High Gas Mileage: GAS VAPORIZATION
Steve Reiser
Most mechanical and chemical engineers are aware of the fact that the
current technology sold under the hood of your car to supply an
air-gasoline mixture is an outdated technology. Carburetors and fuel
injection rely on gas atomization to form tiny droplets of gasoline
which form the combustion mixture used in the engine cylinders. These
tiny droplets begin to combust in the cylinder upon ignition and
continue to burn in the exhaust manifold which much of the energy wasted
in addition to that already wasted as heat.
Many individual have succesfully developed gas vaporization technology
which vaporizes the gasoline before introducing into the engine and have
typically tripled the gas mileage of the autombile. I'm aware of
inventors in Virginia, Washington State, California, Arizona, Idaho and
other states who have been forced to sell their ideas to companies such
as Exxon, DuPont, Chrysler, and others under threat to their lives.
Gas vaporization technology has existed since the 1950s as a known way
to increase fuel efficiency in gas combustion engines of all sorts. Some
of this technology is being used clandestinely, since people who attempt
to market it have their lives threatened. Example, there is an
individual in Arizona, whom I cannot even divulge who has a Cadillac
with a 500 c.i. engine which gets roughly 60 miles per gallon using gas
vaporization technology.
What amazes me, is that with all the scientific and engineering manpower
in existence in our modern society we haven't been able to force the use
of an obviously superior technology.
For those who want to conduct a technical anlysis of the combustion,
consult the chemical engineering text: "Transport Phenomena" by Bird,
Stuart, and Lightfoot. The section on Mass Transfer shows how to
calculate the combustion of spheres of vaporizing liquids in which the
gas and are must diffuse through a combusting film on the surface of the
atomized droplet. You'll find that the droplet isn't in the engine long
enough to burn up and also that the combustion isn't efficient, wasting
fuel and damaging the environment.
Some of the gas vaporazation technology has simply used heat exchanger
in which exhaust heat is used to heat the gas-air mixture to vaporize
the gas then send it through a cooling exchanger to cool the vaporized
gasoline-air mixture. The resultant mixture burns far more efficiently
and gives much greater gas mileage.
Several patents exist on such ideas, all of them are locked in the
vaults of oil or auto companies to keep them off the market. It's time
to change this situation.
Steve
--
Steve Reiser (rei...@pmafire.inel.gov or !uunet!pmafire!reiser)
Robert L. Howard
>Many individual have succesfully developed gas vaporization technology
>which vaporizes the gasoline before introducing into the engine and have
>typically tripled the gas mileage of the autombile. I'm aware of
>inventors in Virginia, Washington State, California, Arizona, Idaho and
>other states who have been forced to sell their ideas to companies such
>as Exxon, DuPont, Chrysler, and others under threat to their lives.
>Gas vaporization technology has existed since the 1950s ....
:
>Several patents exist on such ideas, all of them are locked in the
>vaults of oil or auto companies to keep them off the market. It's time
>to change this situation.
What are the numbers of these patents? When were they issued? Isn't
a patent only valid for 17 years? Even the late '50's were over 30
years ago....(if the 17 year number is right) then all patents before
1974 should be public access now.
Also this statement:
>What amazes me, is that with all the scientific and engineering manpower
>in existence in our modern society we haven't been able to force the use
>of an obviously superior technology.
If your conspiracy theory is right, then science and engineering having
nothing to do with this situation; it's all business and law.
I think I want to see some hard data before I listen any further to
this tripe.
Robert
--
| Robert L. Howard | Georgia Tech Research Institute |
| rho...@matd.gatech.edu | MATD Laboratory |
| (404) 528-7165 | Atlanta, Georgia 30332 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "Well, just remember: Suns are better than Macs because a Sun |
| does a *lot* more damage when you throw one." -- Mr. Protocol |
Allan Adler
A good first step in looking into the situation might be to publish
(here or elsewhere) the patent numbers of the suppressed technology.
Allan Adler
a...@zohar.ai.mit.edu
Bible Anthony E
[some stuff deleted]
>
>Many individual have succesfully developed gas vaporization technology
>which vaporizes the gasoline before introducing into the engine and have
>typically tripled the gas mileage of the autombile. I'm aware of
>inventors in Virginia, Washington State, California, Arizona, Idaho and
>other states who have been forced to sell their ideas to companies such
>as Exxon, DuPont, Chrysler, and others under threat to their lives.
>
>Gas vaporization technology has existed since the 1950s as a known way
>to increase fuel efficiency in gas combustion engines of all sorts. Some
>of this technology is being used clandestinely, since people who attempt
>to market it have their lives threatened. Example, there is an
>individual in Arizona, whom I cannot even divulge who has a Cadillac
>with a 500 c.i. engine which gets roughly 60 miles per gallon using gas
>vaporization technology.
>
[some stuff deleted]
This is not intended as a flame, but ... I have heard about 100 mpg
carburetors and secret formulas for incredible fuel economy and such since
the 50's. And the reason the device/ingredient is not available to the
public is because of some industrial conspiracy. Even though I am willing --
even eager -- to believe ill of my fellow man, I would like to see some
tangible evidence that such things exist before I (figuratively) buy into it.
I do not mean references to theory or appeals to authority; I mean I want to
see the 60 mpg Cadillac or, better, have it tested by some competent,
disinterested party. Absent that, I file it along with Flying Saucers,
Bigfoot, Nessie, ...
Just thinking and saying my own thoughts.
Arnie Frisch
>
>In a 1965 issue of "Car ad Driver" magazine a developer had modified a
>Barracuda to a high mielage gas vapor engine. The gentleman lives in
>Virginia.
>
>In a 1975 or 76 Popular Mechanics magazine a Nova getting 20 mpg had the
>carburetor moved over the wheel well and heat exchangers placed between
>it and the intake manifold. The resulting modifications gave about 50
>mpg. However, there was an overheating problem.
You can also get great mileage if you get rid of, or disable, some
cylinders - like remove four from an eight cylinder engine. That
doubles your gas mileage, but it also halves your horses, and Cadillac
tried that in the 4-6-8 engine that they made in the early to
mid-eighties - and the customers didn't like it. The point is, after
these modifications were made, what was the performance of the engine?
>The US Air Force solved that problem around World War II. My father
>worked on airplane engines that ran on lean air-vapor mixtures mixed
>with atomized water. The combusting fuel mixture would vaporize the
>atomized water converting heat to pressure and tremendously raise the
>power output of the engine. My father has wondered for decades why this
>isn't applied to cars.
Because it ruins them. High temperature steam is particularly
destructive of aluminum, as in heads. When this scheme was applied to
aircraft engines it was used for very short periods of time (like 20 to
30 seconds at a time) in life or death combat situations.
Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
Alex Goykhman
>Many individual have succesfully developed gas vaporization technology
>which vaporizes the gasoline before introducing into the engine and have
>typically tripled the gas mileage of the autombile. I'm aware of
>inventors in Virginia, Washington State, California, Arizona, Idaho and
>other states who have been forced to sell their ideas to companies such
>as Exxon, DuPont, Chrysler, and others under threat to their lives.
[deleted]
>
>Several patents exist on such ideas, all of them are locked in the
>vaults of oil or auto companies to keep them off the market. It's time
>to change this situation.
>
>Steve
Yet Another Conspiracy Theory... OK, the oil companies may have
an interest in keeping the oil consumption high, but don't you
think Crysler would benefit from the increased fuel economy?
I got it, the Big Three must be controlled by the Seven Sisters,
so must be the Congress. But what about countries like Japan,
that are heavily dependent on foreign oil, or Israel, that would
love to see her Arab neighbours just a little bit poorer, why
are those countries sitting on their hands? Must have taken
a lot of arm-twisting from George the Oilmen to achieve that.
Fortunately, all we need to do to save the environment, and make
the world happy, is to pick a few corporate vaults. Any takers?
--
Alex Goykhman Hewlett-Packard, Company (OSSD/CSSL)
goykh...@apollo.hp.com mit-eddie!apollo!goykhman_a
Standard disclaimer
Ron Carter
}current technology sold under the hood of your car to supply an
}air-gasoline mixture is an outdated technology. Carburetors and fuel
}injection rely on gas atomization to form tiny droplets of gasoline
}which form the combustion mixture used in the engine cylinders. These
}tiny droplets begin to combust in the cylinder upon ignition and
}continue to burn in the exhaust manifold which much of the energy wasted
}in addition to that already wasted as heat.
This is completely wrong. Modern fuel injectors and even carburetors
inject liquid, but liquid gasoline evaporates under normal conditions
to form vapor before the spark plug fires. This is trivially obvious;
it is not possible to ignite liquid fuel, it must vaporize and mix with
air first. If there is too little fuel in the air, the mixture cannot
be lit with a spark plug. The result is a misfire.
The only condition under which large amounts of fuel are dumped into
the exhaust are cold starts (freezing and colder), and then only
briefly. To get the car started, excess fuel is injected so that
enough evaporates to burn. The extra does nasty things like washing
the oil off the cylinder walls, so it is strongly discouraged. As
soon as the cylinder walls heat up past the boiling point of the
gasoline, any fuel which hits them flashes into vapor. The heat
of compression boils any suspended liquid droplets into vapor as
well. After a few seconds of operation, the piston and cylinder
are too hot for gasoline to be a liquid; within a minute, the
intake air cuff over the exhaust manifold introduces enough hot
air to cause atomized fuel to evaporate in the intake air stream.
}Many individual have succesfully developed gas vaporization technology
}which vaporizes the gasoline before introducing into the engine and have
}typically tripled the gas mileage of the autombile. I'm aware of
}inventors in Virginia, Washington State, California, Arizona, Idaho and
}other states who have been forced to sell their ideas to companies such
}as Exxon, DuPont, Chrysler, and others under threat to their lives.
Garbage again. The fuel efficiency of the Ford 5-liter truck engine
is about .46 lb/HP-hr at its best operating conditions. A horsepower
hour is 1,980,000 ft-lb. The fuel value of gasoline is about 119,000
BTU/gallon, or (6 lb/gal) roughly 20,000 BTU/lb. A BTU is 778 ft-lb,
so the energy in is .46 * 778 * 20,000 = 7,160,000 ft-lb. The
thermal efficiency is 28%. Obviously, it is not possible to triple
this figure using a heat engine, yet that is exactly what the above
paragraph claims. The claim is obviously false. Anyone who repeats
it is either misinformed or trying to sell you something (don't buy!).
