I just want to mention that this is not meant to be spam, I'm just putting this down in case anyone else is looking for info on this in the future, and I would appreciate any feedback or corrections to get a fuller picture, since I'm a layman when it comes to this stuff (also, the articles I refer to were from google searches that seemed relevant).
----------------------------------------------
This wasn't actually a spam post, but I totally understand the responses.
Also this ultrasonic shenanigans has been around since at least the early 1970s. Didn't work then, much less likely to work now.
Thank you, that makes more sense. I was wondering if you could elaborate, this is exactly the sort of info I was hoping to find here. The guy who mentioned this does happen to be older, was probably born in the 50's, and he does tend to bs at times. I'm just curious why it didn't work, and where the idea even came from, because I never heard of this before. I normally let it go when I spot bs, but in this case, I don't really know anything about the subject.
It's not that ultrasonic atomization doesn't work, there are piles of home humidifiers that work on the same principle, it's that they add complexity and parasitic load to provide little to no benefit.
Even in the days of carburettors, 90+% of fuel was adequately atomized. The addition of a theoretically effective ultrasonic system might gain an additional few percent or so. It just wasn't worth it. And that's assuming the system was sized appropriately and actually worked. A lot of these systems were slapped together by con-men and fly-by-night operations.
With the changes since to throttle body injection, multi-port injection and now direct injection, there just isn't anything left on the table.
Thank you, that makes a lot more sense, and helped fill in a lot of gaps. I think the problem was that the guy I spoke to was talking about how this system (I finally found it on google: an ultrasonic gasoline evaporation transducer) would be more efficient than the carburetor, yet knowing nothing about cars, I had no idea that carburetors were a thing of the past, having been replaced by computerized fuel injection systems that have been constantly improving (models in the US market with carburetors were apparently phased out completely by the early 90's). I saw an article on a site called ScienceDirect titled "Ultrasonic Gasoline Evaporation Transducer - Reduction of Internal Combustion Engine Fuel Consumption using Axiomatic Design," but the prototype seems to have only the efficiency of a carburetor, although it seems less vulnerable to congestion risks compared to the carburetor and fuel injectors (according to the article).
I also found an interesting reply on a site called ResearchGate to the question, "What are the advantages of using fuel injector compared to the carburetor in the internal combustion engine?" and the advantages are clear.
Muhammad Hazwan Bin Marzuki
Universiti Malaysia Pahang
The advantages of fuel injection system are:
1. Fast acceleration and deceleration (due to shortage of travel path)
2. Increased rate of vaporization leads to near-complete combustion: During port injection, the fuel-spray falls on hot inlet-valve (heated by in-cylinder gases), which increases the vaporization further.
3. Engine starts in single-cranking (in case of carburated engines, engine starts after two or three crankings)
4. No need of choke operation in winter (Manual operation of choke of a carburetor is required in two-wheels only)
Possibility to consider temperature and air pressure (e.g. for cold start)
Possibility of exhaust emission control by use of a lambda sensor (e.g. for stochiometric combustion and controlled catalytic conversion).
No problems with carbonizing nozzles and float chamber.
Possibility of engine map programming with a certain degree of freedom.
From what I gather, the major advantages of a carburetor are that it's less costly and easier to repair compared to the computerized fuel injection system, but according to an article titled "Do Cars Still Have Carburetors" on the site GilisAutomotive, "Many of today’s cars and trucks are now utilizing direct-injection, a system that has been proven to improve engine efficiency, and by turn, increase consumer fuel economy. Where standard fuel injection systems simply made carburetors outdated, direct injection makes them look positively quaint."
Ironically, looking back, I even remember chuckling at the time, because "fuel efficiency" is practically the only part I remember hearing in most car commercials, and was thinking that it makes no sense that there would be a technology out there that was significantly more fuel efficient yet not in use, although in the case of direct-injection, even if the process is less fuel efficient, it would likely be marginal and is outweighed by clear performance advantages that direct-injection brings to other areas as listed above in that quote from ResearchGate, especially if, referring to Sir Osis above, we're talking about one or two percentage points somewhere above 90%, perhaps even percentages of percentages (stats would be interesting though of course).
In other words, everything I'm reading is confirming what Sir Osis is saying, one way or another. I'd have to do more research to understand why a lot of this stuff is the case, and for all I know, perhaps some sort of hybrid tech is possible and may become a thing one day, but then again, it may simply not be as effective as what we have now, or what will be developed. Who knows...
That being said, I think I got what I came here for, and I wanted to say thanks for the info.
(Just noting the article "Carburetor vs Fuel Injection: Understanding the Pros and Cons" on a site called CarsDirect for future reference in case I come back to this)
