Update on Fuel Vaporizer...

-
70DusterBob

70DusterBob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2016
Messages
781
Reaction score
149
Location
Texas
I wish I had better news. I mean I have spent close to $20,000, spent an ice age building and testing prototypes, dealt with 4 shady patent attys, one shady patent agent, and it has been about 7-1/2 years since I filed for patent on my fuel vaporizing process.

After all this, I "am" better off than where I started, but still haven't succeeded in getting a patent.

Where I stand now? Out of liquid assets, with which to pay for further pursuit of the patent application. I don't know of a worthy patent atty that isn't rather expensive, $3,000 as a retainer. I have till Dec. 7th to respond to an Office Action from the Examiner, and I can go up to 3 months past that if I pay the late fees. $50 first month, $150 second month, $350 third month is the break down on that I believe.

So here's the situation: I can split 49/51% with what I would get for royalties from the license of the patent, providing we get the patent. It will work on any carbureted engine, including 2 and 4 stroke small engines and any race car that is TBI or Carbureted. Typically the holder of the patent gets 15%, so that would mean we both get very close to 7.5%, which could still be a lot if it were sold on all pre-existing small engines, and mfged with the new ones. 51% would be your way to manage and control the sale and business end of the licensing. With 49% all I can do is ride the wave.

It will take someone signing a non-disclosure document to get a copy of the patent application and the documentation I have gotten so far on it. I can send a proto to be tested, either for a 2 stroke or 4 stroke small engine, or a race engine. I would need four intake to carb gaskets for a 2 stroke or 4 stroke small engine, and a spacer may or may not need to be fabricated, which I can do. I will also write a report of sorts explaining what needs to be done, what I have done, and what needs to happen with the patent office to get the patent before any money is spent on your part. So you can do a full review of the patent application, have a proto to test, and get up to date on the progress over the years that I have made before investing anything.

Financial obligations are approximately $4,000-$8,000 depending on the atty we/you hire for the job. I know of a good one, just a bit pricey in my financial situation.

Anyway, PM me if you're interested.
Thanks,
Bob
 
This may sound crazy, but I only have 4 months left before it goes abandoned, can't get it ever, and I have been tapped for resources. Going... Going... and I don't want to just sit around and wait for the Gone part.

el5dart, Please PM me. Thanks
 
Dam Bob that sucks I know you have been working on that Pattent for a long time. Hope some one helps out. Try a Fund Me page?
 
halifaxhops said:
Dam Bob that sucks I know you have been working on that Pattent for a long time. Hope some one helps out. Try a Fund Me page?
Click to expand...

Thanks Ray,

I would try GoFundMe page or something, or post pics in here but I can't make a public disclosure or they will consider that public knowledge and not allow the patent. It is a real catch 22. If I explain what it is, people will believe in it, but I won't be able to get the patent. If I don't explain what it is, I can get the patent but I can't get funding. A real pickle. Dill pickle.
 
I hear you got into it just a bit to it when we did the distributor . If I had it would go for it.
 
halifaxhops said:
I hear you got into it just a bit to it when we did the distributor . If I had it would go for it.
Click to expand...

Thanks. This is a tough spot to be in. Been vaporizing fuel for 35 years now. I know I know it works, I need someone to simply trust me and ask for more info.

You don't have to have a lot of money to be creative enough to invent something. It's 90% work, 10% talent. I know you know that, I just hope someone with an open mind like yours comes along.
 
el5dart said:
any links or videos demonstrating anything?
Click to expand...

I've got a video of a "0" Turn with it installed. The operator turns it over a few times, then gives it throttle, it starts immediately, backs it back down to idle, engages cutting blades at idle with no hick-ups. Then with the cutting blades engaged, dumps the throttle up to full throttle with no hick-ups, then backs it down. Runs more smoothly than any small engine I ever heard, didn't hick-up when engaging the blades at idle, didn't hick-up when dumping the throttle with the blades engaged. I need an email address to send a large video, 85.7 mb. 33 seconds long .mov file to. I can't post it.
 
