca, who are tycoons or powerful and controlling people in industry and finance in the United States. They are part of the militia of the pope and, as such, they are ultimately under the influence or control of the Jesuit General in Rome (1). So, it appears that Lee Iacocca was well connected, via his numerous fellow-members in the militia of the pope which are even in government, when he got that government bailout (1)(2)(3) for Chrysler. Now, enough of all this crazy trivia which relates to Chrysler and Lee Iacocca and some of his associations and potential cohorts. Let's get back to the subject of lean burn engines and that interesting type of information which does relate to what was being done with those amazing fueling systems for automotive type engines which were created and tested by Charles Pogue in the latter 1920s and the 1930s. The pages linked below provide general information about various types of lean-burn systems which are being researched or have been created and tested, or have even been produced for public use. As seen in the pages, these types of systems have also been tested or produced by manufacturers other than Chrysler. Now, there are some important facts to consider. The first page linked below states: "Gasoline burns best in standard internal combustion engines when it is mixed with air in the proportions of 14.7:1 -- nearly 15 parts of air to every one part of fuel. A true lean-burn can go as high as 32:1." Okay, that is one statement. Now, let us see what someone else has to say. The second linked page declares: "In lean-burn engines the air:fuel ratio may be as lean as 65:1 (by mass). The air/fuel ratio needed to stoichiometrically combust gasoline, by contrast, is 14.64:1. The excess of air in a lean-burn engine emits far less hydrocarbons. High air-fuel ratios can also be used to reduce losses caused by other engine power management systems such as throttling losses." The second page declares further: "A lean burn mode is a way to reduce throttling losses. An engine in a typical vehicle is sized for providing the power desired for acceleration, but must operate well below that point in normal steady-speed operation. Ordinarily, the power is cut by partially closing a throttle. However, the extra work done in pumping air through the throttle reduces efficiency. If the fuel/air ratio is reduced, then lower power can be achieved with the throttle closer to fully open, and the efficiency during normal driving (below the maximum torque capability of the engine) can be higher." According to the second page, lean burn engines "can employ higher compression ratios and thus provide better performance, efficient fuel use and low exhaust hydrocarbon emissions than those found in conventional gasoline engines." Well, the writer of the information in the second linked page was "on a roll," and then they said this: "Ultra lean mixtures with very high air-fuel ratios can only be achieved by direct injection engines." That is a false statement. Ultra lean mixtures with very high air-fuel ratios can also be achieved when using a gaseous or gasified type of fuel. That is what Charles Nelson Pogue was doing in the 1920s and 1930s. The paragraph above the cluster of button-links noted that Charles Pogue, in his amazing fueling systems for automotive type engines, was using a gaseous or gasified fuel. So, let us look a bit further at the benefits of a gaseous fuel. The page linked below states: "A lean burn strategy for CNG [Compressed Natural Gas] vehicle engines optimizes vehicle range, fuel cost savings and engine life, without sacrificing performance. Lean burn also allows for the lowest possible CO2 production per mile." The linked page further states that, " if an engine is operated with an excess of oxygen, combustion temperatures are reduced, NOx emissions are reduced and fuel consumption is reduced." And, there is now more to consider. The type of engine operation spoken about in the linked page can readily be done when a gaseous type of fuel is sent into the cylinder of the engine, rather than a liquid "splatter mixture" which is made up of non-uniformly sized fuel droplets which are not truly ready to burn completely and uniformly in the combustion process. While we are looking at "modern" types of lean burn systems, just for the record, let us note some other types of lean burn systems which have been at least experimented with in the laboratory. The page linked below speaks of a different type of lean burn engine. This one is called a low temperature combustion engine. The page then speaks about the Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition (HCCI) system. Then there is the Premixed Charge Compression Ignition (PCCI) system. And on and on things could go. Yes, what an expensive and complicated mess we have gotten ourselves into, especially when things really don't have to be this way. Well, it's time for a bit of truth. Charles Nelson Pogue could have "saved the day" for all of us, if those who have hijacked our world would have allowed his system to be mass produced for widespread use, starting back in the 1930s. The evidence indicates that his special fueling system allowed an engine to get high fuel mileage with good performance and low emissions, the easy and inexpensive and reliable way, without any computers or other electronic controls. And again, this all happened way back in the late 1920s and in the 1930s. ADDRESSING THE NAYSAYERS The pages linked below are examples of those who appear to be working to misguide people and turn the general populace away from any hope of there being a high-efficiency, lean-burn fueling system for automotive type engines. The page linked below