100 MPG X-Prize
PolicySpy
http://www.progressiveautoxprize.org/teams
And it looks very good.
There are some tricycles, there are some very small cars, and there are some
cars converted from standard cars. But many other cars look like exotic
prototypes. And there is some surprising technology...like compressed air.
The Loremo diesel looks very practical and very capable. But there is some
highly developed hybrid technology as well.
So at the web link...click every team like that offers a photo or a
video...and then ask yourself...does this look like something or not ?
Don Stauffer
> The entries for the 100 MPG X-Prize are set...
>
> http://www.progressiveautoxprize.org/teams
>
>
> And it looks very good.
>
> There are some tricycles, there are some very small cars, and there are some
> cars converted from standard cars. But many other cars look like exotic
> prototypes. And there is some surprising technology...like compressed air.
Wouldn't you have to count the fuel cost of whatever drives the
compressor? In that case, the compressed air engine is not that great.
>
> The Loremo diesel looks very practical and very capable. But there is some
> highly developed hybrid technology as well.
How well a hybrid would do depends on the exact duty cycle. Hybrids are
efficient only if the power requirement is very cyclical. If it is a lot
of high speed cruise the hybrid doesn't help much. Notice that most
current hybrids get better gas milage in town than on highway.
The trick on a high milage car for winning a prize is to size engine for
top speed requirement, which likely means a small engine. It is amazing
how little power is required to drive today's cars at 60 mph. No
acceleration performance, but if that is not required for the prize,
fine. Whether folks would buy a production car like that is another
question.
PolicySpy
http://www.progressiveautoxprize.org/teams
And it looks very good...
There are some tricycles, there are some very small cars, and there are some
cars converted from standard cars. But many other cars look like exotic
prototypes. And there is some surprising technology...like compressed air.
The Loremo diesel looks very practical and very capable. But there is some
highly developed hybrid technology as well.
So at the web link...click every team like that offers a photo or a
PolicySpy
http://www.progressiveautoxprize.org/teams
And it looks very good...
There are some tricycles, there are some very small cars, there are some
cars that don't worry about lift, and there are some cars converted from
standard cars. But many other cars look like exotic prototypes. And there is
some surprising technology...like compressed air.
The Loremo diesel looks very practical and very capable. But there is some
highly developed hybrid technology as well.
And I see a team entry at the hobbyist level...that went to the trouble of
developing a streamlined version.
Scotius
wrote:
The technology has already existed since the '40s to get
fantastic mileage, since the "supercarburetor" is not a "myth".
However, if the people who have the patent for that don't
release it, the only thing that can be done is to build cars and
trucks much smaller, and with more efficient fuel systems. That being
the case, the car that represents the least radical shift from what
people are accustomed to seeing (in terms of internal space, etc) but
which meets the requirement is the one most likely to be commercially
successful in most areas.
Kevin
news:k7l075ppokl91ajg4...@4ax.com:
if you truly beleive there is a super carb I feel sorry for you. you
must beleive in Santa Clause also. No such thing, no such how, not one
creditable example of such ever been. (aside from the fact the science
doesn`t show it possible.) KB
--
THUNDERSNAKE #9
Protect your rights or "Lose" them
The 2nd Admendment guarantees the others
Scott Dorsey
> The technology has already existed since the '40s to get
>fantastic mileage, since the "supercarburetor" is not a "myth".
This technology is called the "motorcycle" and I have it on good word
that several companies in Japan and Germany, as well as at least one in
the US, are currently developing these "motorcycles" which should be on
the market soon.
> However, if the people who have the patent for that don't
>release it, the only thing that can be done is to build cars and
>trucks much smaller, and with more efficient fuel systems. That being
>the case, the car that represents the least radical shift from what
>people are accustomed to seeing (in terms of internal space, etc) but
>which meets the requirement is the one most likely to be commercially
>successful in most areas.
There is no miracle fuel system, there is only efficiency caused by reducing
wind resistance and decreasing mass. There's only so much you can do with
a monster SUV design.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
hls
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:h4pmj4$rui$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> There is no miracle fuel system, there is only efficiency caused by
> reducing
> wind resistance and decreasing mass. There's only so much you can do with
> a monster SUV design.
> --scott
Ditto...and to take it further, acetone, hydrolyzed water, etc are not magic
either. There is still no free lunch.
Scotius
A former Ford executive I met at a dinner I recently went to
for a friend told me the "super-carburetor" was real. I think he would
know.
Ted "I survived Chappaquiddick" Kennedy
So, was he dressed as Clark Kent, or as Superman?
Scott Dorsey
>
> A former Ford executive I met at a dinner I recently went to
>for a friend told me the "super-carburetor" was real. I think he would
>know.
So, why isn't he using one?
Sid9
"Scotius" <yoda...@mnsi.net> wrote in message
news:th31759836pn09o3i...@4ax.com...
That must be like the pill you put in your gas tank and add
water...more conspiracy bullshit.
There's an energy equation...there's no magic carburetor.
Anyway, there's no carburetor at all.
We use fuel injection which does a far better job of
metering out fuel than any carburetor ever did.
necromancer - ECHM
>A former Ford executive I met at a dinner I recently went to
>for a friend told me the "super-carburetor" was real. I think he would
>know.
Then why doesn't Ford bring it to market and capitalize on the,
"green," trend with some 100+ MPG cars that don't rely on highly
sophisticated junk like hybrid drives?
--
"I... Can't drive... FIFTY-FIVE!!"
--Sammy Hagar
hls
"necromancer - ECHM"
> "green," trend with some 100+ MPG cars that don't rely on highly
> sophisticated junk like hybrid drives?
Because it is all horse carp. Pogue designed a carburetor that was
supposed to do this, but it failed miserably. Fish also put out some
"high mileage" carburetors, but they werent.
You CANNOT avoid the laws of thermodynamics. There is NO
perpetual motion,and there is no super high economy carburetor.
Anyone who believes there is has to be severaly under-educated.
Don Stauffer
>
> The technology has already existed since the '40s to get
> fantastic mileage, since the "supercarburetor" is not a "myth".
