No, it really won’t. Car engines are tuned to run at certain fuel-air ratios. Whether you use a carburetor, injector or any fancy device, there is an optimal mix of air and fuel. The primary determinant of fuel usage is engine capacity and typical engine speed. So the method of delivering the fuel in normal engines is not going to make much of a difference.
Using a nebulizer instead of an injector in car engines wouldn’t help with fuel economy because nebulizers are designed for converting liquid medicine into a fine mist, not for delivering fuel efficiently
Injectors, on the other hand, are specifically designed to atomize fuel for optimal combustion in an engine.
Modern common rail injection systems use up to 2500 BAR 36,000 psi of pressure to atomize fuel injected in the cylinder, combined with very specially shaped combustion chamber the combustion in the cylinder is the most efficient it has ever been. Mixing fuel and air outside the combustion chamber will never produce as efficient a result.
Seems like the question is on the assumption that nebulizer is better than injector at atomizing fuel. Is there any source that prove this?
Also, one reason I can think of is that the more time fuel is mixed with air, the more risk of backfire. Carburetor and especially injector mixes fuel and oxidizer in the last moment to minimize the risk of mixture touching hot surface and go beyond flashing point while already atomized.
Latest Answers