mocks the thought of high-fuel-mileage carburetors. Then it goes on to declare: "MIT mechanical engineering professor John Heywood points out that modern carburetors deliver a fuel-combustion rate of higher than 97 percent." Now, there are some very important questions which need to be asked. Where is professor Heywood taking his readings, when he states that 97 percent of the fuel is burned in the combustion process? Is he taking his exhaust gas readings at the end of the tailpipe, after air has been injected (1)(2)(3)(4) into the combustion gases leaving the exhaust port, so as much of the exiting fuel as possible can then be burned in the catalytic converter under a lean-burn condition? Or, did he take his readings at the exhaust port of the cylinder head, upstream of the catalytic converter and any injected air? The page below goes on to slam carburetors as being old technology. Well, when it comes to that which is commonly called the Pogue carburetor from the 1930s, it was actually more than a common type of carburetor. Using a bit more modern terminology, you might say that Pogue's system was actually a throttle body to which was attached a fuel gasification system. The Pogue fueling system is truly much different than a common, liquid fuel or vapor fuel carburetor. The page linked below is from another one of those typical naysayers. The page speaks of the so-called 200 MPG carburetors as being "a fantasy and at worst a fraud." This page also speaks about that professor named John Heywood, who is mentioned a couple of paragraphs above. Then the page states the following about vapor type carburetors: "Truth is, vapor carbs are the equivalent of the improved buggy whip. Forget 'em." Possibly the writer of that page owns stocks in the oil companies and is working to assure a return on their investment. The linked page then goes on to state: "This is not to say super-high-mileage cars couldn't be built. On the contrary, there are plenty of proven energy-efficient technologies available, none of which has lacked for publicity or industry backing." Then the page speaks about "ten experimental cars developed by seven major automakers that got highway mileage ranging from 71 to 110 mpg." The page goes on to speak about a car built by Renault "that got 121 mpg on the run from Paris to Bordeaux." But, every higher-fuel-mileage vehicle spoken about in the linked page was built by the big money boys of the big companies, as if no one else has the capability of doing such a thing. Well, those rich boys from the big companies are some of those who have hijacked our world. It appears that these are part of the group which is spoken about in the preceding section, who have ties to the Knights of Malta or the militia of the pope. At this point, let us once again note the following words which are attributed to President John F. Kennedy in the earlier 1960s: "There's a plot in this country to enslave every man, woman and child." Yes, by the looks of things, it appears that the citizens of the United States have been partially enslaved at least through their motor vehicles and all the environmental laws and fees. Then, in the midst of all this, there are some important words to consider from Theodore Roosevelt, who was the President of the United States from 1901 to 1909. Theodore Roosevelt saw at least some of what was happening way back in his day and declared: "Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of today."(1)(2)(3) Then there was Woodrow Wilson, who was the 28th President of the United States, from 1913 to 1921. Wilson stated: "Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."(1)(2)(3) Three U.S. presidents saw something nefarious in action which was operating behind the scenes in the United States. Something was going on which would ultimately work to enslave U.S. citizens. As far as Roosevelt understood these things in the very early 1900s, he saw it as an invisible government, or a second type of government, which was operating behind the scenes and controlling our visible government. To Roosevelt, this invisible government was composed of those who were part of corrupt business and corrupt politics. Then later, President Wilson saw it as a controlling power which was organized and subtle, watchful and interlocked, of which many people in commerce and manufacturing were afraid. What were these three presidents actually speaking about? Research indicates that it was the organization of the Jesuits and the Knights of Columbus and the militia of the pope, which were working together to squeeze out all competition, so they could take control of this country, including the oil industry, the banking, and the automotive field. Now, let us get back on track by looking at some examples which can give us some idea of how much usable fuel is potentially leaving an engine cylinder in a non-combusted state. Just for giggles, let us take a look at those things they call tailpipe or exhaust flame throwers. First, there are some things to note. The page linked below states that this type of system will not work on cars with catalytic converters. Why is this? Well, the catalytic converter is supposed to burn a large share of the fuel which passes out of the engine cylinder, so there won't be enough extra left which could then be burnt in the tailpipe flame thrower. The page linked below also states the following about the tailpipe flame thrower: "This will work best with a vehicle equipped with manual choke." Yes, it will work best with a vehicle which has a manual choke because the choke can be partially closed so the fuel will really gush through the engine and out the tailpipe. But, the system will also work with a vehicle