There will be major implementation of vaporizing fuel injectors soon.
However, it will not be to increase efficiency (not significantly)
but to decrease the amount of fuel required to start a cold engine
and improve emissions. The fuel heaters will only operate for a
brief period while the engine is starting and warming up. They will
also appear on cars designed to burn methanol, to make it possible
to start them in cold weather without pre-heating the engine.
}Gas vaporization technology has existed since the 1950s as a known way
}to increase fuel efficiency in gas combustion engines of all sorts. Some
}of this technology is being used clandestinely, since people who attempt
}to market it have their lives threatened. Example, there is an
}individual in Arizona, whom I cannot even divulge who has a Cadillac
}with a 500 c.i. engine which gets roughly 60 miles per gallon using gas
}vaporization technology.
Since all these patents from the 50's expired before 1980, one must
wonder why Lexus is selling luxury cars which are getting only 20
MPG today when they could be using this "wonder technology" and
getting 60 MPG. The answer is, it does not exist.
}What amazes me, is that with all the scientific and engineering manpower
}in existence in our modern society we haven't been able to force the use
}of an obviously superior technology.
What amazes me is that some people are so scientifically illiterate
that they cannot analyze statements such as the above and conclude
that the purported improvements are impossible. The energy value of
fuels and the typical fuel consumption of engines are widely known.
Why can't people crunch a few numbers and look at efficiency themselves?
}For those who want to conduct a technical anlysis of the combustion,
}consult the chemical engineering text: "Transport Phenomena" by Bird,
}Stuart, and Lightfoot. The section on Mass Transfer shows how to
}calculate the combustion of spheres of vaporizing liquids in which the
}gas and are must diffuse through a combusting film on the surface of the
}atomized droplet. You'll find that the droplet isn't in the engine long
}enough to burn up and also that the combustion isn't efficient, wasting
}fuel and damaging the environment.
Yet another bogus statement. Nearly all fuel in a modern engine is
burned before the exhaust valve opens. If a cylinder is misfiring,
the unburned fuel/air mixture winds up burning in the catalytic
converter, which heats it to a cherry-red glow and causes it to fail
early. Emissions also go way outside of legal limits, which has to
be fixed under the emissions warranty at the manufacturer's expense.
Needless to say, this NEVER happens in normal operation; if it
does, the manufacturer gets hit with a recall or isn't allowed
to sell the car in the first place. The physics of burning fuel
droplets is irrelevant to the situation, because the fuel is
all vaporized before ignition except during very cold starts.
}Some of the gas vaporazation technology has simply used heat exchanger
}in which exhaust heat is used to heat the gas-air mixture to vaporize
}the gas then send it through a cooling exchanger to cool the vaporized
}gasoline-air mixture. The resultant mixture burns far more efficiently
}and gives much greater gas mileage.
This:
a.) Causes fuel transport delays which cause drivability problems
(stumbling on acceleration, excessive richness on tip-out).
b.) Would cause fuel condensation in the cooling heat exchanger if
the weather were cold or the engine was cold. This could keep
the engine from starting at all. (The reason all new Fords
have ported fuel injection is to cut transport delays and
reduce the amount of fuel sitting on intake passage walls,
and we *still* have to compensate for what little is there.)
c.) Would allow any fuel in the intakes at shutdown to escape
to the atmosphere, causing excessive hydrocarbon pollution.
(The less fuel remaining in the intake after the key turns
off, the better.)
}Several patents exist on such ideas, all of them are locked in the
}vaults of oil or auto companies to keep them off the market. It's time
}to change this situation.
Ah, the inevitable conspiracy theory. Would it break your heart
to find out that isn't true, and that the person feeding this crap
to you is lying to get you to work to further their own agenda at
your expense? That, at least, is possible. This purported
conspiracy is not.
}Steve Reiser (rei...@pmafire.inel.gov or !uunet!pmafire!reiser)
--
Ron Carter wr...@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com [and nowhere else]
* There is someone else in this organization with my name. He ain't me. *
My site gets news mainly on weekends, and much expires before I can read it.
If you want to be sure I see it, better e-mail me a copy.
Matt Crawford
people like Steve Reiser of such insupportable conspiracy theories.
One of the following assumptions is needed in order to believe that any
invention which triples the fuel efficiency of an auto is being
suppressed by Big Business:
o Japanese engineers and inventors are not smart enough to invent this
o Japan, which must import $30 billion of fuel each yer, finds it in
its interest to suppress this invention
o The long arm of Exxon's and Chrysler's goon squad reaches to Tokyo
Which do you believe, Steve?
________________________________________________________
Matt Crawford ma...@oddjob.uchicago.edu
Chuck Fry
-which vaporizes the gasoline before introducing into the engine and have
-typically tripled the gas mileage of the autombile. I'm aware of
-inventors in Virginia, Washington State, California, Arizona, Idaho and
-other states who have been forced to sell their ideas to companies such
-as Exxon, DuPont, Chrysler, and others under threat to their lives.
[...]
-Several patents exist on such ideas, all of them are locked in the
-vaults of oil or auto companies to keep them off the market. It's time
-to change this situation.
Ah, the myth of the 100 MPG carburetor rears its head again. See also
Smokey Yunick's "Hot Vapor Carburetor".
The idea that the oil, chemical, and auto industries are conspiring to
keep us from buying fuel efficient cars is ludicrous. Yet people keep
bringing it up. If any of this radical "existing" technology REALLY
worked as well as you say, it would be in use somewhere, say in auto
racing, where even a minor improvement in fuel efficiency would be a
major competitive advantage.
Yes, complete vaporization of gasoline would improve combustion,
performance, economy, and emissions. But I sincerely doubt that it
would improve radically enough to threaten the oil or auto industries,
maybe a few percent at best.
Followup to misc.legends.urban.
-- Chuck Fry
Chu...@charon.arc.nasa.gov ...!ames!ptolemy!chucko
Arnie Frisch
>current technology sold under the hood of your car to supply an
>air-gasoline mixture is an outdated technology. Carburetors and fuel
>injection rely on gas atomization to form tiny droplets of gasoline
>.........
>Many individual have succesfully developed gas vaporization technology
>which vaporizes the gasoline before introducing into the engine and have
>typically tripled the gas mileage of the autombile. I'm aware of
>inventors in Virginia, Washington State, California, Arizona, Idaho and
>other states who have been forced to sell their ideas to companies such
>as Exxon, DuPont, Chrysler, and others under threat to their lives.
Do you know that you can be sued for libel for posting statements like
this if they can be shown to be false? Do you know that many of the
companies cited have started doing this?
Do you know how absurd it is to claim that you can triple gas mileage
this way? Do you know how many of these schemes have been investigated
with negative results by the US government? Did you mean to post to
net.jokes?
Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
Paul Wexelblat
(or whatever)...
Does not!
Does too!!
'Tisn't!!!
'Tis!!!
Anyhow, I heard some mention on the radio today about
progress on "lean burn" engines for automotive use;
any info??
================================================================
I've been paid for my opinions for so long that I'm beginning to
think they're valuable.
...Wex
Steve Reiser
In a 1965 issue of "Car ad Driver" magazine a developer had modified a
Barracuda to a high mielage gas vapor engine. The gentleman lives in
Virginia.
In a 1975 or 76 Popular Mechanics magazine a Nova getting 20 mpg had the
carburetor moved over the wheel well and heat exchangers placed between
it and the intake manifold. The resulting modifications gave about 50
mpg. However, there was an overheating problem.
The US Air Force solved that problem around World War II. My father
worked on airplane engines that ran on lean air-vapor mixtures mixed
with atomized water. The combusting fuel mixture would vaporize the
atomized water converting heat to pressure and tremendously raise the
power output of the engine. My father has wondered for decades why this
isn't applied to cars.
Steve
Ps - I've received several skeptical responses via mail and seen several
pseudo-scientific postings on the subject, vastly oversimplified.
--
Jonathan R. Lusky
>current technology sold under the hood of your car to supply an
>air-gasoline mixture is an outdated technology. Carburetors and fuel
I agree with that, and the sun sparcstation1+ I'm using right now is almost
as outdated.
>
>Many individual have succesfully developed gas vaporization technology
>which vaporizes the gasoline before introducing into the engine and have
>typically tripled the gas mileage of the autombile. I'm aware of
Now here, I can't agree. Modern EFI systems give excellent atomization
under steady state conditions, and any improvement is not going to make
much difference in engine efficiency and brake specific fuel consumption.
You take for granted that all fuels are liquid, they are not. I have done
extensive work with methane (natural gas), I and I can assure you that
a purelly vaporized fuel does not significantly increase BSFC.
>inventors in Virginia, Washington State, California, Arizona, Idaho and
>other states who have been forced to sell their ideas to companies such
>as Exxon, DuPont, Chrysler, and others under threat to their lives.
>
Yeah, its all one big conspiracy to take over the world, right?
>Gas vaporization technology has existed since the 1950s as a known way
>to increase fuel efficiency in gas combustion engines of all sorts. Some
>of this technology is being used clandestinely, since people who attempt
>to market it have their lives threatened. Example, there is an
>individual in Arizona, whom I cannot even divulge who has a Cadillac
>with a 500 c.i. engine which gets roughly 60 miles per gallon using gas
>vaporization technology.
60 miles per gallon at what speed? And who did this testing? Is this
what he measured himself, or iiis it FTP fuel economy? I have never done
a coastdoown on a caddy to try to estimate aerodynamic losses, but I
imagine that the Caddy's engiine would have to be operating at well
over 100% efficienncy to get 60 miles per gallon on a flat highway
(don't forget what a power sucker the TH400 is in addition to aero
drag).
>
>What amazes me, is that with all the scientific and engineering manpower
>in existence in our modern society we haven't been able to force the use
>of an obviously superior technology.
If such a technology existed, I'd be using it right now on my
competition/research vehicles. The fact is that it doesn't, and there
are a lot of people who dropped to much acid in the 60's who will never
believe it.
>
>For those who want to conduct a technical anlysis of the combustion,
>consult the chemical engineering text: "Transport Phenomena" by Bird,
>Stuart, and Lightfoot. The section on Mass Transfer shows how to
>calculate the combustion of spheres of vaporizing liquids in which the
>gas and are must diffuse through a combusting film on the surface of the
>atomized droplet. You'll find that the droplet isn't in the engine long
>enough to burn up and also that the combustion isn't efficient, wasting
>fuel and damaging the environment.
