http://www.supercooler.us/technology.htm

The skeptic in me is, well, skeptical. But sounds cool...

The skeptic in me says that you're getting more air into the cylinder, which means you'll burn more fuel. Just like a supercharger or turbocharger. That'll give you more power, but no better fuel economy, won't it?

But they did get their inspiration from God, who I believe is well known to ride a moped.

He says "small plane pilots know that they require additional runway on hot days to take off."

This is just plan wrong. The HP from the engine is vary close to the same for a wide range of temps as long as the temp is below 100deg.

The lift from the wing is the main reason, by far, for longer take off distances. The engine temp de-rating is almost a non factor.

A jet engine is greatly effected by temp but a piston engine not nearly as much.

A cooler air charge will make more power but this more dense charge will need more gas too, thus lowering gas millage!

The A/C pump will need to make all that cool air too and it runs on the engine so will take more power to run.

I think the idea might give more power at lower RPM when the small amount of extra cold air might make some real difference but at higher RPM there is no way that system will lower the inlet air temp by 30deg.

In cold locations I see this thing just making things worse, in really hot places like Phoenix, it would just add heat to the
A/C system and make you a little hotter.

I just skimmed the beginning of the article but I'd like to add that the idea has merit but is applied wrong.
14.7:1 air to fuel is THE MOST efficient mixture in any case as far as "gasoline" goes.
It would give you more power theoretically but the energy used to change the "state"(liquid vs. gas) of the refrigerant would far outweigh the benefit. more airfuel mixture in the combustion chamber will give you more power, true, thats the theory behind supercharging and turbos. However the density of the air will limit the ability of the fuel to evaporate into it also. This is important because the liquid gas isn't what burns it is gas vapor or gasoline gas(steam) that burns.
The better you mix and evaporate the gas into the air the more quickly it burns( I think) evenly anyway and there'll be less wasted and unburned fuel in the exhaust making it even more efficient.
There are products called foggers that do work a little (so I've heard) that warm the fuel before it goes into the carburator so it evaps faster into the cold intake air. also has anyone seen an old carburated car with a sort of duct going from the exhaust manifold into the underside of the intake? that takes the warm air heated by the manifold and heat shield and directs it into the intake to keep the intake air nice and warm so the gas evaps better.

In fuel injection the gasoline squirts out ( mistlike ) straight onto the hot backside of the intake valve so it starts to get steamy faster. Like spraying water out of your garden hose onto a fire. if its mist, it does nothing just evaporates. but if its a heavy stream of the same amount of water it puts the fire out in the spot it hits cooling off the works making it less efficient.

I could go on and on about auto theory and I know I'm not the master (theres always someone better) but I urge you to prove me wrong. Do the research on chemistry and physics. More people should know how they are getting jerked around by GM Ford Chrysler and even Toyota and Honda. We could be MUCH MUCH better with our fuel economy we just wouldn't be so comfy. Air conditioning and overall vehicle size is whats killing us.

Youtube video aired on cable a while ago about the fuel cell. Being produced currently.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLKExuHlQMQ

anyway keep up the conspiracy,
Dreiseratops

As I've recently done a fair amout of research into forced aspiration engines, including air/fuel charge cooling systems... (Bought a nice new intercooler. Mmmm.)

1. This is a closed system, which means that it requires power to keep going. That power's gotta come from somewhere, and in a car, that means the engine. You CAN do this to make more power, (the whole idea of a supercharger/turbocharger) but it comes at the expense of fuel.

Increasing the density of the intake charge allows you to burn more fuel.

That being said, a cooler intake charge has benefits as well. This is WHY we use an intercooler on a turbocharged engine.

Most of the benefits are simply to make more power by allowing more fuel to be burned, however, if you can get the cooling for free (ie, by using waste heat from the engine cooling system) then it could potentially result in an increase in the engines VE (Volumetric Efficiency). The end result is similar to an increase in engine compression. This allows you to make a bit more power from the same air/fuel charge. As with everything else, though there's a trade-off, and there's a reason why the OEM manufacturer didn't just build the engine with higher compression to begin with. Higher compression requires more strict spark control, and a greater risk of knock and detonation. Fortunately, the manufacturer will have designed adequately for cold air, since this is within the normal range of the engine's function.

