Batt. Supercharger

[jw hash]

does anyone out there run a Batt Supercharger on there model A? I have had one for years, it is damaged on the inside. so I never installed it. another FB member contacted me about mine and to let me know that he has one with no inner parts. so the question is, does someone out there have a complete one and is running it?

[Patrick L.]

That thing seems pretty unique. It would nice to hear from someone if it actually works. Looks like its suppose to get the intake air spinning.

[Brad in Germany]

Brad in Maryland

[alexiskai]

I thought about posting that ad from the Fahnestock book myself, but annoyingly it doesn't say anything about how the product is supposed to work.

[California Travieso]

Originally Posted by alexiskai

I thought about posting that ad from the Fahnestock book myself, but annoyingly it doesn't say anything about how the product is supposed to work.

There is a Patent Number on the ad. It’s too faint to read but maybe the book will show it. You can look up the patent and it will tell you how it works and what the components are.

David Serrano

[Jim Brierley]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Looks and sounds like a gimmick to me???

[Tim Ayers]

Originally Posted by Jim Brierley

Looks and sounds like a gimmick to me???

Have to agree. Looks like it would be more of a choke than a power gainer.

[alexiskai]

I looked up the patent and it's for the hourglass-shaped component visible in the second image attached to post #1. Apparently that's the entire product, there are no other parts. It's supposed to "break up particles of hydrocarbons and mix them with the air more thoroughly than is done in the mixing chamber of an ordinary carburetor and prevent quantities of the liquid from accumulating on the walls of the intake manifold."

You can see from the diagram and from the component photos that it's not really a Venturi-type device. The tube has a consistent I.D., it just has this hourglass device inside it. The theory apparently is that the fuel-air mixture passing through the tube would be induced to atomize more uniformly via these fins.

This was patented in '26 and, in my view, would be vulnerable to obsolescence from improvements in carburetor design. Quite likely it's unnecessary, especially if running a more advanced carb such as the Marvel.

[Patrick L.]

Kinda reminds me of what W C Fields had to say.

But, I kinda like the design/looks of the manifold itself.

[Y-Blockhead]

When I first saw that I thought it was an earlier version of the "Turbonator" Air Intake Booster.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/11243285698...b89976112d4b36

I first heard of the "Bat" Super-Charger in 'Those Wonderful UNAUTHORIZED ACCESSORIES for Model A Ford' book. Find on Page 80.

[Mountain Dew]

Like JW Hash mentioned. I am running a Bat Supercharger on my 28 Roadster without the inner cone. I tried to post an image but for some reason it won't let me select a file from my computer.

[Chuck Sea/Tac]

Originally Posted by Mountain Dew

Like JW Hash mentioned. I am running a Bat Supercharger on my 28 Roadster without the inner cone. I tried to post an image but for some reason it won't let me select a file from my computer.

Sooo, what do you think? Improve performance? Improve gas mileage? Just looks cool, and a great conversation starter at car events?

[McMimmcs]

Originally Posted by Mountain Dew

Like JW Hash mentioned. I am running a Bat Supercharger on my 28 Roadster without the inner cone. I tried to post an image but for some reason it won't let me select a file from my computer.

Are you saying it’s simply an adornment ?

[Mountain Dew]

No notable change in performance. Looks cool. I carry the advertisement from "Those Wonderful Unauthorized Accessories" with me. I am also running a high compression head and 3.27 rear end but I give the Bat all the credit when I'm talking to the non-"A" folks. I also include a line of smoke about the red striped coil wire that I use.

[Mountain Dew]

Yep...That's about it. Just an adornment. The inner cone might make a difference. I suppose one could be fabricated. I doubt it would live up to the claims in the advertisement.

[mercman from oz]

"Bat" Super-Charger

[The Master Cylinder]

Originally Posted by mercman from oz

"Bat" Super-Charger

When I first read the title I thought this thread was about Battery Chargers.

[Russ/40]

I think the theory is sound. The fact the manifold is enlarged to compensate for the houreglass device should prevent any choking effect at partial throttle and increase fuel mixing at wide open throttle. I'm pretty sure the turbin is stationary.