> However, if the people who have the patent for that don't
> release it, the only thing that can be done is to build cars and
> trucks much smaller, and with more efficient fuel systems. That being
> the case, the car that represents the least radical shift from what
> people are accustomed to seeing (in terms of internal space, etc) but
> which meets the requirement is the one most likely to be commercially
> successful in most areas.
Yes, the super carburetor IS a myth. Late carburetors, and even more
so, modern FI systems, adequately prepare the fuel/air mixture. Only a
fraction of one percent of fuel is left unburned in normal operating
conditions.
While it is true that car IC engines get between 30 and 40% thermal
efficiency, it is not the carburetor at fault. Roughly 1/3 of the
energy in the fuel produces useful work, 1/3 goes into the cooling
system as heat, and 1/3 goes into the exhaust, as enthalpy of the
exhaust gases.
People have tried for years to make uncooled engines to eliminate the
1/3 that goes into the cooling system. They have found coatings and
other materials for the engine components- the bug is that oil does not
work at the higher temperatures- it turns into solid carbon :-(
However, even if it did, one could only double the efficiency to a bit
less than 70 percent, which would not give you 100 mpg with most
practical vehicles.
Attempts to extract more heat from exhaust (other than turbochargers,
which DO work) generally increase size and weight of vehicle, which
increase power required.
Scotius
Chappaquiddick\" Kennedy"
<TedKennedyMurderedHisP...@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
When he had his job he was dressed like a guy you wouldn't
have an argument with if you had worked in his office.
Scotius
Oh, pardon me then... "everyone knows" that conspiracies don't
happen, right? Wrong. A lot of people "think" they know they don't
happen, but reality has no bias; sorry.
I've read too many reports on it from too many reliable
sources to discount it.
And speaking of conspiracies, I saw Ted Koppel interview a
Florida university professor who had invented a system that
"amplified" electrical input using seawater, and a matrix of beads
consisting of either nickel, iron, and molybdenum, or nickel iron and
some other metal. This was on NIGHTLINE, in case you forgot who I saw
interviewing the guy.
I never saw anything on television about it again, never heard
anything on the radio about it, and several times could not find ONE
reference on the Internet to it.
Scotius
>Scotius <yoda...@mnsi.net> wrote:
>>
>> A former Ford executive I met at a dinner I recently went to
>>for a friend told me the "super-carburetor" was real. I think he would
>>know.
>
>So, why isn't he using one?
>--scott
I've read that they work for a while, but the additives gas
companies put in make it gum up rather quickly and it degrades back to
about average.
Scotius
<a_septic_yank@worldofnecromancer_no_spam_no_way.org> wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 14:00:57 -0400, Scotius <yoda...@mnsi.net> wrote:
>
>>A former Ford executive I met at a dinner I recently went to
>>for a friend told me the "super-carburetor" was real. I think he would
>>know.
>
>Then why doesn't Ford bring it to market and capitalize on the,
>"green," trend with some 100+ MPG cars that don't rely on highly
>sophisticated junk like hybrid drives?
Duh! It's called a "gentlemen's agreement". I'm sure they have
one with the oil companies.
Maybe the oil companies promised to start releasing such
patents if they were allowed to gouge for a few years, and that's why
they were allowed to get away with it? Or maybe they just wanted to be
able to buy up all the alternative energy stuff so once cars start
running on fuels other than gas they'll be supplying those too...
Scotius
>
>"necromancer - ECHM"
>> Then why doesn't Ford bring it to market and capitalize on the,
>> "green," trend with some 100+ MPG cars that don't rely on highly
>> sophisticated junk like hybrid drives?
>
>
>Because it is all horse carp. Pogue designed a carburetor that was
>supposed to do this, but it failed miserably. Fish also put out some
>"high mileage" carburetors, but they werent.
>
>You CANNOT avoid the laws of thermodynamics. There is NO
>perpetual motion,and there is no super high economy carburetor.
No one was talking about "perpetual motion" as far as I know.
That's a straw man argument, and not one I was trying to make. And by
the way, the universe is in perpetual motion.
>
>Anyone who believes there is has to be severaly under-educated.
>
Right, like the guy with the masters degree at the Canadian
university whose page on this I read. Yup, a real nitwit.
Kevin
news:iac375979n5i4a6bf...@4ax.com:
gee do you suppose it was because it wasn`t produceable, just like most
of your magic carb ideas. I am begining to think you are a kook. KB
jim
Don Stauffer wrote:
>
> Scotius wrote:
>
> >
> > The technology has already existed since the '40s to get
> > fantastic mileage, since the "supercarburetor" is not a "myth".
> > However, if the people who have the patent for that don't
> > release it, the only thing that can be done is to build cars and
> > trucks much smaller, and with more efficient fuel systems. That being
> > the case, the car that represents the least radical shift from what
> > people are accustomed to seeing (in terms of internal space, etc) but
> > which meets the requirement is the one most likely to be commercially
> > successful in most areas.
>
> Yes, the super carburetor IS a myth. Late carburetors, and even more
> so, modern FI systems, adequately prepare the fuel/air mixture. Only a
> fraction of one percent of fuel is left unburned in normal operating
> conditions.
>
> While it is true that car IC engines get between 30 and 40% thermal
> efficiency,
No a diesel engine may get a little better than 30%. A gasoline engine
is typically around 25%.
>it is not the carburetor at fault. Roughly 1/3 of the
> energy in the fuel produces useful work, 1/3 goes into the cooling
> system as heat, and 1/3 goes into the exhaust, as enthalpy of the
> exhaust gases.
>
> People have tried for years to make uncooled engines to eliminate the
> 1/3 that goes into the cooling system. They have found coatings and
> other materials for the engine components- the bug is that oil does not
> work at the higher temperatures- it turns into solid carbon :-(
But that is an old idea that has long ago been shown by experiment to be
essentially worthless. The problem is not that the heat goes to the
cooling system the problem is that the way gasoline burns a significant
portion of the pressure applied to the piston arrives too late in the
power stroke. Raising the engine temperature actually makes this problem
worse, because gasoline will detonate more easily at higher temps. So
unless you reformulate the gasoline to higher octane raising the temp
alone will not improve efficiency.