I have a better suggestion... If you want to observe underburned fuel
in the exhaust, then install exhaust sample ports in the exhaust ports and
monitor hydrocarbon emissions. With valve overlap, you are always going to
have some totally unburned fuel short circuiting and going straight out the
exhaust. Besides, the primary sources of hydrocarbon emissions are crevices
in the combustion chamber and oil-flim absorbtion on the cylinder walls
>
>Some of the gas vaporazation technology has simply used heat exchanger
>in which exhaust heat is used to heat the gas-air mixture to vaporize
>the gas then send it through a cooling exchanger to cool the vaporized
>gasoline-air mixture. The resultant mixture burns far more efficiently
>and gives much greater gas mileage.
Hey, you just described my CNG truck! It is supercharged and intercooled.
If it were running gasoline, the fuel would be thoroughly vaporized by the
heat of the supercharger. The efficiency increase due to better atomization
or vapoorization of the gasoline is neglibilble. Although we did notice
and improvement in vlumetric efficiency from gasoline vaporization due
to a 160F temp drop associated directly with the latent heat of vaporization
of gasoline.
>
>Several patents exist on such ideas, all of them are locked in the
>vaults of oil or auto companies to keep them off the market. It's time
>to change this situation.
If such technology really existed, it would be on the market. If the
American auto and oil companies were sitting on it, then the Japanese would
be using it in some form. And Honda would be using it on their F1
engines withoout a doubt if it existed.
>
>Steve
>
>
>--
>Steve Reiser (rei...@pmafire.inel.gov or !uunet!pmafire!reiser)
Jonathan R. Lusky University of Texas at Austin
lu...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu Society of Automotive Engineers
(512) 471-5399 Chairman, Natural Gas Vehicle Project
ETC 1.204F IRC Admin, minnie.cc.utexas.edu
Allan Adler
that the world record for mpg was a car built in the 1920's which got
186 miles to the gallon. I was skeptical when I read it but filed the
information away. Now that it is revealed that this is impossible,
how does one:(1) find out the source used by the Guinness Book of World
Records (2) communicate to them that this is impossible.
Allan Adler
a...@zohar.ai.mit.edu
Jonathan R. Lusky
>
>Anyhow, I heard some mention on the radio today about
>progress on "lean burn" engines for automotive use;
>
research engines... I personally don't like lean burn, I think high EGR
with pulse pulse width modulated valve(s) gives better performance, emissions,
and fuel economy. Some people disagree, only $$$$ wil tell.
Jonathan R. Lusky
186 miles per gallon at what speed? I've built a car that can cruise at
45mph using less than 5 hp (Texas Native Sun, solar car. Built for
1990 GM Sunrayce USA). Now if we were to put an engine in it which
was designed to have max efficiency at that load and speed, we could
probably better fuel economy than what you mentioned, I don't know
exactly.. Any, MPG for a given vehicle will vary directly with speed.
MPG without specifying a speed is meaningless.
Lawrence C. Foard
>
>Many individual have succesfully developed gas vaporization technology
>which vaporizes the gasoline before introducing into the engine and have
>typically tripled the gas mileage of the autombile. I'm aware of
>inventors in Virginia, Washington State, California, Arizona, Idaho and
>other states who have been forced to sell their ideas to companies such
>as Exxon, DuPont, Chrysler, and others under threat to their lives.
Typical excuse, the bully stole my homework! I had all the problems worked
out really...
Strange how people working in cryptography frequently get there ideas out
against the wishs of the NSA. Yet hundreds of inventor knuckle under and sell
out to big companys. If these wonderful ideas where for real someone would get
it working and hit the press with it before telling any one else.
>Gas vaporization technology has existed since the 1950s as a known way
>to increase fuel efficiency in gas combustion engines of all sorts. Some
>of this technology is being used clandestinely, since people who attempt
>to market it have their lives threatened.
There lives where probably threatened by the venture capitalists they ripped
off :-)
>Example, there is an
>individual in Arizona, whom I cannot even divulge who has a Cadillac
>with a 500 c.i. engine which gets roughly 60 miles per gallon using gas
>vaporization technology.
I know someone who has a UFO that gets 1 light year per gallon, but all the
three letter agencies want to kill them so they arn't talking.
Its easy to hide the author and origin of a news message, maybe one of these
inventors could post the design calling into the net from a pay phone? After
all in the US you have a year since first publication to get a patent, they
have nothing to lose.
>What amazes me, is that with all the scientific and engineering manpower
>in existence in our modern society we haven't been able to force the use
>of an obviously superior technology.
While it is easy to find examples of this (expecially in the computer
industry), you haven't given us any convincing evidence. Just a repetition of
the same old folklore.
[stuff deleted]
>Several patents exist on such ideas, all of them are locked in the
>vaults of oil or auto companies to keep them off the market.
Thats strange I thought patents where available for public viewing. Or maybe
the executive order that created the NSA also makes all auto patents secret
and permanent?
>It's time to change this situation.
Start by reading alt.folklore :-)
If you want to get involved in fixing some real problems with the patent
system look at the abuse of the patent system as it applys to software
patents, some of these are really insane.
--
Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are 99.44% true. ------ 0<p<1
Hackers do it for fun. | Being Bisexual squares your \ / therefore
"Profesionals" do it for money. | probability of not getting \ / p^2<p and
Managers have others do it for them. | laid on a saturday night.\/ 1-p^2>1-p
Hallvard Paulsen
|>
|> Most mechanical and chemical engineers are aware of the fact that the
|> current technology sold under the hood of your car to supply an
|> air-gasoline mixture is an outdated technology. Carburetors and fuel
|> injection rely on gas atomization to form tiny droplets of gasoline
|> which form the combustion mixture used in the engine cylinders. These
|> tiny droplets begin to combust in the cylinder upon ignition and
|> continue to burn in the exhaust manifold which much of the energy wasted
|> in addition to that already wasted as heat.
|>
I'm a mechanical engineer and I fully disagree with you! There
is usually no problem getting gasoline to evaportate, actually
if it evaporated any faster it would disapear from your tank.
|> Many individual have succesfully developed gas vaporization technology
|> which vaporizes the gasoline before introducing into the engine and have
|> typically tripled the gas mileage of the autombile. I'm aware of
|> inventors in Virginia, Washington State, California, Arizona, Idaho and
|> other states who have been forced to sell their ideas to companies such
|> as Exxon, DuPont, Chrysler, and others under threat to their lives.
|>
|> Gas vaporization technology has existed since the 1950s as a known way
|> to increase fuel efficiency in gas combustion engines of all sorts. Some
|> of this technology is being used clandestinely, since people who attempt
|> to market it have their lives threatened. Example, there is an
|> individual in Arizona, whom I cannot even divulge who has a Cadillac
|> with a 500 c.i. engine which gets roughly 60 miles per gallon using gas
|> vaporization technology.
|>
If you drive a Cadillac slowly enough you might get mush improved
milage. This has to do with the fact that you'll need much less
energy to push it along.
If you heat the air/fuel to evaporate the fuel, you would have
problems getting any power out of the engine besauce there would
be much less energy being fed into it. (Everybody knows that
air expands when heated and the sylinder volume of any engine is
fixed). If you try to get around it by cooling the air, you end up
at square 1, except from the losses allways connected with any
thermodynamic prosses.
|> What amazes me, is that with all the scientific and engineering manpower
|> in existence in our modern society we haven't been able to force the use
|> of an obviously superior technology.
Ever so often there are somebody coming along claiming things
like this. This spring there was a Norwegian claiming that
by putting his (very secret) invention on your carburator the
number of horsepower at any car speed would increase by
30%. The problem is only that at a fixed speed the power
output is also fixed. Of course he also claimed that there
was no emitions and so on...
If you take a look at the units of measurements in emititon standards
today you'll see that it is part per million. Even though the catalytic
converters take care of some there is less than 1% of the fuel coming
through the engine that is not burned. How can you increase the
milage by 300%?????????
|>
|> For those who want to conduct a technical anlysis of the combustion,
|> consult the chemical engineering text: "Transport Phenomena" by Bird,
|> Stuart, and Lightfoot. The section on Mass Transfer shows how to
|> calculate the combustion of spheres of vaporizing liquids in which the
|> gas and are must diffuse through a combusting film on the surface of the
|> atomized droplet. You'll find that the droplet isn't in the engine long
|> enough to burn up and also that the combustion isn't efficient, wasting
|> fuel and damaging the environment.
|>
Well I think you should start with the basics. May I recomdend:
"Introduction to thermydynamics. Classical and Statistical"
by R. E. Sonntag and G. Van Wylen.
"Basic heat transfer"
by F. Kreith and W. Z. Black
When you have read those I can tell you about many other books to read.
|> Some of the gas vaporazation technology has simply used heat exchanger
|> in which exhaust heat is used to heat the gas-air mixture to vaporize
|> the gas then send it through a cooling exchanger to cool the vaporized
|> gasoline-air mixture. The resultant mixture burns far more efficiently
|> and gives much greater gas mileage.
|>
|> Several patents exist on such ideas, all of them are locked in the
|> vaults of oil or auto companies to keep them off the market. It's time
|> to change this situation.
|>
I've allready commented on this.
\\___//
| | Hallvard Paulsen, MSc
|_____| Research Engineer / Grad. Stud
|| o || Division of Machinery
|| \\|| NORWEGIAN MARINE TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
\\ TEL : +47 (07)595522
o FAX : +47 (07)595983
// EMAIL : hall...@imm.unit.no
O
Hallvard Paulsen
|>
|> In a 1965 issue of "Car ad Driver" magazine a developer had modified a
|> Barracuda to a high mielage gas vapor engine. The gentleman lives in
|> Virginia.
|>
out of the engine which would make it seem more efficient.
|> In a 1975 or 76 Popular Mechanics magazine a Nova getting 20 mpg had the
|> carburetor moved over the wheel well and heat exchangers placed between
|> it and the intake manifold. The resulting modifications gave about 50
|> mpg. However, there was an overheating problem.
|>
I'm not suppriced it overheated. In general the efficiency will
be higher the lower the temprature of the air in the
expanding stroke is. This is because the ratio of spesific
heat decreases as temperature increases. (And the hotter
the incomin air the hotter the exhaust).