@Dreiser: Actaully 14.7 is the CLEANEST burn for gasoline. You can get better efficiency from a leaner mixture, but it runs hotter and produces a lot more in terms of undesirable emissions. Gasoline produces it's maximum thermal efficiency at about 16.x:1, but most gasoline engines will get the maximum fuel efficiency at 15.8-16.2:, just spewing nasty oxides out the tail pipe.

Anyway, the A/C system isn't "wasting" that cooling at the evaporator. Every time you use refiigerant to absorb heat, you are increasing the load at the compressor, which is taking additional power from the crank. There's no such thing as a free lunch. The colder the refrigerant is when it gets to the compressor, the less work the compressor has to do. This is why they insulate the return lines from the A/C evaporator in the first place.

Ah, good to know.
16.x:1, ok I suppose that still makes sense. When I learned about it was in a lecture on emissions so I can see where it would have been mis informative.

BTW I thought you might have something to say here

So whatever temp your intake air is as long as you can still control the air fuel ratio?
Dont the venturis in carbs col the air dramatically too? something about the airspeed change... thats why its good to heat the air into a carb right? Plus it gets the engine up to temp faster than cold winter air.

Anyway cool business huh,
Dreis

Assuming that you are dealing with a carburated engine... Fuel injected engines don't have venturis, of course.

The very idea of a venturi is to create a low pressure area in the intake stream. The higher the speed of the airflow, the lower the pressure will be. This works out well, since the higher the speed is, the more low pressure there is to suck fuel from the float bowl, so the venturi and the fuel jet control the air/fuel ratio quite nicely.

Yes, in carburated engines, particularly aircraft (Many of which are still carburated, as opposed to cars) which operate at high altitudes where the air is already very cold. Since the pressure drops, thermodynamics says that there must be a corresponding drop in temparature. In addition, the capacity of air to hold moisture is dependant on the temparature, so it becomes possible, if not likely that the air will fall below the dewpoint at the carb venturi. If the air is cool enough that this is below 0 degrees C, it forms ice, which stops the correct air/fuel ratio, and the engine doesn't run. Moisture isn't a problem though since as soon as the air passes the venturi, the pressure (and therefore temperature) goes right back up, and water droplets are reabsorbed.

This is indeed why you sometimes apply heat to a carburator.

Carburators can't really adjust for air density, but they do adjust for barometric pressure, since it's a relative pressure drop which controls fuel.

Fuel injection systems need to have a better idea of how much air is passing through the system, in both volume and density. This can be done in several ways.

Some systems use an absolute pressure sensor. This determines the absolure pressure in the intake manifold, and by using the measured RPM and calculated volumetric efficiency of the engine, the computer is able to calculate the mass of air passing through the intake.

Most systems use an air flow meter. This is a device which measures the speed of incoming air through a metered chamber. These can use a variety of methods to measure the speed, and can signal the computer in various differnet ways, but their function is the same.

Either way, there will likely be other sensors for the air temperature at the point where it's being measured as well, in order to make gross corrections. This data is then used for a basic fuel calculation.

EFI systems then use an O2 sensor in the exhaust system. This sensor works by checking for hydrocarbons in the exhaust. (Not oxygen, which is kind of strange, considering the name.) The computer then uses this as feedback, to adjust the basic fuel calculation. This is also normally only done at part throttle "cruise" conditions. At wide open throttle, the computer will usually choose a deliberately rich mixture, since this produces more power, and reduces the danger of knock or detonation. This is why EFI systems don't need regular tune-ups like carburated engines do. They self adjust for changing component values.

Anyway, for cooling the system, using the A/C isn't a new idea, even the "waste" cooling from the A/C system. It's been discussed, shot down, tried anyway, and proven not to work at producing results.

For a turbocharged engine, getting rid of extra heat is a good way to make more power. (Not increase fuel economy, mind you.) When the turbocharger (Or supercharger, it's the same idea) compresses the intake charge, the air gets hotter. This is a natural consequence. Thus we use an intercooler to shed that excess heat back to the air, thus cooling the intake charge back to (ideally) ambient temperature, but at higher pressure. A common trick at a drag strip is to dump a bucket of dry ice onto the intercooler right before a run. The dry ice makes the intake charge very cold, so that the car can be set to make more boost without danger of detonation or knock. Again, more power, not better economy. People rarely care about fuel economy on the drag strip.