If more of the energy was used to push on the piston then less would
end up in the cooling system and out the exhaust, no matter what temp
the cooling system is held at. Raising the cooling system temperature
doesn't in itself mean less heat is lost. Most of the experiments in
higher temp engines saw little gain in fuel efficiency and only made an
engine with a shorter life span made with expensive materials.
>
> However, even if it did, one could only double the efficiency to a bit
> less than 70 percent, which would not give you 100 mpg with most
> practical vehicles.
If you went from 25% to 70% efficiency on a car that gets 35 mpg that
would get you to about 100 mpg.
Actually it might be quite a bit more than 100 mpg. According to MIT
research. They say that going from 25% to 40% efficiency would make it
possible to double the fuel economy because it would mean it is possible
to get the equivalent amount of power from a much smaller/lighter
engine. That would mean the car weight could be down-scaled also
because a considerable amount of frame weight goes to supporting the
engine weight. So you would gain 60% in engine efficiency and the rest
in weight reduction.
>
> Attempts to extract more heat from exhaust (other than turbochargers,
> which DO work) generally increase size and weight of vehicle, which
> increase power required.
One method AC Delco is working on is to use the waste heat to
disassociate some portion of the the gasoline into CO + H2. The goal is
to make a fuel mix that can be burned at 40% efficiency.
Also if the fuel energy is supplied to the vehicle in the form of
hydrogen that can be utilized at something like 75% efficiency using a
fuel cell.
-Jim
Scott Dorsey
>On 29 Jul 2009 15:40:07 -0400, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>>Scotius <yoda...@mnsi.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> A former Ford executive I met at a dinner I recently went to
>>>for a friend told me the "super-carburetor" was real. I think he would
>>>know.
>>
>>So, why isn't he using one?
>
>companies put in make it gum up rather quickly and it degrades back to
>about average.
That sounds just like my Solex....
jim
I always wonder what the purpose of the additives were.
-jim
hls
>>perpetual motion,and there is no super high economy carburetor.
>
> No one was talking about "perpetual motion" as far as I know.
> That's a straw man argument, and not one I was trying to make. And by
> the way, the universe is in perpetual motion.
Are you versed in thermodynamics? If not, spend a little time and
educate yourself. When you do, you will realize the defects in your
arguments.
One cannot, with magic carburetors or anything else, avoid the rules
of thermo.
Yes, some engines in some vehicles can deliver 100 mpg, but these
are not magically carburetted. They follow the same rules of science
that all other engines follow.
Brent
laws of phsyics... bah. Just have congress legislate a 100mpg minimum
and cars will get that. The government defines reality!
jim
Brent wrote:
>
> laws of phsyics... bah. Just have congress legislate a 100mpg minimum
> and cars will get that. The government defines reality!
All congress would have to do is put a $200/barrel tax on petroleum and lots of
fuel efficient transportation solutions would come popping out of the woodwork.
-jim
Brent
um no. government intervention cannot change reality and its
consequences are usually worse than what the intervention was supposed
to correct.
necromancer - ECHM
>
>"necromancer - ECHM"
>> Then why doesn't Ford bring it to market and capitalize on the,
>> "green," trend with some 100+ MPG cars that don't rely on highly
>> sophisticated junk like hybrid drives?
>
>
>Because it is all horse carp. Pogue designed a carburetor that was
>supposed to do this, but it failed miserably. Fish also put out some
>"high mileage" carburetors, but they werent.
Precisely my point: the thing doesn't exist. Otherwise it would not
make any business sense for Ford to sit on the damn thing in this,
"GREEN IS GOOD," environment we are in right now.
jim
Government intervention is already changing reality.
In US factories cost of labor about 1/2 goes to taxes (combined employee
employer taxes). In China factory labor isn't taxed - that is part of the reason
Chinese labor is so much cheaper. In the US we go to great pains to make sure
that the transportation cost of getting those Chinese made factory goods to your
local store is as cheap as possible. That whole system doesn't make a lot of
sense. It is like we have found the perfect way to put ourselves out of
business. The current tax policy seems to be designed to benefit the Chinese.
The result of the current US strategy is The U.S. as a nation is sitting on a
mountain of debt and the Chinese have no debt and are sitting on a 2 trillion
dollar cash surplus. And on top of that about half the US work force is planning
to retire soon and collect money from the government that the government doesn't
really have to give. Where do you think that money is going to come from?
http://www.comstockfunds.com/files/NLPP00000%5C292.pdf
Look at that graph. For 25 years we have operated with massive trade and
federal budget deficits and that fact pretty clearly shows up if you look at the
last 25 years of debt growth. How long do you think that graph can keep sailing
upward like that?
The purpose of taxing oil would be to avoid bankruptcy. Our current debt is
largely caused by a dependence on oil we get from foreign nations and a failure
to produce enough US made goods to sell to balance the books. There is little
doubt that a tax on oil would help reduce the massive government debt and at the
same time reduce the dependence on the substance that is really the root cause
of the debt.
-jim
Ted "I survived Chappaquiddick" Kennedy
Then he sounds like someone who isn't very intelligent, and thus I
would not work in his office.
Ted "I survived Chappaquiddick" Kennedy
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 14:55:35 -0400, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >"Scotius" <yodas...@mnsi.net> wrote in message
> >news:th31759836pn09o3i...@4ax.com...
> >> On 29 Jul 2009 10:33:08 -0400, klu...@panix.com (Scott
> >> Dorsey) wrote:
>
Very likely the television interview was premature, and the product
was a pipe dream. Won't be the first time someone misreported.
Brent
>
>
> Brent wrote:
>>
>> On 2009-07-30, jim <".sjedgingN0sp"@m> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Brent wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> laws of phsyics... bah. Just have congress legislate a 100mpg minimum
>> >> and cars will get that. The government defines reality!
>> >
>> > All congress would have to do is put a $200/barrel tax on petroleum and lots of
>> > fuel efficient transportation solutions would come popping out of the woodwork.