Paul Doering
about how big companies are illegitimately and selfishly depriving us of
super-high-efficient motors --
> I mean I want to
> see the 60 mpg Cadillac or, better, have it tested by some competent,
> disinterested party. Absent that, I file it along with Flying Saucers,
> Bigfoot, Nessie, ...
Tony: Don't you know that the patents for flying saucers are locked in the
vaults of United Airlines, that Bigfoot has been imprisoned by LucasFilms
to avoid royalties on Chewbacca, and that irrefutable evidence of Nessie's
existence is being suppressed by the management of StarKist Tuna? :-)
The only conspiracy I believe in is the one to promote belief in conspiracies.
--
======================= ==================================================
Paul Doering (for self) Immortality has this problem: if you live forever,
doe...@kodak.com then you get an infinite number of bugs.
======================= ======================== -Marvin Minsky ==========
Irving Chidsey
<worked on airplane engines that ran on lean air-vapor mixtures mixed
<with atomized water. The combusting fuel mixture would vaporize the
<atomized water converting heat to pressure and tremendously raise the
<power output of the engine. My father has wondered for decades why this
<isn't applied to cars.
<
<Steve
<
the 40s that running fuel lean was for ultra long range cruise over the
water and that the atomized water was used during >100% power rating in
the actual combat. They also printed articles about maximum gas milage
'races' and how to win them. Things like accellerating full throttle from
5 to 30 miles per hour in high, putting the transmission into neutral, coasting
till the speed dropped to 5 mph, etc. No-one in their right mind would
drive that way to go anywhere unless they had a lot of time.
Note, these techniques are hard on the engine, very hard.
Irv
--
I do not have signature authority. I am not authorized to sign anything.
I am not authorized to commit the BRL, the DA, the DOD, or the US Government
to anything, not even by implication. They do not tell me what their policy
is. They may not have one. Irving L. Chidsey <chi...@brl.mil>
Robert L. Haar CS50
In article <1991Aug2.1...@ugle.unit.no>,
hall...@immhp3.marina.unit.no (Hallvard Paulsen) writes:
|> In article <1991Aug1.2...@pmafire.inel.gov>,
rei...@pmafire.inel.gov (Steve Reiser) writes:
|> |>
|> |> In a 1965 issue of "Car ad Driver" magazine a developer had modified a
|> |> Barracuda to a high mielage gas vapor engine. The gentleman lives in
|> |> Virginia.
|> |>
|> What probably happend was he could no longer get as much horspower
|> out of the engine which would make it seem more efficient.
|>
|> |> In a 1975 or 76 Popular Mechanics magazine a Nova getting 20 mpg had the
|> |> carburetor moved over the wheel well and heat exchangers placed between
|> |> it and the intake manifold. The resulting modifications gave about 50
|> |> mpg. However, there was an overheating problem.
|> |>
|>
|> I'm not suppriced it overheated. In general the efficiency will
|> be higher the lower the temprature of the air in the
|> expanding stroke is. This is because the ratio of spesific
|> heat decreases as temperature increases. (And the hotter
|> the incomin air the hotter the exhaust).
|>
There are lots of issues that separate a laboratory curiosty
from a practical product; cost, manuafacturabilty, marketability
and government regulations are some.
To quote from a GM press release statement on lean-burn engines"
"Lean-burn is an exciting technology that can improve the
fundamental efficiency of combustion. However, the basic problem
with this technique is that it generates greater amounts of oxides
of nitrogen (NOx) and is suitable only for very small engines and
very light cars. With current technology it would not meet the
regulations that will go into effect in the near future. What is
needed is a new NOx catalyst."
The auto makers would LOVE to have more efficient engines and
invest large amounts of money in engine research. But any new
engine must meet other severe constraints besides fuel economy.
The conspiracy is high grade B.S. that periodically sticks it
head up out of the swamp of urban myths.
Robert Haar, Ph.D., InterNet : rh...@gmr.com
Computer Science Dept., G.M. Research Laboratories
DISCLAIMER: Unless indicated otherwise, everything in this note is
personal opinion, not an official statement of General Motors Corp.
Shane Davis
|>
|> Most mechanical and chemical engineers are aware of the fact that the
|> current technology sold under the hood of your car to supply an
|> air-gasoline mixture is an outdated technology. Carburetors and fuel
|> injection rely on gas atomization to form tiny droplets of gasoline
|> which form the combustion mixture used in the engine cylinders. These
|> tiny droplets begin to combust in the cylinder upon ignition and
|> continue to burn in the exhaust manifold which much of the energy wasted
|> in addition to that already wasted as heat.
|> .
|> Gas vaporization technology has existed since the 1950s as a known way
|> to increase fuel efficiency in gas combustion engines of all sorts. Some
|> of this technology is being used clandestinely, since people who attempt
|> to market it have their lives threatened. Example, there is an
|> individual in Arizona, whom I cannot even divulge who has a Cadillac
|> with a 500 c.i. engine which gets roughly 60 miles per gallon using gas
|> vaporization technology.
|>
I'm surprised this makes such a large difference. Although the calculations
were a bit simplified, there was an essay in Halliday & Resnick which showed
that the loss of efficiency due to the drag coefficient in automobiles was
orders of magnitude greater than the loss due to incomplete combustion or
heat. Unfortunately, my book is not here, so I can't post or examine the
numbers...
I would not be at all surprised if there were a conspiracy to prevent use
of such technology. Just think, we would lose the "protect our national
security-- we depend on Middle East oil" rationale used to start wars in that
part of the world. What would the nationalists do for fun?
--Shane
Doug McDonald
In article <60...@rphroy.ph.gmr.com> rh...@albert.cs.gmr.com (Robert L. Haar CS50) writes:
>
>To quote from a GM press release statement on lean-burn engines"
>
>"Lean-burn is an exciting technology that can improve the
>fundamental efficiency of combustion. However, the basic problem
>with this technique is that it generates greater amounts of oxides
>of nitrogen (NOx) and is suitable only for very small engines and
>very light cars. With current technology it would not meet the
>regulations that will go into effect in the near future. What is
>needed is a new NOx catalyst."
>
>The auto makers would LOVE to have more efficient engines and
>invest large amounts of money in engine research. But any new
>engine must meet other severe constraints besides fuel economy.
>The conspiracy is high grade B.S. that periodically sticks it
>head up out of the swamp of urban myths.
>
>
Let us not forget that there is ONE particular limiting factor at
the present time to automobile efficiency: government regulation.
If ALL government regulations on automobiles were done away with,
efficiency could improve overnight by many percent (10? 20? 30? --
certainly not 50).
Doyug McDonald
Hal Lillywhite
...
>Gas vaporization technology has existed since the 1950s as a known way
>to increase fuel efficiency in gas combustion engines of all sorts...
If you really want to burn just vapor, hie yourself to any one of
the shops almost certain to exist in your area and get your car
converted to run on either natural gas or LPG. It is available and
works very well. Easy starts, clean burning, low engine maintanence
etc. This is pure vapor, methane or perhaps propane or butane.
What it doesn't do is magically increase milage. The biggest
disadvantage is that it takes a very large tank to carry enough fuel
to go very far.
Kurt Guntheroth
>Many individual have succesfully developed gas vaporization technology
>which vaporizes the gasoline before introducing into the engine and have
>typically tripled the gas mileage of the autombile. I'm aware of
>inventors in Virginia, Washington State, California, Arizona, Idaho and
>other states who have been forced to sell their ideas to companies such
>as Exxon, DuPont, Chrysler, and others under threat to their lives.
>
>Several patents exist on such ideas, all of them are locked in the
>vaults of oil or auto companies to keep them off the market. It's time
>to change this situation.
>
>Steve Reiser (rei...@pmafire.inel.gov or !uunet!pmafire!reiser)
This is a version of the "miracle carbeurator" myth that has existed since
at least the 50's, a most bogus urban myth. How can you tell this is an
urban myth? All patents are matters of public record. If there were any
such patents, Steve and other rumormongers would be able to produce the
patent numbers, and we could all go and look at the descriptions, which must
be sufficiently detailed for us to recreate the invention. It is legal to
build patented devices for not-for-profit personal use. Furthermore,
Chrysler would not miss a chance to steal market from Ford and GM by
offering fuel efficient cars. The army wouldn't forego a valuable fuel
saving device for their military vehicles, and they can ignore patents. The
Soviet Union and China do not recognize our patent laws, and the State owns
their oil resources. Would they give up this opportunity? Could they fail
to invent it themselves if so many of our own tinkerers have?
To vaporize fuel at useful pressures, it has to be heated. How many readers
think that heating gasoline outside of the armored metal of the cylinder heads
is an excellent method of turning a car into a bomb?
Shailendra Save
> Anyhow, I heard some mention on the radio today about
> progress on "lean burn" engines for automotive use;
It is the new Honda Civic engine which has this super-lean burn
engine. Uses a 25 to 1 air:fuel ratio instead of the conventional
15:1 max used in todays commercial cars.
Shailendra
ss...@caen.engin.umich.edu
sumax!ole.uucp!ssave
Doug McDonald
In article <1991Aug2.2...@parc.xerox.com> ty...@parc.xerox.com (William B. Tyler) writes:
>In article <1991Aug2.1...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdo...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) writes:
>
>>Let us not forget that there is ONE particular limiting factor at
>>the present time to automobile efficiency: government regulation.
>>If ALL government regulations on automobiles were done away with,
>>efficiency could improve overnight by many percent (10? 20? 30? --
>>certainly not 50).
>
>regulation. The government mandated fuel efficiency standards several
>years ago, and despite a lot of moaning from the auto companies, they
>have been met. There is now a move afoot in Congress to raise the
>efficiency standards, and again the car companies are complaining
>that the proposed standards are unachievable.
>
>Bill
>
>
I was referring to ENGINE efficiency. The government regulations
REDUCE engine efficiency. Miles/gallon is a MEANINGLESS measure of
the efficiency of an engine - and the context of this discussion was and
is the fuel efficiency of engines. The efficiency of an engine is measured
by a dimensionless quantity obtained by dividing the mechanical energy
out by the energy obtained by combustion of the fuel in.
My statements stand correct as I wrote them. This would be a gain over and
above any possible gain in miles/gallon obtained by, for example, weight
reduction or aerodynamic improvements.