[40 Deluxe]

People have been suckers for "fuel saving" gadgets for about as long as cars have existed. The list is endless, but a couple that stick out in my mind are the mythical 100 MPG carburetor and the more recent "HHO" hydrogen producing gadgets that scammers promote.

[J Franklin]

Originally Posted by 40 Deluxe

100 MPG carburetor and the more recent "HHO" hydrogen producing gadgets that scammers promote.

Are you sure these things don't work? Any proof?

[Russ/40]

If the bore was not enlarged for the turbine, i would discount any benefit, but this one takes into account preserving the venturi area. I'd love to try one anyway.

[Mountain Dew]

I am concerned about the vanes of the inner cone breaking of and being sucked into the valves and cylinders. They look like they are made from a thin sheet of brass.

[40 Deluxe]

Originally Posted by J Franklin

Are you sure these things don't work? Any proof?

Well, first of all, there is no proof that such gadgets do work. With the "100 MPG carb", the myths are always vague; it seemed that someone's uncle's third cousin's barber heard stories down at the corner bar and the myth grew from there. Wild conspiracy theories are repeated instead of hard facts, no real evidence proves such wild claims!

Heard of the Fish Carburetor? The myth says it was a 100 MPG carb. In reality, the inventor only claimed "up to 20% better fuel mileage". The typical car of the day got maybe 15 MPG; 20 MPG was seldom seen. So it was really a 18-24 MPG carb at best. Tens of thousands were built and sold by the Fish Carburetor Company, and they still show up on ebay so anyone can buy one and test it for themselves. Fish made enough money to sponsor a NASCAR car in the mid-'50's. But he never claimed 100 MPG.



As far as the "HHO" scam goes, it too is unworkable. The claim is that you can use electrical current from the alternator, pass it through a set of metal plates in a jar of water, and make hydrogen as you drive. Supposedly this gives magical fuel economy! Not true! It takes power to get electricity from the alternator. It takes extra gasoline to get the extra power, resulting in a net loss! Don't forget: A car engine is only about 20-25% efficient, and an alternator is 50% efficient at best. So a lot of the gasoline burned is wasted as heat. A gallon of gasoline has about 120,000 Btu's of energy. A gallon-sized container of hydrogen at ambient temperature and pressure contains about 42 Btu's! A typical HHO unit makes 1 to 2 liters of "HHO" a minute. "HHO" is 1/3 oxygen so that leaves 28 Btu's in our gallon of HHO and we only make about 1/2 gallon a minute. So there is not enough "HHO" produced to make any improvement!! It's all smoke and mirrors!

[rotorwrench]

Modern fuel injection and electronic ignition all with computer control gets the economy about as good as it gets and same with performance. To put a swirl tube device in the plenum likely doesn't help the vaporization all that much. The amount is likely just above negligible due to the amount of blockage drag there is in there. (One might help a bit while the other affect detracts a bit). It's most likely affect on economy would have been slowing down the fuel mixture to a degree that may have given a slightly better burn. The way a flathead is made, there is already enough chaos going on inside the cylinder to create a good burn but with the low compression, it also loses out a bit on performance.

Now an actual turbocharger might get the performance up a bit but then the economy would likely go down a bit too. It's always a trade off somewhere with these old flat motors.

[Mountain Dew]

BatInstall copy.jpeg
Still no luck with posting picture.

[Rob Doe]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Interesting.

[Mountain Dew]

https://www.fordbarn.com/forum/attac...3&d=1558465006
Here is a link from a previous post where I was able to upload a picture.

[jw hash]

Russ
the hourglass turbine devise just float inside. it looks to me that when the air goes through it, it could rotate. i have always thought it was like the old snake oil salesman. but to me it is just cool to look at.

[Russ/40]

If it actually spins, you would think it would make quite a racket.

Would someone send one to me for testing

[Mountain Dew]

Would the extra length of the manifold have an effect? Sort of the same theory of a high rise manifold. I don't see any notable performance from an original manifold.

[Patrick L.]

I doubt the 'turbine' rotates. I think its suppose to sit there and get the fuel/air charge to spin as the charge passes thru it and enhance the flow/charge into the cylinders.
The manifold design could in itself [without the turbine] enhance the cylinder charging.
If I had one I think I'd leave out the turbine.