which does not have a manual choke, just the flames will not be quite so extreme (1)(2)(3)(4). Without secondary air injection into the unburned fuel coming out of the exhaust port of the engine which will then allow this fuel to be largely burned, plus without a catalytic converter to help burn up as much of the wasted fuel as possible, there can potentially be quite a bit of unburnt fuel passing through the exhaust system of a vehicle and out into the surrounding environment. With the specialize fueling systems created by Charles Nelson Pogue in the latter 1920s and into the 1930, there would never have been anything like a lot of excess fuel passing through the engine and out the exhaust. There never would have been the pollution coming out of vehicles which then required the use of expensive emission equipment in later years. The Pogue system burned lean and complete and used virtually all of the fuel directly within the engine cylinder to produce usable power from the vehicle's engine. Now, there is one more thing which needs to be said to the numerous naysayers of the Pogue system, especially to those who are invested in oil stocks. There are some from that crowd who say that if something like the Pogue carburetor had really been built and tested and proven, that the car manufacturers would have been beating a path to Pogue's door so they could buy his invention and start putting it on all those cars that they were building. Yes, that all would have been nice, but there's a serious glitch in this type of common thinking. The car companies and the oil companies just do not want something along the lines of the Pogue fueling system to be put into general use in our world. If something like a Pogue type system were put into widespread use, it would horribly hurt the profits of those controlling "tycoons of industry and finance" who are associated with the Knights of Malta and the militia of the pope. Ultimately, it would work against their agenda of enslaving the citizens of the United States for their Jesuit bosses in Rome. President John F. Kennedy knew exactly what he was talking about, before they sent him home "in a box" in November of 1963 (1). ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF TREACHERY There are many who mistakenly believe that the car manufacturers would quickly buy up and install a specialized fueling system on the engines of vehicles which they were producing, if that system could give their vehicles a marked increase in fuel mileage and horsepower. There are those who believe that car manufacturers would especially put the fueling system on their vehicles if it could cause a marked reduction in harmful exhaust emissions, while costing much less money and time to produce. Well, it is time to check out a real life example which may help to "pop" any "imaginary bubble" which certain people may have. At this time, let us begin to look at just one real life example of what has commonly happened over the years, even in the United States, when people have tried to make things better or more fuel efficient in the automotive world. Let us see what has commonly happened to people which have come up with important improvements which could help the general populace, along with our environment, which would even result in a cost savings for the manufacturers and the general public. The pages linked below speak about the Fish carburetor, which carburetor was originally developed in the 1930s and was popular into the 1950s (1). The page linked here notes that "Fish carburetors were not 'super' carbs, but they were enough of an improvement that they were attacked, suppressed, and the business driven out of the country!" Because of the dirty tricks being pulled on John Fish and his carburetor factory, it was forced to leave Massachusetts and relocate in Florida. The Fish carburetor did not give the phenomenal fuel mileage like that 209 miles-per-gallon which has been claimed for the Pogue carburetor. It is said that the Fish carburetor only provided an average improvement of about 20 percent in fuel mileage, while providing about 30 percent more horsepower. The pages linked below speak about the unique design and benefits of the Fish carburetor and why its special design allowed for marked improvements in fuel mileage and the potential horsepower output of engines. There is something else to know about this amazing Fish carburetor, or actually, about its inventor. John Robert Fish, the man who created the highly versatile Fish carburetor, was not even an automotive engineer. John Fish was just a very good inventor who understood what it would take to make a much better carburetor. Well, it turned out that Mr. Fish did such a good job at designing and building his improved carburetor that the "Original Equipment" manufacturers considered it to be a serious threat. And from there, things began to go downhill and the dirty tricks started, as the "Original Equipment" manufacturers and their cohorts did virtually everthing that they could to put John Robert Fish out of business. Wow! That sounds exactly like what the Democrats have been doing during virtually the whole Trump presidency! It looks like this trait runs "in the family." Even the U.S. Postal Service got involved in playing dirty. Customers were mail ordering the Fish carburetor and the Postal Service stopped John Fish's mail. They would send orders mailed to Fish back to the potential customers "with the word FRAUDULENT boldly stamped across the front of the envelope." The second linked page states further: "Incredibly the Post Office claimed there were no carburetors being produced. When in fact, from 1947 to 1959, the Fish Carburetor Company of