The government "fuel efficiency standards" are no such thing. They just
require that the manufacturers adjust prices of cars so that they sell
small cars cheaper than the manufacturing cost and big cars for more,
in order to cut sales of the big ones.
Doug McDonald
Hallvard Paulsen
I'm sorry but I think you have missunderstud just a little bit.
The power suplied from the engine is used for:
1. Overcoming "rolling friction"
2. Overcoming air drag.
This has *nothing* to do with the efficicy of the engine. The
sum of 1 + 2 above will allways add to the power output of the engine.
The problem with air drag is that the power nessesarry to overcome it
increases as a third order function of speed. So at high speeds the
air drag is *much* higher than rolling friction. Decreasing the
drag coeffitient by 10% also lowers the air drag and nessesarry power
to stay at a fixed speed by 10%. But remembre that the drag coefficient
does not tell you anythig before you multiply it with the frontal area of
the car. (Thats why big cars usually have lower drag coefficient but
need more horsepower to get to a given top speed than do a smaller car
with a higher drag coefficient)
|> I would not be at all surprised if there were a conspiracy to prevent use
|> of such technology. Just think, we would lose the "protect our national
|> security-- we depend on Middle East oil" rationale used to start wars in that
|> part of the world. What would the nationalists do for fun?
Well, I don't know about the oilindustry. But the car industry would
have loved to be the first to present such an engine! I'm realy sorry there
are no easy way's to improve the car engines, all kinds of things have been
tried during the last 80 years. (But if everybody used *diesel engines*
they would get about 20-30% higher milage. I know that in the US diesel
costs more than gasoline, here in Norway diesel is about half price of gasoline.
(And about twice the price of your gasoline :-( ))
JOSEPH T CHEW
the oil industry. It wouldn't do to continue open discussion of
this subject. This may be your last warning before you end up
in a suspended animation tank with Jimmy Hoffa down in the secret
catacombs underneath the Freemason headquarters.
Ambady Suresh (Sverdrup)
>The problem with air drag is that the power nessesarry to overcome it
>increases as a third order function of speed. So at high speeds the
>air drag is *much* higher than rolling friction. Decreasing the
For most bluff bodies in subsonic flow, the air drag is approximately
propotional to the *SQUARE* of the speed of the body. The formula is
D = CD*rho*v*v*s
where rho is the density, v the velocity and S the frontal area and
CD is the drag coefficient. CD is only approximately constant and is
generally a function of Reynolds number, Mach number etc. S.
William M Barnick x73638
>
>Most mechanical and chemical engineers are aware of the fact that the
>current technology sold under the hood of your car to supply an
>air-gasoline mixture is an outdated technology. Carburetors and fuel
The light bulb is an outdated technology also, but still heavily used.
Any new technology usually comes with a premium price $$$$
>
>Some of the gas vaporazation technology has simply used heat exchanger
>in which exhaust heat is used to heat the gas-air mixture to vaporize
>the gas then send it through a cooling exchanger to cool the vaporized
>gasoline-air mixture. The resultant mixture burns far more efficiently
>and gives much greater gas mileage.
This idea which you just mentioned has many drawbacks. Back in the 70's
when people were so worried about gas prices I had several friends who
tried such ideas. The main problem with the idea is temperature
stability. The system has problems at both extremes of very hot weather
and very cold weather, so unless you live in southern California you
will constantly have to adjust for temperature changes, not to mention
octane changes.
>
>Several patents exist on such ideas, all of them are locked in the
>vaults of oil or auto companies to keep them off the market. It's time
>to change this situation.
>
If you know about patents you also know this statement is not true. If there
is a patent on the subject it is easily available. Also most of these
high mileage stories are very old and the patents would have expired.
Also, if your aim is simply to save money, a simpler and cheaper way to
go is to start using natural gas. There is an abundance of natural gas.
It is cheap. Conversion kits are available. You fill up right at home
with a tap to your gas line. The last study I read indicated that the
price of natural gas is equivalent to $0.80/gal if compared to gasoline.
Natural gas is not imported and can be produced by several methods. It also
happens to be far less polutant than any other "practical" method.
See Ya ...
WMB
--
***************************** William M Barnick *****************************
****** ***********
****** **************
***** **************** Eastman Kodak
dave warkentin
Yes, *BUT* Mr. Paulsen was talking about the power required to overcome
air
drag, and that's force times velocity, giving you v^3 instead of the
v^2
in the (correct) formula you've quoted.
--
Dave Warkentin
da...@sputnik.mit.edu
Alan J. Snyder
>>Several patents exist on such ideas, all of them are locked in the
>>vaults of oil or auto companies to keep them off the market. It's time
>>to change this situation.
>>
Eforcing a patent while refusing to sell the product is called
restraint or trade. It's illegal. While enforcement may be difficult,
there are huge profits to be made by any company that can build a
bigger car that still meets Federal CAFE requirements. It is in the
auto companies interests to obtain better mileage. The oil companies
could not keep ideas away from them for long.
--
asn...@ernie.artorg.hmc.psu.edu
Ron Carter
1.) Not necessary.
2.) You don't, because it IS possible. But not in a standard
automobile, operated on anything like a normal driving cycle.
Incidentally, the record has eclipsed 186 MPG considerably. It is
now close to 2,000 MPG, if memory serves. But the "cars" made for
these record attempts resemble passenger automobiles hardly at all:
they are built for one passenger, for extremely low drag, with tiny
engines which operate in bursts rather than continuously. The
engines are typically miniature diesels, wrapped in insulation to
conserve heat between power bursts. The engine is shut down after
each burst while the vehicle coasts down to a very low speed, like
2.5 MPH; it then turns on the engine and spurts up to perhaps 8 MPH
and coasts down again. The tires are usually bicycle sew-up tires
pumped up to well over 100 PSI for minimum rolling friction.
The combination of these extreme measures in reduction of drag
(the tires, streamlined shape and very low speeds), conservation
of energy (insulating the engine), and powerplant efficiency
(operating only at full power with an engine which stays hot)
allows such amazing performance. However, you would not want
to ride in one, any more than you would want to fly to L.A. in
the Rutan-built Voyager because it can go around the world on
one fill-up. Some of the features, such as the insulated engine,
would cause the engine to fail within minutes if you tried
driving it at even a constant 25 MPH. So, while these techniques
are terrific and work wonderfully in the regime of record-setting
vehicles, you really can't use them yourself.
Please note that "vapor carburetors" are not used in these
record-setting attempts. If they worked, they would be used.
--
Ron Carter wr...@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com [and nowhere else]
* There is someone else in this organization with my name. He ain't me. *
My site gets news mainly on weekends, and much expires before I can read it.
If you want to be sure I see it, better e-mail me a copy.
John Whitmore
>In article <1991Aug4.1...@ugle.unit.no>, hall...@immhp3.marina.unit.no (Hallvard Paulsen) writes...
>>The problem with air drag is that the power necessary to overcome it
>>increases as a third order function of speed.
>For most bluff bodies in subsonic flow, the air drag is approximately
>propotional to the *SQUARE* of the speed of the body.
These two statements are not contradictory. The force that
is called 'drag' is proportional to the square of the speed. The
work done by the engine, however, is force * velocity, and this
goes up as the cube of the velocity. The force is proportional
to engine TORQUE, the work done is proportional to engine POWER.
John Whitmore
gr...@cesadmin.ag.uiuc.edu
>inventors in Virginia, Washington State, California, Arizona, Idaho and
>other states who have been forced to sell their ideas to companies such
>as Exxon, DuPont, Chrysler, and others under threat to their lives.
>
>to increase fuel efficiency in gas combustion engines of all sorts. Some
>of this technology is being used clandestinely, since people who attempt
>to market it have their lives threatened.
>
Hey, Steve! Are you just brave, or are you exaggerating the threat here?
Aren't the big bad oil companies going to get you for spreading the word?
Tim.
doug e humphrey
Fuel pre-heat is not exactly a new idea, and it is used every day.
My 1970 Opel GT has the exhaust manifolds bolted, via an adapter
plate, to the intake manifolds right where fuel might "pool" on
a cold day (at the botton of the 75 degree bend in the manifold,
since it is a side-draft setup). Heat from the exhaust keeps the
intakes at a nice toasty temp to make sure that you get good fuel
vaporization; the adapter plate is thick enough, with some small
cooling fins, to make sure that even on a hot day and after some
high-speed running, the temperature doesn't get too high for
safety. This is a standard production part from 1970, not something
that I added. I guess that I could add an electric heater to get
it up to temp a bit earlier, since it takes a couple of minutes
on a cold day for this to come up, but it most likely isn't worth
the trouble.
The SR-71 Blackbird uses the aerodynamic heating of the aircraft
to preheat the fuel, as did the XB-70 (both of them) which was
able to do Mach 3 cruise; the fuel pre-heating added measurably to the
performance of both aircraft. (Yes, the Blackbird has been retired
from the Air Force, but there are still several flying for NASA,
and who *knows* for certain if NRO doesn't just keep one or two
around somewhere for fun)
Doug Humphrey
Digital Express Group Inc.
Public Access Unix in the Baltimore and Washington DC areas
(301) 220-2020
Hallvard Paulsen
I said the *power* (i.e. horsepower, kilowatt or BTU pr. sec. if you like)
increases as a third order function of speed. (i.e. multiply your formula by
one more "v"). The reason why I consentrate on the power is that there
is a linear relationship between kilowatts and kg fuel pr sec. And that
is the fuel consumtion.
(If you know the power required for a speed, you just divide by the
heating value of the fuel and you get the consumtion)
Hallvard Paulsen
Robert Dinse
>To vaporize fuel at useful pressures, it has to be heated. How many readers
>think that heating gasoline outside of the armored metal of the cylinder heads
>is an excellent method of turning a car into a bomb?
One modified lawn mower engine I saw used engine vacuum to vaporize the
gas at room temperature. Get the pressure lower than the vapor pressure of
the gasoline at room temperature and it will boil, at room temperature. You
have to provide some "heat" to the vaporization tank to keep it at room
temperature otherwise it will quickly freeze.
I'm not suggesting a 300% improvement is possible, but 30% might be.
If you think about it, normally you just have atomization, fine droplets,
in the cylinders. The flame front has to spread from droplet to droplet.