>>
>> um no. government intervention cannot change reality and its
>> consequences are usually worse than what the intervention was supposed
>> to correct.
> Government intervention is already changing reality.
Reality defined as things like the laws of physics. Laws of the market
place, etc and so on. These things do not change. They are not suspended
because of government intervention. Those in elected office think they
can change such things with a new tax or law or regulation, but all they
end up doing is causing consquences that they couldn't see (if we are to
believe them) (but anyone with half a brain could)
In response to the mess they created government demands more power to
tax, legislate, and regulate to fix it. They get the power and make a
bigger mess. Rinse, repeat.
jim
Brent wrote:
>
> On 2009-07-30, jim <".sjedgingN0sp"@m> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Brent wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2009-07-30, jim <".sjedgingN0sp"@m> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Brent wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> laws of phsyics... bah. Just have congress legislate a 100mpg minimum
> >> >> and cars will get that. The government defines reality!
> >> >
> >> > All congress would have to do is put a $200/barrel tax on petroleum and lots of
> >> > fuel efficient transportation solutions would come popping out of the woodwork.
> >>
> >> um no. government intervention cannot change reality and its
> >> consequences are usually worse than what the intervention was supposed
> >> to correct.
>
> > Government intervention is already changing reality.
>
> Reality defined as things like the laws of physics. Laws of the market
> place, etc and so on. These things do not change.
So what has that got to with anything other than to obfuscate reality. The debt
is very real. You can sit in your ivory tower dwelling on your laws of physics
and economy and it going to do you much good when that load of crap comes
crashing down.
>They are not suspended
> because of government intervention. Those in elected office think they
> can change such things with a new tax or law or regulation, but all they
> end up doing is causing consquences that they couldn't see (if we are to
> believe them) (but anyone with half a brain could)
So who in government is proposing a tax on petroleum as a solution? As far as I
can tell the politicians want to just bury their heads in the sand - just like
you.
>
> In response to the mess they created government
>demands more power to
> tax, legislate, and regulate to fix it.
Three quarters of the debt you see in that graph in the link I posted is not
government debt. It is private debt. And A lot of that massive private debt that
came to be in the last 25 years was created because the government regulations
that were in place were removed. And more and more of that private debt is
becoming government debt as it becomes toxic and bailout after bailout goes into
place.
And there is not much talk of any new tax or legislation or regulation to
address the mess. Why bother with that when you can just keep printing more
money (which doesn't require any action by the government at all) and making
more debt. The whole process becomes quite simple and easy when you have arrived
at the conclusion that you don't have to pay for what you spend.
Government isn't proposing a tax on petroleum or any solution besides doing what
they have been for the last 25 years which is borrow lots of money. The
government as far as I can tell is following your logic.
> They get the power and make a
> bigger mess. Rinse, repeat.
Government is pretty much the same as it was 230 years ago. There is really not
much new. Only one thing is new and that is about 25 years ago the whole country
decided it no longer needed to pay it's bills. I guess everybody is just hoping
they won't be around when the shit hits the fan.
-jim
Brent
>
>
> Brent wrote:
>>
>> On 2009-07-30, jim <".sjedgingN0sp"@m> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Brent wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 2009-07-30, jim <".sjedgingN0sp"@m> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Brent wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> laws of phsyics... bah. Just have congress legislate a 100mpg minimum
>> >> >> and cars will get that. The government defines reality!
>> >> >
>> >> > All congress would have to do is put a $200/barrel tax on petroleum and lots of
>> >> > fuel efficient transportation solutions would come popping out of the woodwork.
>> >>
>> >> um no. government intervention cannot change reality and its
>> >> consequences are usually worse than what the intervention was supposed
>> >> to correct.
>>
>> > Government intervention is already changing reality.
>>
>> Reality defined as things like the laws of physics. Laws of the market
>> place, etc and so on. These things do not change.
>
> So what has that got to with anything other than to obfuscate reality. The debt
> is very real. You can sit in your ivory tower dwelling on your laws of physics
> and economy and it going to do you much good when that load of crap comes
> crashing down.
You're missing the point. It's those laws that will bring about the
crash. The government tries to deny their reality.
>>They are not suspended
>> because of government intervention. Those in elected office think they
>> can change such things with a new tax or law or regulation, but all they
>> end up doing is causing consquences that they couldn't see (if we are to
>> believe them) (but anyone with half a brain could)
> So who in government is proposing a tax on petroleum as a solution? As far as I
> can tell the politicians want to just bury their heads in the sand - just like
> you.
I am guessing your scarasm meter is broken. My first post in this thread
is scarcasm. And more intervention, in the form of the tax you propose
may force slightly more fuel sipping vehicles, but there will be some
other consequence to that intervention. Perhaps the person who was
working on a cure for cancer that would have been successful dies in a
traffic collision because he was riding a scooter due to the cost of
fuel. Perhaps the economy comes crashing down due to the tax because
the conspiracy of the 100mpg carb was but a myth.
>> In response to the mess they created government
>>demands more power to tax, legislate, and regulate to fix it.
> Three quarters of the debt you see in that graph in the link I posted is not
> government debt. It is private debt. And A lot of that massive private debt that
> came to be in the last 25 years was created because the government regulations
> that were in place were removed. And more and more of that private debt is
> becoming government debt as it becomes toxic and bailout after bailout goes into
> place.
Again, you're missing the point.
> And there is not much talk of any new tax or legislation or regulation to
> address the mess.
Yes there has been, well in the name of it. Haven't you been paying
attention? Dear leader, Obama, wants to give the federal reserve and his
masters at goldman sachs much greater power to regulate the economy,
right down to the ma and pa store on the corner.
> Why bother with that when you can just keep printing more
> money (which doesn't require any action by the government at all) and making
> more debt. The whole process becomes quite simple and easy when you have arrived
> at the conclusion that you don't have to pay for what you spend.
> Government isn't proposing a tax on petroleum or any solution besides doing what
> they have been for the last 25 years which is borrow lots of money. The
> government as far as I can tell is following your logic.