Daytona, Florida manufactured more than 125,000 carburetors." The pages linked below show that the Fish carburetor did very well in racing, even in the Daytona 500. The second linked page makes known that an engine with the Fish carburetor could operate on gasoline, alcohol, nitro methane, paint thinner, parts cleaner or kerosene, with just some relatively minor adjustments. When changing from gasoline to alcohol, the adjustments only took "about 90 seconds." And, because the Fish carburetor was so efficient that it gave about 20 percent better fuel mileage, it is obvious that an engine using one of these carburetors would have sent much less of those harmful emissons out of the exhaust pipe. The first page linked below states the following about the Fish carburetor: "The carb works on pressure differential -- not air speed, which means that it is almost instantly self adjusting & self compensating so any change in weather or altitude requires no adjustments or modifications as with conventional carbs. Hence all round suitability for cars, boats, aircraft, mountain or pressure charging use." The Fish carburetor was also used in the boats of those Florida big game fisherman and "enabled them to reach and return from their fishing grounds much quicker," which gave them more fishing time and the chance to catch more fish. Now, let us consider another important characteristic of the Fish carburetor. The second linked page states: "The Fish carburetor competes well with electronic fuel injection because it automatically compensates for altitude and easily adjusts to burn alternative fuels." Yes, the Fish carburetor could easily adjust to burn alternative fuels. This is not something which can be said for electronic fuel injection. Furthermore, the Fish carburetor was virtually "simplicity at its best," for it automatically compensated for its surrounding environment and conditions without having any kind of complex or expensive electronics or computer control. The two pages linked below show patents and patent drawings for the Fish carburetor. One thing becomes very obvious from looking at the drawings. The Fish carburetor was much less complex that some of the carburetors installed as Original Equipment in the late 1960s and into the '70s. It was much less complex than something like the Rochester Quadrajet. It was less complex than even many of the two barrel or single barrel carburetors of earlier years. The page linked below starts with these words: "The big automakers, GM, Ford and so forth, have long had the know-how to build better performing, more fuel efficient cars, but it would defeat their marketing schedule to give us these advantages all at once." The technology has also been available for many decades which would allow vehicles to put out much less of those harmful pollutants, so they could be much more environmentally-friendly, without all the expensive emission equipment which we now find hanging all over our modern engines. The linked page notes that the carburetor of John Robert Fish was a " thoroughly tested and proven invention [which] was not happily received by eager automakers, as you might expect. Instead, the inventor met with suppression and harassment." Once again, looking at the capabilities of the Fish carburetor, the page states: "The Fish is the only multi-fuel carburetor in existence. You can run gasoline, kerosene, alcohol, and even crude oil, or Diesel fuel with a Fish on your gasoline engine." But, the powers that be do not want it on our engines. Now, look again at what is stated above. A regular gasoline type engine could have a Fish carburetor installed, which would then allow that gasoline type of engine to then readily operate on not only gasoline, but also "kerosene, alcohol, and even crude oil, or Diesel fuel," with just some minor adjustments which only took seconds. Once again, the Fish carburetor can allow a gasoline-type engine to operate on crude oil. About one-third of the way down, the page linked below declares: "Well, with the Fish carburetor, you can run crude in a gasoline-type engine --- fairly efficiently if the compression ratio is high --- and there is not more pollution than with refined gasolines." The page notes that with the Fish carburetor, "there is no need to refine the fuel. If there's no need to refine the fuel, then there's no need for Exxon, Standard, Shell and the like. We can simply pump the crude out of the ground, as some Kansas farmers do, let the sand and water sink to the bottom of tanks, and use it directly as fuel." The page speaks about a Kentucky dealer for the Fish carburetor who did a demonstration of the carburetor's multi-fuel capabilities for "Channel 18 television in Lexington." The page states: "Using a 350 Chevy, the mechanic used crude, kerosene, Diesel fuel and even dry cleaning solvent, as the news cameras recorded it. 