If you had good mixed vapors, you can probably get away with a leaner
mixture and still get reliable ignition. Of coarse detonation would also
be more of a problem as would NOx emissions, but I think it would be
interesting to play with.
Wayne L. Smith
>the present time to automobile efficiency: government regulation.
>If ALL government regulations on automobiles were done away with,
>efficiency could improve overnight by many percent (10? 20? 30? --
>certainly not 50).
And I thought that it was gov't regulations, targets, etc, that were
forcing car makers to attain higher and higher fleet average MPG.
Silly me... :)
Matthew T. Russotto
>
> Well, I don't know about the oilindustry. But the car industry would
>have loved to be the first to present such an engine! I'm realy sorry there
>are no easy way's to improve the car engines, all kinds of things have been
>tried during the last 80 years. (But if everybody used *diesel engines*
>they would get about 20-30% higher milage. I know that in the US diesel
>costs more than gasoline, here in Norway diesel is about half price of gasoline.
>(And about twice the price of your gasoline :-( ))
Do you get higher mileage from diesel because it is burned more completely or
because it simply contains more energy per unit volume of fuel? Diesels
have some pretty big disadvantages, not the least of which is all that
particulate matter they emit. Blech.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@eng.umd.edu russ...@wam.umd.edu
.sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
Doug McDonald
In article <41...@julian.uwo.ca> wls...@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne L. Smith) writes:
>In article <1991Aug2.1...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdo...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) writes:
>>
>>the present time to automobile efficiency: government regulation.
>>If ALL government regulations on automobiles were done away with,
>>efficiency could improve overnight by many percent (10? 20? 30? --
>>certainly not 50).
>
>forcing car makers to attain higher and higher fleet average MPG.
Your statement is true. BUT is has nothing to do with efficiency: it
has to do with adjusting the relative price of big and little cars.
Both kinds of cars get rougghly the same efficiency (efficiency, of
course, is measured NOT by miles per gallon, but by the ratio of
energy out / gallons).
Government regulations REDUCE efficiency by requiring energy sapping
accessories on engines such as catalytic convertors, inefficient
fuel/air mixtures, air pumps, exhaust gas recirculation, etc.
Governments also reduce miles/gallon by forcing cars to do
more acceleration/deceleration than optimal - for example, around here
the street lights on long stretches of straight road are set in such a
way that it is necessary to stop at two of every three corners.
Doug McDonald
Bill Reid
>
> Do you get higher mileage from diesel because it is burned more completely or
> because it simply contains more energy per unit volume of fuel?
>
which contributes something like 10% of the pumping losses of the engine
2) they run at much higher compression ratios - the greater the compression
ratio the higher the expansion ratio, the higher the expansion ratio the
more energy from the charge is transferred to the reciprocating couple.
Another note about diesel fuel, specifically the cost: crude oil contains
literally hundreds of different compounds, including gasoline and
diesel. The refining process merely separates these components. For
the sake of example, let's say 60% of crude is gasoline, and 40% of crude
is diesel. For years, diesel fuel cost much less than gasoline. This
was because 80% of the demand for fuel was for gasoline. Because the
demand for gasoline was greater than it's percentage of crude, the oil
companies had excess diesel on their hands, which they sold cheaply. Then
automobile manufacturers starting pushing diesel cars, and the percentage
of diesel sold went to 50%, which for a time actually pushed diesel
prices over gasoline, because now gasoline was in relative oversupply.
And that's the truth thpthththththt!
Carl J Lydick
>which vaporizes the gasoline before introducing into the engine and have
>inventors in Virginia, Washington State, California, Arizona, Idaho and
>other states who have been forced to sell their ideas to companies such
>as Exxon, DuPont, Chrysler, and others under threat to their lives.
>
>Gas vaporization technology has existed since the 1950s as a known way
>to increase fuel efficiency in gas combustion engines of all sorts. Some
>of this technology is being used clandestinely, since people who attempt
>individual in Arizona, whom I cannot even divulge who has a Cadillac
>with a 500 c.i. engine which gets roughly 60 miles per gallon using gas
>vaporization technology.
>
>in existence in our modern society we haven't been able to force the use
>of an obviously superior technology.
>
>For those who want to conduct a technical anlysis of the combustion,
>consult the chemical engineering text: "Transport Phenomena" by Bird,
>Stuart, and Lightfoot. The section on Mass Transfer shows how to
>calculate the combustion of spheres of vaporizing liquids in which the
>gas and are must diffuse through a combusting film on the surface of the
>atomized droplet. You'll find that the droplet isn't in the engine long
>enough to burn up and also that the combustion isn't efficient, wasting
>fuel and damaging the environment.
>
>Some of the gas vaporazation technology has simply used heat exchanger
>in which exhaust heat is used to heat the gas-air mixture to vaporize
>the gas then send it through a cooling exchanger to cool the vaporized
>gasoline-air mixture. The resultant mixture burns far more efficiently
>and gives much greater gas mileage.
>
>vaults of oil or auto companies to keep them off the market. It's time
>to change this situation.
I've got a friend who claims to have developed such a system. He tried to sell
it to the automobile companies. They didn't want it, much less did they make
threats on his life in order to force him to sell it to them. Why didn't they
want it? Well, it seems that the engine ran significantly hotter. This means
a higher rate of production of NOx, as well as a shortening of the lifetime of
valves in the engine. At least, that's what he told me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
Disclaimer suppressed to protect he who has been told to keep his mouth shut :-)
Fox C J
>bi...@iastate.edu (Bible Anthony E) writes in reply to yet another tome
>about how big companies are illegitimately and selfishly depriving us of
>super-high-efficient motors --
There are super-high-efficient means of transport, they are called
buses, trams, trolley-buses, trains, bicycles, and feet.
>The only conspiracy I believe in is the one to promote belief in conspiracies.
But what about the conspirancy (now public knowledge in some parts of
the US) where oil/motor companies bought up trams/trolley-bus
companies, providers of highly efficient transport, and closed them
down, presumably to increase dependence on, and sales of motor-cars
and oil products. Even now, in the UK, pressure from the road lobby
and right-wing thinkers is leading to less investment in public
transport. I believe that there is a (perhaps unconsious) conspiracy
on the part of car manafacturers, "developers" and supermarket chains
to make people dependent on inefficient transport by private car.
Chris
Email fo...@uk.ac.essex | Chris Fox, Computer Science Dept.
Tel. +44 (0)206 872770 | University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park
Fax. +44 (0)206 873598 | Colchester, Essex CO4 3SQ, England
brij
Normal Netiquette requires that followups be restricted to one
pertinent newsgroup, with a note to other cross-posted groups
that for followups read XYZ newsgroup. TAKE IT OFF misc.invest atleast!!
brij agarwal
----
"i was practising my hook shot when she walked in"
Andrew Brezinski
>In article <ARA.91Au...@zohar.ai.mit.edu> a...@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Allan Adler) writes:
>>I vaguely recall reading in the Guinness Book of World Records in the sixties
>>that the world record for mpg was a car built in the 1920's which got
>>186 miles to the gallon. I was skeptical when I read it but filed the
>
>Incidentally, the record has eclipsed 186 MPG considerably. It is
>now close to 2,000 MPG, if memory serves. But the "cars" made for
Latest issue of Car and Driver sites the world record at 2134 or 2143 mpg,
can't remember which. They say, "No this isn't a typo."
>--
>Ron Carter wr...@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com [and nowhere else]
> * There is someone else in this organization with my name. He ain't me. *
> My site gets news mainly on weekends, and much expires before I can read it.
> If you want to be sure I see it, better e-mail me a copy.
Andy Brezinski
Intergraph Corporation
Huntsville, AL 35894-0001
Steve Reiser
>Latest issue of Car and Driver sites the world record at 2134 or 2143 mpg,
>can't remember which. They say, "No this isn't a typo."
Can you give us more details as to what exactly gets this kind of mileage?
Steve
--
John McCarthy
In article <1991Aug2.1...@kodak.kodak.com> doe...@kodak.com (Paul Doering) writes:
>bi...@iastate.edu (Bible Anthony E) writes in reply to yet another tome
>about how big companies are illegitimately and selfishly depriving us of
>super-high-efficient motors --
There are super-high-efficient means of transport, they are called
buses, trams, trolley-buses, trains, bicycles, and feet.
>The only conspiracy I believe in is the one to promote belief in conspiracies.
But what about the conspirancy (now public knowledge in some parts of
the US) where oil/motor companies bought up trams/trolley-bus
companies, providers of highly efficient transport, and closed them
down, presumably to increase dependence on, and sales of motor-cars
and oil products. Even now, in the UK, pressure from the road lobby
and right-wing thinkers is leading to less investment in public
transport. I believe that there is a (perhaps unconsious) conspiracy
on the part of car manafacturers, "developers" and supermarket chains
to make people dependent on inefficient transport by private car.
Chris
As a "right-wing thinker", I value what I imagine to be my right to
press for "less investment in public transport." But I worry about
being involved in a "(perhaps unconscious) conspiracy". What does
(Fox C J) consider to be the evidence required for taking part in
an unconscious conspiracy, and what penalties might I incur if I
lived in an England not ruled by right wing thinkers.
--
Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird. - Proverbs i,17
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
John Otto
>To vaporize fuel at useful pressures, it has to be heated. How many readers
>think that heating gasoline outside of the armored metal of the cylinder heads
>is an excellent method of turning a car into a bomb?
I know a couple chemists who worked in the Florida Agriculture Dept's
Petroleum testing bureau. They regularly distill gasoline in glass
containers over an open coil. One said he knew of only a couple fires,
and besides, the ceiling is hinged to release the blast pressure. I doubt
if there's much of a pressure build up, but, when the second one left, I
did not rush over to apply.
Ron Carter
In article <1991Aug2.2...@tc.fluke.COM>, ku...@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) writes...
>To vaporize fuel at useful pressures, it has to be heated. How many readers
>think that heating gasoline outside of the armored metal of the cylinder heads
>is an excellent method of turning a car into a bomb?
Presumably, you are talking about the dangers of creating gasoline
vapor outside the cylinder.
I'm afraid you've over-estimated those dangers. In a carbureted
vehicle, the intake manifold is full of a fuel-air mixture which
is explosive, not just flammable. Further, the air space in the
fuel tank is full of gasoline vapor. The intakes do not burn
except when there is an ignition or valve problem (then you get
backfiring through the intake, which is a nuisance but not
usually dangerous), and the fuel vapor in the tank has too
little air in it to be ignited at all.