The Fundamental Principle my idea works on, the "Coanda Effect":

Although generally unrecognized, Coanda was actually the first person to build and fly a jet powered aircraft. It is commonly believed that the first jet engines were developed during World War II. Dr. Hans Von Ohain designed the first German jet aircraft, which made its first flight on August 27, 1939. Unaware of Dr. Von Ohain's work, A British engineer named Sir Frank Whittle also independently designed a jet aircraft, which first flew on May 15, 1941.

Although these two men are generally thought of as the fathers of jet aircraft, Henri Coanda built and "flew" the first recorded jet aircraft about 30 years earlier. The somewhat amusing first flight is best described in Coanda's own words:

"It was on 16 December 1910. I had no intention of flying on that day. My plan was to check the operation of the engine on the ground but the heat of the jet blast coming back at me was greater than I expected and I was worried in case I set the aeroplane on fire. For this reason I concentrated on adjusting the jet and did not realize that the aircraft was rapidly gaining speed. Then I looked up and saw the walls of Paris approaching rapidly. There was no time to stop or turn round and I decided to try and fly instead. Unfortunately I had no experience of flying and was not used to the controls of the aeroplane. The aeroplane seemed to make a sudden steep climb and then landed with a bump. First the left wing hit the ground and then the aircraft crumpled up. I was not strapped in and so was fortunately thrown clear of the burning machine."

Unfortunately Coanda couldn’t obtain funding to continue his research after the wreck, and so his contribution to jet propulsion never became widespread. If he had been able to continue his work, France could have had a jet-powered air force before WW II began. Even though he didn't build another jet aircraft, he did make a very important contribution to how the aircraft wings produce lift when he discovered what is now called the Coanda Effect.

Coanda Effect: A moving stream of fluid in contact with a curved surface will tend to follow the curvature of the surface rather than continue traveling in a straight line.

To perform a simple demonstration of this effect, grab a spoon and find a sink. Get a small stream of water coming down from the sink, then place the bottom of the spoon next to the stream. Notice how the water curves along the surface of the spoon. If you hold the spoon so that it is free to swing, you should be able to notice that the spoon is actually being pulled towards the stream of water.
 
i saw a guy on youtube running his tbi dakota off of fumes only from a gas can. and he drove it around the block. it was interesting.
 
el5dart said:
i saw a guy on youtube running his tbi dakota off of fumes only from a gas can. and he drove it around the block. it was interesting.
Click to expand...

I saw that too, and while you can't beat the mileage of it, you won't be pushing 500HP either. My 360 was under 300HP, but it is not built for more. My process does not create restriction. Here is the emissions breakdown:

Emissions Test Results

In the 5.9 Liter carbureted engine tested, I tried several differently designed curved baffles and used different angles. I achieved a 50% increase in gas mileage with two different designed curves and angles. In addition to the 50% increase in mileage, one design achieved a 54% reduction in Carbon Monoxide, and another achieved a 37% reduction of Hydrocarbons @ 2,500 RPM. The gas mileage went from 11 to 17mpg. The emissions tests were done at an Official Inspection Station in Austin, Texas. The equipment is calibrated by the Texas Department of Public Safety every three months. The exhaust was tested using the Two Speed Idle test.

Here are the Emissions Before and After Test Results:

At approximately 800 RPM:

Hydrocarbons(PPM) Carbon Monoxide% Dilution %

Without Prototype 977 9.35% 17.9%

With Prototype A 643 = 34.1% Less 8.22% = 12.0% Less 17.2%

With Prototype B 647 = 33.7% Less 8.26% = 11.6% Less 16.8%

At approximately 2500 RPM:

Hydrocarbons(PPM) Carbon Monoxide% Dilution %

Without Prototype 109 2.56% 15.9%

With Prototype A 83 = 23.8% Less 1.17% = 54.2% Less 14.4%

With Prototype B 69 = 36.6% Less 1.79% = 30.0% Less 14.9%
 
If you have a scanner/printer, and you PM me your email address, I can send you a Nondisclosure Document as a PDF file which you can print and sign. Then you can scan it into a PDF file and send it back. Then I will be happy to email you picks of the protos I have made. I can also send Word Doc files. If you happen to have Word, I can attach Word or PDF files in an email as well for you to examine the patent and report. I also have a dyno before and after sheet and a drawing that explains the entire process on one page that I can email as a PDF.