What was I talking about in the first place, now?

sounds intresting, the reaon the accumulator sweats, the accumulator contains your ac refrigerant, wich is colder than the surounding air. much like ice watter makes the outside glass condence watter from the air. yes intresting concept. Not worth my money to spend on it. just like that wind turbine metal insert for the air intake to creat better air circulation. dont see the advertizements on tv any more, wonder why if it works so well. Lets see if this did have merrit wouldnt you think the person would patton it and contact the auto manufacturers to have it placed in high end autos? it probally works to some extent, it would be more popular on the cable powerhorse shows, if it reaches that point. it may pass beyond the fadd stage

i wonder if it can keep my beer cold while i drive lol

Actually I think the Solstice or the ION does have a beverage cooler that uses the AC system. The evaporator(cold radiator) is usually right behind the glove box outside in the engine bay.

Hey Supraguy, do you have a blog or a website having to do with auto theory? Or any other "Phat knowledge"

What did you guys think of the GM Highwire in the video I posted?


...and the stolen thread award goes to...
Sorry OKfly. Did we answer your question? err quell your skepticism?

What I’d like to know is where the energy comes from. It’s fine to say that it runs on hydrogen or salt water but the energy still has to enter the cycle somewhere.

LOL. No worries. Yeah, pretty much in line with what I was thinking, although my knowledge was not that in depth.

@estafan2020: Exactly. Actually, there are specific provisions in AC systems to get rid of water that condenses in the evaporator.

As to those vortex things... They don't work, which is why you don't see them advertised anymore. Someone put the car on a dyno, and measured both power and fuel usage before and after. What they got was a decrease in both power and economy, due to an increased restriction in the car's intake.

In terms of fuel economy and power, the way I see it is that the people designing engines have some very smart people in their design deparments. These people have access to the latest and best information on fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, chemistry and physics at their disposal, and many years' specialised education. If putting a little whirligig in the car's intake would really increase the engine's economy and performance, then it would have been designed that way. There's more than enough in the way of incentives to make it worthwhile for manufacturers.

Granted there ARE ways to improve on the power of most engines as opposed to the way that they come from the factory, but this always comes at a cost. Even simple things like an aftermarket intake. Generally these allow more engine noise, require more maintenance, and are simply more expensive to produce. Engineering is about trade-offs.

@dreiseretops: Well, I'm working on my web page, though that's mostly based around my car.


The Toyota Previa minivan from the early 90s had an icemaker as an option. Go figure.

anytime you lower the intake temp, you're gonna increase power. that's why there are intercoolers and water injection systems etc. For every 10 degree change in air temperature there is 1% change in power. the problem with this particular system is the source of power is your a/c system which can use as much as 25hp so even if it can drop the air temp 60° the cost is the same as, if not more than the gain.

If you look at the title, though it's not a matter of increasing power it's supposed to increase fuel economy and this is the opposite of what this would do if it worked, which it won't.

Lower intake temps increase density, which increases oxygen which in turn increases the amount of fuel burned. Burn more fuel, get more power, but worse fuel economy.

Intercoolers work great on forced aspiration engines, because the compression stage increases the air temperature. No good on normally aspirated engines, since they don't decrease intake temps below ambient, and do present a restriction in the intake.

Water injection isn't primarily aimed at decreasing intake temps (though it does do this, it's generally a side-effect.) Water injection is there to make use of a base property of water: It does not compress. Therefore, if you inject 1cc of water into a cylinder, you get 1cc less space in the combustion chamber, with a commesurate increase in compression ratio.

Example: My engine has a native 8.4:1 compression ratio, on a turbocharged 2954cc displacement. That means that the combustion chamber for each piston is 66.53cc. If 1cc of that combustion chamber is filled with water, that makes the effective compression ratio 8.5:1.

Not so big by itself, but that's only 3cc of water per revolution. Not much at all, and when you factor in the effective compression change that the forced aspiration involves, it becomes signifigant quickly. This then causes a couple of things: 1. Vaporisation of the water eats some of the heat produced by combustion, reducing the likelyhood of detonation or knock. 2. Air/Fuel requirements at boost pressure are decreased, increasing economy. 3. Vaporised water increases cylinder pressure, thus increasing power. The downsides? Well, having to store water on-board for one. Increased complexity of the intake charge system, and, due to the increased compression, reduced ability to increase boost pressure, and therefore a limit on ultimate power capability. Water injection is therefore only practical on short-run engine builds, like dragsters. It is not common to see for road course or street use.