If the quantity of fuel vapor is limited, and the temperature is
kept low (say, 250 degrees F), gasoline vapor does not have to
present any more hazard than the fuel the car is carrying already.
Ford is investigating heated fuel injectors to vaporize fuel as
a cold-starting aid and pollution control measure.
Chris Craddock
|> In article <1991Aug7.1...@b17d.b17d.ingr.com> an...@b17d.b17d.ingr.com (Andrew Brezinski) writes:
|>
|> >Latest issue of Car and Driver sites the world record at 2134 or 2143 mpg,
|> >can't remember which. They say, "No this isn't a typo."
|> Can you give us more details as to what exactly gets this kind of mileage?
Something with a kevlar, or mylar 'body' stretched over thin
moly-alloy tube frame with bicycle tyres (inflated to 150 psi)
and a 25cc model aircraft engine and direct drive. The 'driver'
is likely to be a scrawny 'altitude impaired' (runt) person
lying prone in the frame, with their face closest to the sharp
end.
The original post *is* correct, albeit fairly bloody irrelevant.
The 'technology' involved has bugger all to do with getting high
mileage out of real vehicles and a lot to do with getting your
name(s) in the record books.
Chris
--
"Garbage. This show would insult a 6 year old! and I should know"
- Calvin
Ron Carter
>Also, if your aim is simply to save money, a simpler and cheaper way to
>go is to start using natural gas. There is an abundance of natural gas.
>It is cheap. Conversion kits are available. You fill up right at home
>with a tap to your gas line. The last study I read indicated that the
>price of natural gas is equivalent to $0.80/gal if compared to gasoline.
Considering that gas was selling for about $.46/therm here last winter,
a therm is 100,000 BTU, and a gallon of gasoline is about 119,000 BTU,
that works out to an equivalent price of about $.55/gallon.
The big problem with conversion kits is that you can't use them on
modern computer-controlled vehicles without LOTS of software mods.
Unfortunately, the software will get you every time.
David Wright
>In article <1991Aug2.1...@kodak.kodak.com> doe...@kodak.com (Paul Doering) writes:
>>bi...@iastate.edu (Bible Anthony E) writes in reply to yet another tome
>>about how big companies are illegitimately and selfishly depriving us of
>>super-high-efficient motors --
>
>There are super-high-efficient means of transport, they are called
>buses, trams, trolley-buses, trains, bicycles, and feet.
>
>>The only conspiracy I believe in is the one to promote belief in conspiracies.
>
>But what about the conspirancy (now public knowledge in some parts of
>the US) where oil/motor companies bought up trams/trolley-bus
>companies, providers of highly efficient transport, and closed them
>down, presumably to increase dependence on, and sales of motor-cars
>and oil products. Even now, in the UK, pressure from the road lobby
>and right-wing thinkers is leading to less investment in public
>transport. I believe that there is a (perhaps unconsious) conspiracy
>on the part of car manafacturers, "developers" and supermarket chains
>to make people dependent on inefficient transport by private car.
I suppose it's fitting that since this thread started with a modern
myth (Evil Oil Companies threaten anyone who builds a better carb), it
should be followed up by another such myth (Evil Oil Companies combine
with Evil Car Companies to wreck good public transportation). This
one is usually attributed to Los Angeles. For a solid debunking, see
"More of the Straight Dope" by Cecil Adams.
Not that I expect any of the conspiracy buffs to be deterred in the
slightest. Followups to rec.autos.tech.
-- David Wright, not officially representing Stardent Computer Inc
wri...@stardent.com or uunet!stardent!wright
"There's nothing to be afraid of -- this is America!" I said, realizing
instantly that this was the funniest line I had ever spoken. -- Jack Douglas
Arnie Frisch
>In article <1991Aug2.2...@tc.fluke.COM>, ku...@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) writes...
>>To vaporize fuel at useful pressures, it has to be heated. How many readers
>>think that heating gasoline outside of the armored metal of the cylinder heads
>>is an excellent method of turning a car into a bomb?
>
>I know a couple chemists who worked in the Florida Agriculture Dept's
>Petroleum testing bureau. They regularly distill gasoline in glass
>containers over an open coil. One said he knew of only a couple fires,
Easy to make gasoline burn. Hard to make it explode. Need to make a
lean mixture of gas and air, and then ignite the mixture.
This is unlikely to happen in the apparatus you describe.
To make a satisfying gasoline-air explosion, drop 2 drops of gas into a
1 gallon plastic bag with an electrical igniter like a wire that glows
red to white on application of current. Shake to evaporate gas. Stand
back and energize.
NOTE:
This information is for information only, and is not provided as an
incentive to illegal and/or dangerous activities.
Eugene Chu
>In article <3...@sersun1.essex.ac.uk> fo...@cogs1.essex.ac.uk (Fox C J) writes:
>
> In article <1991Aug2.1...@kodak.kodak.com> doe...@kodak.com (Paul Doering) writes:
> >bi...@iastate.edu (Bible Anthony E) writes in reply to yet another tome
> >about how big companies are illegitimately and selfishly depriving us of
> >super-high-efficient motors --
>
> There are super-high-efficient means of transport, they are called
> buses, trams, trolley-buses, trains, bicycles, and feet.
>
> the US) where oil/motor companies bought up trams/trolley-bus
> companies, providers of highly efficient transport, and closed them
> down, presumably to increase dependence on, and sales of motor-cars
> and oil products. Even now, in the UK, pressure from the road lobby
> and right-wing thinkers is leading to less investment in public
> transport. I believe that there is a (perhaps unconsious) conspiracy
> on the part of car manafacturers, "developers" and supermarket chains
> to make people dependent on inefficient transport by private car.
>
> Chris
>
>As a "right-wing thinker", I value what I imagine to be my right to
>press for "less investment in public transport." But I worry about
>being involved in a "(perhaps unconscious) conspiracy". What does
>(Fox C J) consider to be the evidence required for taking part in
>an unconscious conspiracy, and what penalties might I incur if I
>lived in an England not ruled by right wing thinkers.
A long time ago, LA had these marvelous red trolleys that provided
public transport. (Anyone see "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?")
Somehow, GM convinced the RTD that it would be more economical
to replace these electric trains with their "New Diesel Buses",
and it was done. The buses were noisy, sooty, and now, far from
economical. Recently, RTD reopened the first of several electric
train lines as part of the light rail system. I don't know if
LA will ever be able to fully replace all of those buses with
electric trains, but I'm sure GM made a killing on those buses
while helping to further pollute a city already choking on its own.
eyc
--
>:< Me: Eugene Chu (Mr. Butterfly) | Radar Science & Engineering >:<
>:< Moto: R/T SAR for the masses | Jet Propulsion Laboratory >:<
>:< Secret desire: To get in for free | c...@hanauma.jpl.nasa.gov >:<
>:< Pet Peeve: I hate UNIX and vi | c...@madvax.jpl.nasa.gov >:<
Fox C J
By "(perhaps unconscious) conspiracy" I mean several agents each
acting in their own interests to some common goal, at the expense of
other interests, without necessarily consciously agreeing to act
together. Extensionally this has the appearance, and effect, of any
other sort of conspiracy. Take another example: circumstances can
"conspire to act against you" without "circumstances" intentionally or
consciously conspiring.
The "(perhaps unconscious) consipiracy" I refered to is still
reprehensible even in libertarian terms, because the actions of these
agents is restricting other peoples freedoms: to shop locally, to
breath clean air, to cross roads safely, to enjoy an undeveloped
countryside etc...
It constantly amazes me that many right-wing thinkers lay claim to
libertarianism without realising the full import of what it means -
freedom to act *so long as it does not interfere with others' freedom*.
As far as I am concerned, the vocal road lobby, in demanding freedom
to drive anywhere, at any time (an impossible goal IMO) is reducing
freedom and choice, far more than a good "subsidised" public transport
system would.
In the final year of the cheap fairs policy in London, more money was
saved in reduced congestion, accidents and pollution than was spent
subsidising the fairs. In other words, "subsidising" actually turned
a profit. This all came to a sudden end when the dogmatic right-wing
decided to abolish the regional tier of democratic government in
London (the GLC) to be replaced, in part, by non-elected bodies. This
was done because central government did not approve of these policies
in principal, or the fact that the citizens of London regularly
returned a Labour controlled GLC.
The penalties, for the majority, would be far less than at present, if
we were not ruled by dogmatic right-wing "thinkers" (I use that term
loosely :-). We might even become a democracy :-).
Tom Wicklund
>There are super-high-efficient means of transport, they are called
>buses, trams, trolley-buses, trains, bicycles, and feet.
Unfortunately, most mass transit systems in the US are so inefficient
it's doubtful they save gas. Most of the time large 50 foot busses
run empty or with 2-4 people on board, burning a lot more fuel than an
equivalent automobile. The mass transit authorities don't change this
because:
1. Busses are normally purchased with federal grants, and those
grants have VERY detailed descriptions of allowed vehicles, normally
restricted to large, noisy, smelly busses.
2. The highest cost of transit authorities is wages (transit unions
tend to be very powerful and dictate to a legal monopoly). The
feeling is that smaller busses would mean more drivers, so cost more
in the long run.
3. Transit authorities have no incentive to save fuel or money. They
are judged by political concerns such as whether they provide suburban
routes (to justify the taxes paid by suburban residents), routes where
politicians think routes should be, and how to get bigger subsidies
out of the government.
More efficient transport is possible, but providing flexible
alternatives is illegal since the local transit authority has a
monopoly on all fixed route transportation.
>But what about the conspirancy (now public knowledge in some parts of
>the US) where oil/motor companies bought up trams/trolley-bus
>companies, providers of highly efficient transport, and closed them
>down, presumably to increase dependence on, and sales of motor-cars
>and oil products. Even now, in the UK, pressure from the road lobby
>and right-wing thinkers is leading to less investment in public
>transport. I believe that there is a (perhaps unconsious) conspiracy
>on the part of car manafacturers, "developers" and supermarket chains
>to make people dependent on inefficient transport by private car.
Actually, the tram / trolley companies were declining for years before
the the "conspiracy" to shut them down. They were already losing
money and passengers to the automobile without any help from
conspiracies. I can provide a reference on this if you like.