'my logic'? are you daft? You're bringing up subject matter I didn't
even hint at and then claim I have some 'logic' about it? Even if you
dug up some old posts in other threads and groups what you are assigning
me is quite the opposite.
>> They get the power and make a
>> bigger mess. Rinse, repeat.
> Government is pretty much the same as it was 230 years ago. There is really not
> much new.
Government is the same as it was 2300 years ago, it's the same as it has
always been, a gang of thieves with a monopoly on legal violence.
> Only one thing is new and that is about 25 years ago the whole country
> decided it no longer needed to pay it's bills. I guess everybody is just hoping
> they won't be around when the shit hits the fan.
The system of debt started late in 1913 with the Federal Reserve act
when the large bankers formed a cartel with government authority.
jim
Brent wrote:
>
> You're missing the point. It's those laws that will bring about the
> crash. The government tries to deny their reality.
So just keep on borrowing everything is fine
So just keep on borrowing everything will be fine?
>
> > And there is not much talk of any new tax or legislation or regulation to
> > address the mess.
>
> Yes there has been, well in the name of it. Haven't you been paying
> attention? Dear leader, Obama, wants to give the federal reserve and his
> masters at goldman sachs much greater power to regulate the economy,
> right down to the ma and pa store on the corner.
Well the federal reserve exists to pander to people like you that can't
trust congress. But I don't see any real changes being proposed in
Washington. It is all about how do we get the train back on the same
track of prosperity by borrow and borrow and borrow that we have been
running on for 25 years.
>
> > Why bother with that when you can just keep printing more
> > money (which doesn't require any action by the government at all) and making
> > more debt. The whole process becomes quite simple and easy when you have arrived
> > at the conclusion that you don't have to pay for what you spend.
>
> > Government isn't proposing a tax on petroleum or any solution besides doing what
> > they have been for the last 25 years which is borrow lots of money. The
> > government as far as I can tell is following your logic.
>
> 'my logic'? are you daft? You're bringing up subject matter I didn't
> even hint at and then claim I have some 'logic' about it? Even if you
> dug up some old posts in other threads and groups what you are assigning
> me is quite the opposite.
You want to do nothing - which is not very different than what the
government is doing.
>
> >> They get the power and make a
> >> bigger mess. Rinse, repeat.
>
> > Government is pretty much the same as it was 230 years ago. There is really not
> > much new.
>
> Government is the same as it was 2300 years ago, it's the same as it has
> always been, a gang of thieves with a monopoly on legal violence.
So just keep on borrowing everything will be fine?
>
> > Only one thing is new and that is about 25 years ago the whole country
> > decided it no longer needed to pay it's bills. I guess everybody is just hoping
> > they won't be around when the shit hits the fan.
>
> The system of debt started late in 1913 with the Federal Reserve act
> when the large bankers formed a cartel with government authority.
Well sure and FRB was presented as a private system that would not be in
the hands of those untrustworthy government thieves. Because they knew
there were plenty of fools who would buy into it if presented like that.
So now we have a private system that is not controlled by government -
that is not better than direct government control?
But it doesn't really matter the current debt is not caused by the
federal reserve it is because we used borrowing to get out of the long
lingering recession caused by the 70's oil price increases and we
thought it worked, so well we decided we could keep on doing it forever.
As I said 3/4 of the debt that is going to drag us into the gutter is
private debt. And that chart I posted only goes to 2006 Since 2006 the
total debt has nearly doubled, so extend that line up about twice as far
to get an picture of where we are today.
You try to portray my petroleum tax proposal as the governments plan.
Then why isn't anybody in government proposing a hefty tax on oil? The
government is in fact trying to get rid of the gas tax. The want a
system that measures the miles you drive and tax you on mileage. Why do
the oil interests oops... I mean government want that new system?
Because that will tax the guy who drives a prius the same as the guy who
drives a hummer. See the government works just fine for those who take
an interest. Trust me government intervention is usually accomplishing
exactly what government intervention is intended to accomplish. And it
is the many fools like you that can't see that reality, that make it all
possible.
It is your stupid kind of mentality that propagates the myth that
government is incompetent and bumbling that perpetuates the ability of
the government to continue to act against the interests of many who vote
for it. As long as you convince enough people that the government can't
possibly ever get it right and do anything that would work in their
favor then any program designed to do just that will rarely happen....
and so guess what it rarely does. Meanwhile the people who do believe in
the power of government get it to work in their favor most of the time.
-jim
Brent
>
>
> Brent wrote:
>
>>
>> You're missing the point. It's those laws that will bring about the
>> crash. The government tries to deny their reality.
>
> So just keep on borrowing everything is fine
Are you just stupid or trolling? That's how the government tries to
deny reality, they really believe in the keynesian nonsense
> So just keep on borrowing everything will be fine?
Buh bye troll.
AMuzi
Scotius wrote:
>And by
> the way, the universe is in perpetual motion.
No, it is not.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Scotius
Chappaquiddick\" Kennedy"
<TedKennedyMurderedHisP...@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
If you're being purposefully thick, then it's okay, but
otherwise I'd stay indoors if I were you... geez... you could make the
average yard dangerous.
What I meant was is that he was the boss there. He knows more
about auto history than you do. He was a Ford executive, okay? He
knows what he's talking about.
hls
> otherwise I'd stay indoors if I were you... geez... you could make the
> average yard dangerous.
> What I meant was is that he was the boss there. He knows more
> about auto history than you do. He was a Ford executive, okay? He
> knows what he's talking about.
Ric Wagoner was the biggest baddest boss at GM. Q.E.D.?
Larrybud
>>water...more conspiracy bullshit.
>
> Oh, pardon me then... "everyone knows" that conspiracies
> don't
> happen, right? Wrong. A lot of people "think" they know they
> don't happen, but reality has no bias; sorry.
> I've read too many reports on it from too many reliable
> sources to discount it.
> And speaking of conspiracies, I saw Ted Koppel interview a
> Florida university professor who had invented a system that
> "amplified" electrical input using seawater, and a matrix of
> beads consisting of either nickel, iron, and molybdenum, or
> nickel iron and some other metal. This was on NIGHTLINE, in case
> you forgot who I saw interviewing the guy.