Wow I'd never heard of water injection before. Interesting idea, thanks SupraGuy.
By the way, I always wondered about putting a compressor or some other type of extra charge like the turbo blowoff into the exhaust side if the turbo system. Like a stored charge to prespool the low end of each gear. You think feasible?

To begin, let me disclose that I am the Director of Operations for Supercooler LLC. Let me further disclose that I am an attorney, and possess nowhere near the mechanical and engineering knowledge that many of posters on this topic clearly possess. Disclosures out of the way, I'd like to offer a few responses to this thread.

1. This concept is patented.
2. The product does not work by increasing air flow or by condensing air the way that many of the aftermarket products work. It chills the air immediately before it enters the block. As numerous posters have noted, cooler air is denser, possessing more oxygen.
3. The "energy" used to cool the air comes from the low side line and/or accumulator from the vehicle air conditioning system. If you touch an accumulator or exposed low side line you will feel that it is very cold. We use that cold surface to chill a refrigerant mixture in a closed loop system. That system includes an "evaporator" which is strategically placed along the air intake system to air condition the air prior to entering the block. We extensively insulate all components in the system. The insulation alone results in a far more efficient air conditioning system more than offsetting any increased load on the vehicle AC. The energy used to circulate the refrigerant is drawn from the battery, but the draw is so little as to have no effect on overall vehicle performance.
4. As for the results - and here I expect you not to take my word - every vehicle upon which we have installed a supercooler has seen signficant increases in fuel efficiency (25-40%), dramatically colder and more efficient air conditioning performance, and some increase in horsepower (would have to dyno each vehicle to report numbers).

I invite any of you that are interested in the product, to call us and talk to one of our more mechanically inclined personnel to discuss your technical questions. We want and expect skeptics to review our product and, more importantly, to try our product. If any of poster in this thread is in our area and wants to try the product, we will offer it with a money back guarantee if the product does not deliver consistent with what I have posted above.

Again, I understand and expect the skepticism. I hope that you will contact us directly to learn more about the product.

Thanks.
Justin Witkin
Director of Operations
Supercooler, LLC

Oh My God. . . They're invading the forums now?

Any device that is powered by the engine that is supposed to increase fuel economy is a hoax. Its impossible, proven by laws of physics. Said device needs a power source, which might be a pulley for the compressor. Or a motor that draws power from the alternator. It can't make more power than it takes.

A good example is using a generator hooked up to a motor and a rechargeable battery. Basically the motor will run off the battery, charging the generator, and recharging the battery. Sounds great, except in reality the motor gets hot and the generator gets hot and the battery gets hot when charging. All of these heat sources are energy leaving the system. So, you cannot get create more energy than you put into the system. ANY SYSTEM.

Well, given the laws of thermodynamics, there's no such thing as a free lunch. You can't get power from nothing, this is absolutley true, however, there are certainly things that can be done to make more efficient use of the power that the engine produces.

We're never talking about something for "free" here. There's always a cost.

Does this mean that I'll just accept the claim of what these "supercoolers" do? Not likely. I can see how this could be used to make more power, as the concept isn't unlike the concept of an intercooler for a turbocharger. The thing there is that the intercooler on my engine cools the intake charge so that I can ultimately burn more fuel, although it is also true that it allows me to make slightly more power from the same amount of air/fuel mixture.

From one standpoint, however, a turbocharger or supercharger can be seen as a fuel economy device.

Let's just say that I'm running 1 bar of positive manifold pressure for boost. At that pressure, my engine will behave like a 6L engine with an effective compression ratio of about 16:1. This is going to produce a lot of power, and consume a lot of fuel. This is great, when I want to have that much power, but what about the day-to-day driving needs? A 6L engine is going to consume a lot of fuel in normal driving, even just idling.

Well, if I'm not being hard ont he gas pedal, the manifold pressure never gets up that high, and the engine behaves like a reasonably low compression 3L. Thi in turn uses less fuel, which then is an increase in fuel economy -- as long as I choose to utilise it.