[rotorwrench]

It would cause a swirl or vortex in the air/fuel flow. My problem with it is the hour glass shape would redirect the vortex and hinder the flow more. A plain swirl tube would likely have been more effective but even that may hinder the mixture from staying in a good vaporized state. Some of the vapor may form into larger droplets instead of a nice even vapor flow.

These type of things were also developed for OHV engines as well and all it would really do is allow for a bit slower burn in the cylinder. This might reduce detonation but it won't do much for performance.

[katy]

Here's another attempt at "fuel/air enhancement", this was for the flathead V8s:

[Jack Shaft]

Originally Posted by 40 Deluxe

Well, first of all, there is no proof that such gadgets do work. With the "100 MPG carb", the myths are always vague; it seemed that someone's uncle's third cousin's barber heard stories down at the corner bar and the myth grew from there. Wild conspiracy theories are repeated instead of hard facts, no real evidence proves such wild claims!

Heard of the Fish Carburetor? The myth says it was a 100 MPG carb. In reality, the inventor only claimed "up to 20% better fuel mileage". The typical car of the day got maybe 15 MPG; 20 MPG was seldom seen. So it was really a 18-24 MPG carb at best. Tens of thousands were built and sold by the Fish Carburetor Company, and they still show up on ebay so anyone can buy one and test it for themselves. Fish made enough money to sponsor a NASCAR car in the mid-'50's. But he never claimed 100 MPG.





As far as the "HHO" scam goes, it too is unworkable. The claim is that you can use electrical current from the alternator, pass it through a set of metal plates in a jar of water, and make hydrogen as you drive. Supposedly this gives magical fuel economy! Not true! It takes power to get electricity from the alternator. It takes extra gasoline to get the extra power, resulting in a net loss! Don't forget: A car engine is only about 20-25% efficient, and an alternator is 50% efficient at best. So a lot of the gasoline burned is wasted as heat. A gallon of gasoline has about 120,000 Btu's of energy. A gallon-sized container of hydrogen at ambient temperature and pressure contains about 42 Btu's! A typical HHO unit makes 1 to 2 liters of "HHO" a minute. "HHO" is 1/3 oxygen so that leaves 28 Btu's in our gallon of HHO and we only make about 1/2 gallon a minute. So there is not enough "HHO" produced to make any improvement!! It's all smoke and mirrors!

The browns gas generator actually works, a friend powered his Vw beetle with it. The car did burn to the ground from and electrical fire,and the generator was ungainly...but I saw it with my own highly skeptical eyes..

[40 Deluxe]

Originally Posted by Jack Shaft

The browns gas generator actually works, a friend powered his Vw beetle with it. The car did burn to the ground from and electrical fire,and the generator was ungainly...but I saw it with my own highly skeptical eyes..

Did his fuel mileage improve any?

[40 Deluxe]

Originally Posted by 40 Deluxe

Did his fuel mileage improve any?

From the comment about the "ungainly" generator, I assume it was significantly larger than stock. Which means it took more power from the engine to spin it. Using more power means using more gasoline. The result is a net loss! While he no doubt made some "Brown's gas", it would not be enough to offset the extra gasoline used to produce it.
Wishful thinking does not replace science!

[Flathead]

Isn't there some law of physics that says "energy can neither be created or destroyed"?
Or simply stated, no free lunch.

[alexiskai]

This might be just confusion of terms... in most cases you wouldn't put the HHO generator itself in the car. You generate the HHO via AC power and then you keep the HHO in an onboard tank. So it's basically a CNG conversion.

[40 Deluxe]

Originally Posted by alexiskai

This might be just confusion of terms... in most cases you wouldn't put the HHO generator itself in the car. You generate the HHO via AC power and then you keep the HHO in an onboard tank. So it's basically a CNG conversion.

No, I don't think so! It takes a very special (very expensive) compressor to reach the high pressures needed to store enough hydrogen to get out of your driveway. And special high pressure tanks that won't be damaged by hydrogen embrittlement. Since hydrogen has such low energy density. the tanks needed would be huge.
Actually, the "HHO" systems in common use are on-board generators that only make miniscule amounts of hydrogen as you drive, using the vehicle's alternator for the electricity needed.
This scam seems to have died out in recent years, but just wait until gas goes over $4 a gallon again!