I once saw a pickup truck blow up on Dateline NBC, too... oops.
> I never saw anything on television about it again, never
> heard
> anything on the radio about it, and several times could not find
> ONE reference on the Internet to it.
That's probably because they found out it was BS.
Look, there are no magic beans in physics. And just because
something was patented doesn't mean squat. There are tons of
"anti-gravity" machines and "perpetual motion" machines that are
patented.
In addition, patents don't last that long. If some super carb was
patented in the 50's which worked, they'd be in mass production
right now (patents are good for 20 years).
Finally, any car company that could come up with the "super carb"
would be #1 in market share for years to come.
Thou shalt not violate the laws of nature.
Scotius
<stau...@usfamily.net> wrote:
>Scotius wrote:
>
>>
>> The technology has already existed since the '40s to get
>> fantastic mileage, since the "supercarburetor" is not a "myth".
>> However, if the people who have the patent for that don't
>> release it, the only thing that can be done is to build cars and
>> trucks much smaller, and with more efficient fuel systems. That being
>> the case, the car that represents the least radical shift from what
>> people are accustomed to seeing (in terms of internal space, etc) but
>> which meets the requirement is the one most likely to be commercially
>> successful in most areas.
>
>Yes, the super carburetor IS a myth. Late carburetors, and even more
>so, modern FI systems, adequately prepare the fuel/air mixture. Only a
>fraction of one percent of fuel is left unburned in normal operating
>conditions.
If that's true then why are those engines rated at only
20-some percent efficient?
>
>While it is true that car IC engines get between 30 and 40% thermal
>efficiency, it is not the carburetor at fault. Roughly 1/3 of the
>energy in the fuel produces useful work, 1/3 goes into the cooling
>system as heat, and 1/3 goes into the exhaust, as enthalpy of the
>exhaust gases.
>
>People have tried for years to make uncooled engines to eliminate the
>1/3 that goes into the cooling system. They have found coatings and
>other materials for the engine components- the bug is that oil does not
>work at the higher temperatures- it turns into solid carbon :-(
I read some years back that there were people working on
producing a ceramic engine. Actually, it could already be done then,
but was cost prohibitive, so I guess I should say they were looking at
bringing down the cost of production of ceramic engines.
Since the ceramics can withstand temperatures far higher than
steel, the engines could operate hotter and more efficiently.
>
>However, even if it did, one could only double the efficiency to a bit
>less than 70 percent, which would not give you 100 mpg with most
>practical vehicles.
>
>Attempts to extract more heat from exhaust (other than turbochargers,
>which DO work) generally increase size and weight of vehicle, which
>increase power required.
The supercarburetor is NOT a myth, however. I've read enough
about it to have formed a reasonable opinion, in my opinion, and mine
is that it's not.
If it was a myth, why all the additives added to gas right
after the war, when the rumors started leaking about about the
super-carburetor on the then-new American tank... the one used in
North Africa?
Scotius
My understanding of the super-carburetor was that it acts as a
catalyst, and "cracks" natural gas and other compounds in gasoline and
makes use of them in ways a normal carb doesn't, if I recall
correctly. I can't find the page that I read this on some years back
and I'm no mechanic, but I'll try to find it if you want to read it
yourself.
SilentOtto
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 10:53:45 -0500, "hls" <h...@nospam.nix> wrote:
>
I don't know anything about a super carburetor, but I know for a fact
that GM did some work on an experimental carburetor system back in the
late 70's that provided a significant increase in fuel economy.
Most people don't realize that a certain percentage of the fuel that
goes into an cylinder remains unburned, and that it remains unburned
on purpose. It needs to remain unburned to carry away excess heat.
That's why running an engine too lean, meaning a very low level of
fuel in the air-fuel mixture, will burn holes in the pistons. Without
the unburned fuel to carry away heat, it just gets too hot in the
combustion chamber.
GM got around this with a water injection system. It allowed them to
run the engine on a lean fuel mix and by injecting water to replace
the unburned fuel and carry away excess heat, they avoided the problem
with burning holes in the pistons.
I saw this system on a Cadillac driven by an engineer that worked for
Buick who was driving the car as a test platform, and he explained it
to me. (I'm from Flint, MI, so there were lots of GM engineers running
around and seeing a car with an experimental element wasn't unheard
of) He said that the idea had been around for decades, but with the
cost of fuel being so cheap, it just didn't make sense to bother with
it. That changed with the fuel crunch in the '70s, and that's what
led GM to experiment with it.
However, as it never went in to general production, I always assumed
that there was some sort of problem with it. But, I want to stress
that was an assumption on my part. I don't know for a fact if it had
any problems or what they may have been.
I also always sort of assumed that similar systems were at the core of
the super carburetor rumors. But, again, that's an assumption. I've
nothing factual to back that up.
Nate Nagel
Most people don't realize that because it's not so. If it were, you'd
burn up catalytic converters at an alarming rate.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Matthew Russotto
Scotius <yoda...@mnsi.net> wrote:
>>Yes, the super carburetor IS a myth. Late carburetors, and even more
>>so, modern FI systems, adequately prepare the fuel/air mixture. Only a
>>fraction of one percent of fuel is left unburned in normal operating
>>conditions.
>
> If that's true then why are those engines rated at only
>20-some percent efficient?
Because the efficiency of an internal combusion engine is not equal to
the fraction of the fuel it burns. The limit on efficiency of an
internal combustion engine is simply one minus the ratio of the
temperature of the combustion gas over the temperature of the outside
air. Both temperatures in absolute degrees, of course.
> I read some years back that there were people working on
>producing a ceramic engine. Actually, it could already be done then,
>but was cost prohibitive, so I guess I should say they were looking at
>bringing down the cost of production of ceramic engines.
> Since the ceramics can withstand temperatures far higher than
>steel, the engines could operate hotter and more efficiently.
Sure, presuming you could get the mixture to burn that much hotter and
you could efficiently remove the heat before the next cycle starts.