Thanks
 
Last edited:
A patent does not make you money, it makes the design public. If someone uses the patent to make the device, you are the one that finds them, takes them to court, and proves they infringed. Big pockets needed for that....
 
KitCarlson said:
A patent does not make you money, it makes the design public. If someone uses the patent to make the device, you are the one that finds them, takes them to court, and proves they infringed. Big pockets needed for that....
Click to expand...

I know, I totally don't agree with the way the patent system is set up. It is full of damned if you do and damned if you don't scenarios. A patent does make it "less" likely that someone would infringe, but does not stop them any more than a red light stops a car.

If you know a better way, please do let me know.
 
Just put patent pending on your product.

I hate to update you about modern direct injection fuel technology, and controls, on 13:1 compression 2L. My off the shelf Mazda3, with Skyactiv engine gets 36+ miles per gallon on 87 gas, driven hard, and meets ULEV specs.
 
Ok... I have to ask.
What the hell is "Sky Active" ?
Sounds like a flower nothingness... Like Subarus "Symettical AWD"...

KitCarlson said:
Just put patent pending on your product.

I hate to update you about modern direct injection fuel technology, and controls, on 13:1 compression 2L. My off the shelf Mazda3, with Skyactiv engine gets 36+ miles per gallon on 87 gas, driven hard, and meets ULEV specs.
Click to expand...
 
mbaird said:
Ok... I have to ask.
What the hell is "Sky Active" ?
Sounds like a flower nothingness... Like Subarus "Symettical AWD"...
Click to expand...

SkyActiv (branded as SKYACTIV) is a brand name for a series of technologies developed by Mazda which increase fuel efficiency and engine output. The initial announcement of the SkyActiv technologies included new engines, transmissions, body, and chassis, which appeared in Mazda products from 2011.

The SkyActiv-G is a family of direct injection gasoline engines. The engine compression ratio is increased to 14:1. To reduce the risk of engine knock at high compression, residual gas is reduced by using 4-2-1 engine exhaust systems, implementing a piston cavity, and optimizing fuel injection. In addition, combustion duration is shortened by intensifying air flow, increasing injection pressure, and using multi-hole injectors.

It features an all-aluminum construction with chain-driven dual overhead camshafts with VVT and gasoline direct injection; with direct ignition, it meets ULEV emission standards. SkyActiv-G engines for the U.S. market have a lower compression ratio of 13:1 allowing them to operate on standard instead of premium fuel...
 
69_340_GTS said:
SkyActiv (branded as SKYACTIV) is a brand name for a series of technologies developed by Mazda which increase fuel efficiency and engine output. The initial announcement of the SkyActiv technologies included new engines, transmissions, body, and chassis, which appeared in Mazda products from 2011.

The SkyActiv-G is a family of direct injection gasoline engines. The engine compression ratio is increased to 14:1. To reduce the risk of engine knock at high compression, residual gas is reduced by using 4-2-1 engine exhaust systems, implementing a piston cavity, and optimizing fuel injection. In addition, combustion duration is shortened by intensifying air flow, increasing injection pressure, and using multi-hole injectors.

It features an all-aluminum construction with chain-driven dual overhead camshafts with VVT and gasoline direct injection; with direct ignition, it meets ULEV emission standards. SkyActiv-G engines for the U.S. market have a lower compression ratio of 13:1 allowing them to operate on standard instead of premium fuel...
Click to expand...