[woofa.express]

Originally Posted by Jack Shaft

The browns gas generator actually works, a friend powered his Vw beetle with it. The car did burn to the ground from and electrical fire,and the generator was ungainly...but I saw it with my own highly skeptical eyes..

Morning Jack Shaft.

You have confused me. So it does work or doesn't it work??

[Chris Haynes]

Originally Posted by 40 Deluxe

People have been suckers for "fuel saving" gadgets for about as long as cars have existed. The list is endless, but a couple that stick out in my mind are the mythical 100 MPG carburetor and the more recent "HHO" hydrogen producing gadgets that scammers promote.

I like the one where you drop a tablet into your gas tank then fill it with water and drive away.

[Y-Blockhead]

Originally Posted by woofa.express

Morning Jack Shaft.

You have confused me. So it does work or doesn't it work??

Yummm, Mr. Shaft was BANNED a while back.

[nkaminar]

I have no idea if a hydrogen generator improves mileage but the principle is that the hydrogen gas improves combustion. I think that is generally true because hydrogen is very combustible and will burn with a wide range of air/fuel ratios. It is correct that the energy it takes to generate the hydrogen is not recovered when it is burned. But I don't think that is the point. The fact that the car manufacturers do not put this on their cars speaks for itself.

[Bob-A]

Originally Posted by Chris Haynes

I like the one where you drop a tablet into your gas tank then fill it with water and drive away.

I remember a TV show back in the late 50's/early 60's called "Strange But True". At least I think that was what it was called. Anyway, it was a supposedly true story about a guy. Who convinced a high US government official (Supreme Court Justice ?). To drain the gas out of his car, add ordinary tap water and then place a mysterious tablet in the gas tank. The car started and ran and the official drove it to work. Before he left the unknown man said he would be back later to tell how he invented the tablet. He never came back. This supposedly happened in the early 20's.


Bob-A

[jimTN]

Hydrogen is highly explosive, corrosive and I believe also creates acid conditions when made.

[alexiskai]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Here's the history of the water-tablet scam:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_pill

Originally Posted by Bob-A

I remember a TV show back in the late 50's/early 60's called "Strange But True". At least I think that was what it was called. Anyway, it was a supposedly true story about a guy. Who convinced a high US government official (Supreme Court Justice ?). To drain the gas out of his car, add ordinary tap water and then place a mysterious tablet in the gas tank. The car started and ran and the official drove it to work. Before he left the unknown man said he would be back later to tell how he invented the tablet. He never came back. This supposedly happened in the early 20's

Bob, I think this is the show you're thinking of:

A season three episode of the 1950s American television show, Alcoa Presents: One Step Beyond, "Where Are They?", which originally aired 13 December 1960, presented a story about a man calling himself Charles Elton. Elton allegedly demonstrated to government representatives in 1917 a pill that costs 2 cents that can turn 10 gallons of water into a fuel that can power an auto engine. After his successful exhibition, Elton vanishes.

[J Franklin]

Time traveler Charles Elton.

[daren007]

If all this stuff worked it would have already have installed by the auto manufacturer. It works like this. The one with the best gas mileage wins all the marbles.

[Hitman]

Why not applaud them for taking the time, cost and effort to reproduce a verified period accessory? We complain about poor quality, things not being produced, or too expensive. If suppliers read this forum for input, they wouldn't want to produce anything!

Let's give Mike's recognition for reproducing one more item that fit our cars!

[Thearne3]

Originally Posted by Hitman

Why not applaud them for taking the time, cost and effort to reproduce a verified period accessory? We complain about poor quality, things not being produced, or too expensive. If suppliers read this forum for input, they wouldn't want to produce anything!

Let's give Mike's recognition for reproducing one more item that fit our cars!

I agree. For all the nay saying, I can't find any example (in this thread or elsewhere) of someone having a complete original Batt. Supercharger that can confirm or deny its efficacy. Having spoken to the folks at Mike's, they DO have an original, which (they claim) does improve the performance on their stock A.

They plan to test the new ones and attempt to quantify the improvements. Once the results are in, I'll be taking a closer look.