The first part is pretty easy. The second, not so much.
> The supercarburetor is NOT a myth, however. I've read enough
>about it to have formed a reasonable opinion, in my opinion, and mine
>is that it's not.
Electronic fuel injection provides a near ideal fuel to air ratio, and
yet fails to achieve the purported benefits of the supercarburetor. Therefore,
no such device existed.
--
It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress
SilentOtto
Do a search on running an engine too lean, and get back to me.
Nate Nagel
I know what running an engine too lean means. I also know that there is
never "a certain percentage of the fuel that goes into an cylinder
remains unburned, and that it remains unburned on purpose" except
possibly at WOT. During normal conditions, the fuel/air mix is
deliberately held at or near stoich. Unburned fuel passing out of the
engine causes if nothing else high CO (emissions failure) or catalytic
converter damage (emissions failure, possible poor performance.)
Your information is about 30 years out of date.
Major Debacle
That depends on the percentage of unburned fuel passing through the cat.
Remember: the cat was developed to convert unburned HCs and other
harmful pollutants into more harmless elements and compounds. The
problem, as I'm sure you are aware, develops when HCs and O2 reached
high enough levels in the cat to combust there at a rate that causes
temperatures high enough to melt the innards.
Exhaust gas recirculation enables a much leaner mix without the
otherwise resultant high cylinder temperatures which produce an excess
of nitrogen oxides. But EGR alone cannot compensate for fuel mixtures
that are too lean when it comes to keeping NO down to acceptable levels.
While it might be possible to engineer a combustion system that produces
little or no HCs sent to the cat, engine efficiency would suffer and
would result in more pollutants, not less, reaching the atmosphere.
Thus, a small percentage of HCs is allowed to pass unburned from the
cylinder for the cat to deal with.
Nate Nagel
Strictly speaking, you may be correct that someone programming an ECM
may err slightly on the rich side rather than the lean side... but even
as long ago as 1984, fuel mix control was tight enough that my Scirocco
would pass an emissions test (tailpipe sniffer) without any cat guts at
all (I didn't gut it on purpose; it gutted itself and blew its innards
out the exhaust at 200K+ miles) so any "extra" fuel was so miniscule as
to be insignificant. Both CO and HC were very low. Car ran great.
I suspect newer cars have the fuel mix regulated even tighter.
Forgot to mention, that O2 sensors don't like rich mixtures either...
Major Debacle
Rich is relative. More correct to say that O2 sensors are damaged by too
high a percentage of unburned HCs in the exhaust stream. Cats are
actually designed to burn off HCs before expelling the resultant
exhaust. That is what an air pump is designed to do. It injects a stream
of air into the cat expressly for the purpose of combining the O2 in the
air with HCs in order to burn them off.
Alan Baker
<e94cfc7d-6917-4903...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
SilentOtto <silen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You do it. Engines these days are run at almost precisely stoichiometric.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
Brent
> Rich is relative. More correct to say that O2 sensors are damaged by too
> high a percentage of unburned HCs in the exhaust stream. Cats are
> actually designed to burn off HCs before expelling the resultant
> exhaust. That is what an air pump is designed to do. It injects a stream
> of air into the cat expressly for the purpose of combining the O2 in the
> air with HCs in order to burn them off.
Air pump? If there's a modern car on the market that needs an air pump
to meet emissions I suggest not buying it.
It's not 1975 any longer. Air pumps and other kludges are gone and
the root problem of real time fuel mixture adjustments was
addressed. Modern systems hold the fuel mixture near perfect.
Major Debacle
Point being made was that burning HCs in the cat don't necessarily lead
to cat failure.
Matthew Russotto
Nate Nagel <njn...@roosters.net> wrote:
>Major Debacle wrote:
>
[...]
>> Thus, a small percentage of HCs is allowed to pass unburned from the
>> cylinder for the cat to deal with.
>
>Strictly speaking, you may be correct that someone programming an ECM
>may err slightly on the rich side rather than the lean side... but even
>as long ago as 1984, fuel mix control was tight enough that my Scirocco
>would pass an emissions test (tailpipe sniffer) without any cat guts at
>all (I didn't gut it on purpose; it gutted itself and blew its innards
>out the exhaust at 200K+ miles) so any "extra" fuel was so miniscule as
>to be insignificant. Both CO and HC were very low. Car ran great.
>
>I suspect newer cars have the fuel mix regulated even tighter.
You and Cpt. Debacle are both forgetting that it's closed loop except
at startup and WOT. Under normal conditions the mixture oscillates
between slightly rich and slightly lean; there's no deliberate enrichment.
SilentOtto
What part of "late '70s was it you didn't understand....
Nate Nagel
you can run closed loop and deliberately map it rich if you want, so
long as you have an O2 sensor that can take it.
I'm not aware of it being *done,* mind you...
Nate Nagel
I don't know or care what GM was working on in the late 70's, but modern
EFI can be tuned any which way 'til Sunday, and generally is (sometimes
by people who know what they're doing, and sometimes not.) If it were
desirable to run rich, wouldn't today's far more flexible fuel systems
do that? But they don't...
I also know that "a certain percentage of the fuel that goes into an
cylinder remains unburned, and that it remains unburned on purpose" is a
false statement. Now, that *may* have been true in the old days, simply
because they didn't have feedback controls, and wanted to ensure that a
vehicle wouldn't run lean. But you didn't say that; and running
deliberately rich except under WOT/high boost/whatever conditions is
never desirable, and never was.
So you are either imprecise in your wording, or you are simply wrong.
And in any case, I'd wager that no "super carburetor" ever would show
any significant improvement in fuel economy over a well tuned EFI system.
Brent
So you're just making a lame usenet point when anyone with a clue
understood what Nate wrote perfectly. Gotcha.
Alan Baker
Major Debacle <major_...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
It would if it were more than just a whisper of unburnt HCs.
Scotius
It wasn't an improvement of thermal efficiency that made the
super-carburetor what it was. It was that it got more out of the gas
by acting as a catalyst to a degree, from what I've read. It was a
while ago that I read it and I don't recall the site, but if I find it
I will let you know.