Ok ... so its just a modern engine...lol
 
70DusterBob said:
I wish I had better news. I mean I have spent close to $20,000, spent an ice age building and testing prototypes, dealt with 4 shady patent attys, one shady patent agent, and it has been about 7-1/2 years since I filed for patent on my fuel vaporizing process.

After all this, I "am" better off than where I started, but still haven't succeeded in getting a patent.

Where I stand now? Out of liquid assets, with which to pay for further pursuit of the patent application. I don't know of a worthy patent atty that isn't rather expensive, $3,000 as a retainer. I have till Dec. 7th to respond to an Office Action from the Examiner, and I can go up to 3 months past that if I pay the late fees. $50 first month, $150 second month, $350 third month is the break down on that I believe.

So here's the situation: I can split 49/51% with what I would get for royalties from the license of the patent, providing we get the patent. It will work on any carbureted engine, including 2 and 4 stroke small engines and any race car that is TBI or Carbureted. Typically the holder of the patent gets 15%, so that would mean we both get very close to 7.5%, which could still be a lot if it were sold on all pre-existing small engines, and mfged with the new ones. 51% would be your way to manage and control the sale and business end of the licensing. With 49% all I can do is ride the wave.

It will take someone signing a non-disclosure document to get a copy of the patent application and the documentation I have gotten so far on it. I can send a proto to be tested, either for a 2 stroke or 4 stroke small engine, or a race engine. I would need four intake to carb gaskets for a 2 stroke or 4 stroke small engine, and a spacer may or may not need to be fabricated, which I can do. I will also write a report of sorts explaining what needs to be done, what I have done, and what needs to happen with the patent office to get the patent before any money is spent on your part. So you can do a full review of the patent application, have a proto to test, and get up to date on the progress over the years that I have made before investing anything.

Financial obligations are approximately $4,000-$8,000 depending on the atty we/you hire for the job. I know of a good one, just a bit pricey in my financial situation.

Anyway, PM me if you're interested.
Thanks,
Bob
Click to expand...
I wish I could help fund your idea because I know it works. I had 2 friends vaporizing fuel back in the 80s there system was crude but made a big difference in fuel mileage, emissions and performance.
 
Yes, I know direct injection is the "wave of the future" for automotive engines. This process/device is designed to work on our carbureted TBI and small engines, which are severely inefficient compared to "Skyactiv".

They won't direct inject small engines because it cost too much to mfg for such small engines with relatively small hp and output, short term use. The small engine industry is in the billions.

The idea with using it on hotrods is simply so we can keep our old timers going and meet emissions standards at the same time. The EPA has already threatened to put limits on what we can emit, modern "emission controls" rob the engine of HP and Torque, not to mention they suck, lol? They will probably try to do it again. So I'm trying to do us all a favor.

This is a patent pending on a process, not a device. So it would be hard to duplicate, if not impossible. The devices/baffles used to implement this process can be stamped out of copper, aluminum or molded out of plastic for the small engines. It is highly effective, cheap to mfg, the pollution reduction is closer to 80% for small engines. It works off of the engine's own intake velocity, which is pretty high for small engines and hot rods. It is a stationary baffle as opposed to the complexity of a rotating or vibrating one.

This process creates no air flow restriction.There is a significant gain in HP/Torque, Efficiency is boosted, better gas mileage and for the small engines, grass mileage, and the emissions HC and Carbon Monoxides are reduced. There are no losses. The modern emission controls on your typical small engine cost the mfg $5. My baffle would cost about .05 cents to make! The only foreseeable problem is the expense in making a new product for every engine size. Such as a 14 hp motor would require a different design than a 5 hp motor. A 318 engine with "X" number of modifications would differ from a 383. But the carbs for small engines are pretty much customized to match the motor. The carbs and TBIs nowadays are made to be flexible to match the engine they are installed on as well.

But with today's technology, flow software, and CAD, I believe this design hurtle could be over come easily.
 
Ahhhhh....here is the tread on your gizmo...you got it on the market yet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top