'It took only 7 seconds for the mechanic to adjust the Fish carburetor when switching from one fuel to the next,' Brown said." So, the amazing multi-fuel capabilities of the Fish carburetor have been fully proven, even openly, and even to a television news crew. That news crew got to watch and film as the Fish carburetor readily allowed an engine to run just fine on straight crude oil. The Fish carburetor was also fully proven in racing, like in the Daytona 500. No wonder the powers that be and those who have treasonously hijacked our country and our world hated the Fish carburetor so much. No wonder these vile ones wanted to ruin the business of John Robert Fish. Now, at the very beginning of this presentation it speaks about the honorable dead who have done their best to help humanity, but ended up getting virtually "kicked in the teeth" for their noble efforts. That starting paragraph notes that Charles Nelson Pogue, of Pogue carburetor fame, is one of those honorable dead. Well, there is another person who can be added to that list. John Robert Fish, of Fish carburetor fame, is another one of those honorable dead. May he rest in peace, and may his tormentors never be able to rest in peace, for all eternity. Moving onward, the page linked below contains a number of pictures relating to the Fish carburetor, some of them even have the basic carburetor components identified. Various adaptions of, or various adapters for, the Fish carburetor are also shown. There are also a few pictures from the early racing days which are related to the Fish carburetor, plus a picture of the production line for the Fish carburetors in Daytona Beach, Florida --- yes, the production line for all those carburetors which the U.S. Postal Service said did not exist. The page below speaks about the history of the Fish carburetor. It speaks of the treacherous acts which various rogue or possibly criminal segments of government agencies were perpetrating on Robert Fish. The page states: "The Massachusetts Fish carburettor factory, after its mail had been cut off, had then, out of survival necessity, to be moved out of that state's legal jurisdiction to Daytona Beach, Florida, where Bob Fish could all but start again, helped initially by good sales to the big game-fishing boats." The page presents a lot of history and the intricacies relating to the Fish carburetor. The page is all well worth reading. The page linked below presents information from 1983. It speaks of the Brown Carburetor Company in Draper, Utah, which was producing Fish carburetors. The page states: "Brown offers a guarantee that mileage will increase a minimum of 20% with the carburetor but says it increases mileage 30, 40 or even 50% on some vehicles. A key feature of the unit is that, with its adjustable jet size, it readily adapts to burning alcohol and other alternative fuels." The page also states: "Because the jet size is adjustable, you can switch the carburetor from gas to alcohol, or kerosene or other fuels, in just two to three minutes. You can 'lean down' the fuel air mixture so far that no exhaust emissions will register on regular testing equipment. Or, you can set it for a 30% increase in horsepower." The page indicates that the Fish carburetor can be set up to work "on any vehicle from a 225 cu. in. 6-cyl. to a 500 cu. in. V-8." The page linked below speaks about an offshoot or rogue company which it appears was producing a copycat or counterfeit variation of the original Fish carburetor. This counterfeit is commonly known as the Reece Fish carburetor. This particular counterfeit carburetor and its manufacturer are spoken about in some detail in the page which is linked further above, which is titled Minnow Fish Carb History -- Full History (1). Scan through both linked pages. There is a lot of information to check out and things to understand about the Fish carburetor. Now that you have received a very basic introduction to what happen to John Robert Fish when he simply tried to produce and market his improved carburetor, there are some further things to note. From the information presented in the pages linked in this section, it is more than obvious that there was a group effort to shut down the production of the Fish carburetor. It is clear that even segments of government agencies were playing dirty tricks, as they worked to shut down and eliminate the production of the Fish carburetor. So, who was actually behind all this treacherous or criminal effort to shut down John Robert Fish? Once again, the words of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson possibly may help to answer the question. Once again, Theodore Roosevelt proclaimed: "Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of today." And, those words from President Roosevelt came from the very early 1900s. And again, Woodrow Wilson declared: "Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." From what is said in the preceding section of this presentation, plus from that which is revealed by research elsewhere, there is reason to believe that John Robert Fish was up against those who were connected with that powerful clique made up of controlling "tycoons of industry and finance"(1) who were associated with the Knights of Malta and with the militia of the pope and their controllers in Rome. When it comes to the oil barons, it appears that the Rockefellers had ties to the controlling clique made up of "tycoons of industry and finance." It appears that the rich and powerful of that foreign-controlled clique which wanted to take over this country (1)(2), while destroying its economy (1), were working to run roughshod over the citizens of the United States and squeeze out any and all competition. It appears that they were doing this so they could hijack the country and take complete control of things, including control of the government in the United States. In the process, they were working to crush under and enslave the genuine citizens of the United States. Well, President John F. Kennedy did declare in the earlier 1960s: "There's a plot in this country to enslave every man, woman and child." It does not take a lot of looking at what has been happening over the decades in the United States, in order to see that President Kennedy was very accurate in what he had declared. And, from his vantage point as a high-level, Fourth Degree Knight of Columbus and a member of the militia of the pope, plus because of his family connections (1)(2), he possibly had a good idea of what was being done behind the scenes.
|
|---|