SilentOtto
I confess that my days with tinkering with engines was long ago...
But, I did some quick looking around on the web and there were -
plenty- of references to problems associated with running modern
engines too lean in various help forums.
So, it would seem to me that since running too lean is still a
problem, then there must still be a certain percentage of the fuel
that's deliberately reaming unburned under normal operating
conditions.
Brent
> But, I did some quick looking around on the web and there were -
> plenty- of references to problems associated with running modern
> engines too lean in various help forums.
> So, it would seem to me that since running too lean is still a
> problem, then there must still be a certain percentage of the fuel
> that's deliberately reaming unburned under normal operating
> conditions.
For crying out loud... Those forums are people who MODIFY their cars.
They turn their cars into rolling engineering experiments. They add
superchargers and turbo chargers (which add air). They play with the
fuel map. They change injectors. Sometimes they get it wrong and cause
damage. That's the nature of such things.
If you a buy a car and don't start messing with it, the only way there
will be a problem with running lean is if a part FAILS. Parts such as an
O2 sensor or a TPS.
hls
> super-carburetor what it was. It was that it got more out of the gas
> by acting as a catalyst to a degree, from what I've read. It was a
> while ago that I read it and I don't recall the site, but if I find it
> I will let you know.
In such context, a super carburetor is a myth, pure and simple.
Scotius
If you want to suggest that it's a "myth" because no one has
yet PROVEN it to be real, that's okay. After all, you can't go around
insisting the Earth is flat unless you can "prove", it.
I will say this until I find some references though: I have
read some convincing material on the net about this.
Matthew Russotto
A catalyst for what? A fuel air mixture doesn't _need_ a catalyst to
go "boom". You're repeating snake-oil claims.
Matthew Russotto
SilentOtto <silen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>But, I did some quick looking around on the web and there were -
>plenty- of references to problems associated with running modern
>engines too lean in various help forums.
Modern engines run too lean when there's some problem with the fuel
delivery system. Sometimes it's due to an ECU programming problem
but usually it's some sort of mechanical failure.
>So, it would seem to me that since running too lean is still a
>problem, then there must still be a certain percentage of the fuel
>that's deliberately reaming unburned under normal operating
>conditions.
No. Running too lean, in a modern engine, refers to when there's too
little fuel and thus some oxygen in the mixture remains unconsumed.
It's simply the opposite of running rich.
hls
When you can prove it, then the flat earth and the super carburetor will
be entered into science. Until then, the earth is not flat, unless it is
in
the form of a map, and there is no super carburetor.
Scotius
I can accept that. I'll still post any links I find about it
to this group though in case anyone who understands the mechanics
wants to take a look. Deal?
brian whatcott
>> ... why are those engines rated at only
>> 20-some percent efficient?
>
> Because the efficiency of an internal combustion engine is not equal to
> the fraction of the fuel it burns. The limit on efficiency of an
> internal combustion engine is simply one minus the ratio of the
> temperature of the combustion gas over the temperature of the outside
> air. Both temperatures in absolute degrees, of course.
Close - its the temperature of the COMPRESSED mixture not the temp of
the burning gas
Brian W
hls
> to this group though in case anyone who understands the mechanics
> wants to take a look. Deal?
Post whatever you like.. Many of us have a very good grasp of
physics, chemistry, and mechanics. We will welcome your right to
post, but will challenge you when you are over the edge (of the flat
earth). ;>)
hls
"brian whatcott" <bet...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> the burning gas
>
> Brian W
I dont believe that is quite right either, Brian.
Matthew Russotto
No, the temperature of the compressed mixture is meaningless. In the
ideal case, the temperature of the compressed mixture is equal to the
sink temperature; in a real engine, that's not the case of course, and
is a source of inefficiency.
Alan Baker
No. People can do the math and there is nothing "more" available to "get
out of the gas".
Sorry.
Alan Baker
Scotius <yoda...@mnsi.net> wrote:
It's a myth because we can do the math that tells us how much energy can
be obtained by burning gasoline.
Alan Baker
<2ec66b11-c78c-4857...@n2g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
SilentOtto <silen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The percentage involved is *miniscule*.
brian whatcott
Oh boy - I should have known what to expect when I saw the newsgroups
involved.
Brian W
Douglas
You'll love this.
I’ll be brief.
Go to www.fipswaterinjection.com.
We spent $500,000 on Ontario, Canada, Government/Ministry of Energy
Funds to test our product.
They wanted a 10% increase in fuel economy.
Here are the results, which you can view online at the site, and
download the pdf of the concluding report.
-------------------------------------------------------------
From the concluding summary report funded by the Ministry of
Environment & Energy, dated February 22, 1994, through testing
conducted by Cesaroni Technology Inc., and ORTECH Corporation.
• Engine dynamometer and in vehicle tests have shown that water
injection in the combination with lean air/fuel ratios and advanced
spark timing can reduce fuel consumption by between 14 and 23.9
percent on average.
• Peak power measured on an engine dynamometer could be increased
by up to 4.6 percent with water injection with a concurrent reduction
in fuel consumption of up to 18 percent.
• Exhaust emissions of regulated and unregulated pollutants were
typically reduced with water injection, lean air/fuel ratio and
advanced spark timing;
– up to 27% reduction in total hydrocarbons (THC)
– up to 83% reduction in carbon monoxide (CO)
– up to 68% reduction in oxides of nitrogen (NOx)
– up to 17% reduction in sulfur dioxide (SO2)
– up to 17% reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2)
• FIPS water injection did not adversely affect engine durability
based on a GM experimental Engineering specified 100 hour engine
dynamometer durability test and a ten vehicle fleet evaluation.
• Subjective vehicle driveability with FIPS water injection was
similar to gasoline except for greater power output with water.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
And the government response?
“It’s too political.”
They dropped us like a rock.
Douglas Sweet
Executive Assistant
Fluid Injection Power Systems Ltd.
PS. And you can’t buy it.
Scotius
And what does this tell the naysayers? Not much...