Like it or not, the automobile is much faster and more convenient for
most transportation needs (very large cities like New York, Chicago,
London, Paris, Tokyo, etc excepted). Unless traffic is very, very
heavy it's faster by car than by bus. And the cities where mass
transit does work tend to use underground or elevated systems so that
the busses don't end up in the same traffic jams as cars.
For example, I worked about 3 miles from home for a few years. It
took about 10 minutes by car, 20 minutes by bicycle, or 45 minutes by
bus (including waiting time) to get to work. I took the bus a lot
because it was easier than parking, but I also didn't have much going
on outside of work at the time. I could probably take a bus to work
where I live now without too much trouble, but I don't have the spare
time to deal with the slow service.
The rise of the automobile, like it or not, is because for the first
time in history people had the ability to easily and quickly travel
more than a few miles from home. Conspiracies weren't needed, just
convenience. This isn't always politically popular among those who
know what's best for everybody else, but nonetheless it's true.
chuck smith
>In article <1991Aug7.1...@b17d.b17d.ingr.com> an...@b17d.b17d.ingr.com (Andrew Brezinski) writes:
>>Latest issue of Car and Driver sites the world record at 2134 or 2143 mpg,
>>can't remember which. They say, "No this isn't a typo."
>Can you give us more details as to what exactly gets this kind of mileage?
If i remember correctly, image a 100 lb car powered by a small model car engine.
Not exactly the thing for a comute...
>Steve
>--
>Steve Reiser (rei...@pmafire.inel.gov or !uunet!pmafire!reiser)
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
chuck smith U. of Illinois The purpose of diplomacy is
cws...@uiuc.edu at Urbana-Champaign is to prolong a crisis - Spock
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: I don't need a disclaimer; I speak for the silent majority.
witte...@zendia.enet.dec.com
|>
|> Like it or not, the automobile is much faster and more convenient for
|> most transportation needs (very large cities like New York, Chicago,
|> London, Paris, Tokyo, etc excepted). Unless traffic is very, very
|> heavy it's faster by car than by bus. And the cities where mass
|> transit does work tend to use underground or elevated systems so that
|> the busses don't end up in the same traffic jams as cars.
So the cars cause traffic jams, which make mass transit less efficent.
Helicopters are even faster for many transportation needs, but we can't
always afford the fastest transportation.
|>
|> For example, I worked about 3 miles from home for a few years. It
|> took about 10 minutes by car, 20 minutes by bicycle, or 45 minutes by
|> bus (including waiting time) to get to work. I took the bus a lot
|> because it was easier than parking, but I also didn't have much going
|> on outside of work at the time. I could probably take a bus to work
|> where I live now without too much trouble, but I don't have the spare
|> time to deal with the slow service.
Do these times include time to find a parking space? The time for the
bike seems a bit slow (9 miles an hour, most bicycle commuters average
more than 12 in the city, and more in the burbs.)
When I lived 4 miles from work, it took 20 min. by bike (and I brought
my bike into my office, so that was the total time), 10 min. driving
and 15 min. walking from my parking space by car, and about 20 min. by
bus.
Currently, I live 12 miles from work, and it takes 25 min. by car, and
50 by bicycle. I bicycle most days because I want the excercise, so I
look at it as getting 1.5 hours of excercise and spending less than1 hour
getting it. (the 1.5 hours on the bike less the 50 min. I would have to
spend commuting in a car.) Even with the car subsidies, the bicycle is a
reasonable choice economically for this ride. (My route by car is 30 miles
round trip @$.20/mile = $6./day so if I ride 200 days a year, I have $1200
which will buy me a new bike each year.)
|>
|> The rise of the automobile, like it or not, is because for the first
|> time in history people had the ability to easily and quickly travel
|> more than a few miles from home. Conspiracies weren't needed, just
|> convenience. This isn't always politically popular among those who
|> know what's best for everybody else, but nonetheless it's true.
|>
While cars are faster and more convienent for much transportation,
they currently recieve heavy subsidies, which make them appear
economical for a lot of situations where without subsidies they
would be far more expensive. While conspiracies may not have been
needed for cars to replace other means of transportation, subsidies
were needed. Some of these subsidies are direct, such as the building
and maintaining of roads, while others are indirect, such as the cost
of air pollution. Economists would call many of these "externalities".
Standard capitalist economic theory says that if everyone pays the
true cost for their activities (including externalities), one has the
most efficent system. Currently, car users pay far less than the true
cost of using a car.
It's hard to get good numbers for the true cost of auto use, but most
published numbers indicate a subsidy (in the US) of $3000 to $5000 per
car per year, with most of the estimates in the higher end of that range.
If we assume that the average car gets 25 mpg, and is driven 15000 miles,
each car burns 600 gallons of gas per year.
Here are some of the hidden costs of automobiles:
The American Lung Association estimates the medical costs from air
pollution at $.40/gallon of gas burned. $240/car per year
Most roads are not toll roads. Toll roads charge about $.05/mile. Since
they are not supposed to make a profit, that gives an estimate
of the cost of building and maintaining (including snow plowing, but not
policing) a road. Assume 3000 miles/year on toll roads, and we have
a cost of road maintenance of $600/year.
Many places provide free parking for cars. Currently, the IRS allows
companies to deduct the full price of free parking they provide for
employees, but only $15/month for transit passes.
Much of the medical costs of car accidents are covered by health insurance,
rather than car insurance. I don't have an estimate of those costs.
Policing the roads costs money.
Do we still have oil depletion allowances? That's another subsidy of
oil consumers, principally cars.
It is much more difficult to put a price on the environmental damage that is
routinely done by oil spills large and small. The Exxon Valdez was a large
spill, but by no means a majority of the spilled oil that year.
One must also consider the constraints on our foreign policy which come
from trying to keep a supply of cheap oil. That has lead us to our
somewhat unfortunate "friendships" with first Iran and then Iraq, among
others.
Yes, cars are convienent, but they're very expensive, and the people who
use cars don't pay the full costs directly. If they did, there would still
be cars, but they would be used only for the things for which they are the
most economical solution.
--David Wittenberg
Ron Carter
> I'm not suggesting a 300% improvement is possible, but 30% might be.
>If you think about it, normally you just have atomization, fine droplets,
>in the cylinders. The flame front has to spread from droplet to droplet.
I'm sorry, this is another extremely wrong-headed statement.
Gasoline is REAL GOOD at vaporizing. Even in a carburetor, it
evaporates right off the throttle plate. The evaporation can
chill things so well that they ice up. What makes it to the
cylinder is not a suspension of droplets in air, it is an
air-vapor mixture. In an engine with ported fuel injection,
the fuel mist evaporates before ignition due to the heat of
compression of the air/fuel charge.
Engines do not perform well when they are fed fuel which does
not evaporate before reaching the cylinder, because pooling
and other problems interfere with mixture control. Carbureted
V-8 engines have heat passages in the intake manifold underneath
the carburetor for just this reason; exhaust goes through the
passage and warms the intake enough to evaporate any liquid
which gets that far. In all modern engines, intake air is
pre-heated if it is cooler than about 150 degrees F. Among
other things, this guarantees evaporation.
>If you had good mixed vapors, you can probably get away with a leaner
>mixture and still get reliable ignition. Of coarse detonation would also
>be more of a problem as would NOx emissions, but I think it would be
>interesting to play with.
You should listen to yourself. How can a liquid droplet
detonate? It can only burn as fast as diffusion lets it.
If combustion proceeded as you say, there would be no
detonation problem at all. The fact that engines do have
difficulties with detonation proves that the fuel has
evaporated.
John_X_...@cup.portal.com
I like driving, it is fun. Whether I'm driving my Chevy van (13mpg) or my
Ford truck (12mpg), driving is great. I drive everywhere. I am currently
looking for a 1964 Cadillac Sedan de Ville. I will happily pay for all
the gas that boat wants to guzzle, just for the pleasure of feeling what
it's like to be behind the wheel of such a large, smooth car.
Keep your bikes, gotta go, must drive three blocks over to the 7-eleven!
Thank you Founding Fathers!
Carl J Lydick
>By "(perhaps unconscious) conspiracy" I mean several agents each
>acting in their own interests to some common goal, at the expense of
>other interests, without necessarily consciously agreeing to act
>together. Extensionally this has the appearance, and effect, of any
>other sort of conspiracy. Take another example: circumstances can
>"conspire to act against you" without "circumstances" intentionally or
>consciously conspiring.
An "unconscious comspiracy" by definition can't exist. "Cirumstances
conspiring to act against you" is a metaphor.
>The "(perhaps unconscious) consipiracy" I refered to is still
>reprehensible even in libertarian terms, because the actions of these
>agents is restricting other peoples freedoms: to shop locally, to
>breath clean air, to cross roads safely, to enjoy an undeveloped
>countryside etc...
>
>It constantly amazes me that many right-wing thinkers lay claim to
>libertarianism without realising the full import of what it means -
>freedom to act *so long as it does not interfere with others' freedom*.
>As far as I am concerned, the vocal road lobby, in demanding freedom
>to drive anywhere, at any time (an impossible goal IMO) is reducing
>freedom and choice, far more than a good "subsidised" public transport
>system would.
This naive definition begs the question of how rights are defined. For
example, in the days of steam locomotives, did the railroads have the right to
run trains without spark catchers in the smokestacks, or did farmers have the
right not to have their crops incinerated by sparks from trains? Any position
on these two "rights" that doesn't assert that they BOTH exist is reasonable.
Libertarianism certainly allows for having the government establish what the
default rights are, as long as it permits the two parties to negotiate a
contract to transfer the rights should they so desire.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXes and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Bernd Felsche
russ...@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>In article <1991Aug4.1...@ugle.unit.no> hall...@immhp3.marina.unit.no (Hallvard Paulsen) writes:
>>
>> Well, I don't know about the oilindustry. But the car industry would
>>have loved to be the first to present such an engine! I'm realy sorry there
>>are no easy way's to improve the car engines, all kinds of things have been
>>tried during the last 80 years. (But if everybody used *diesel engines*
>>they would get about 20-30% higher milage. I know that in the US diesel
>>costs more than gasoline, here in Norway diesel is about half price of gasoline.
>>(And about twice the price of your gasoline :-( ))
>Do you get higher mileage from diesel because it is burned more completely or
>because it simply contains more energy per unit volume of fuel? Diesels
>have some pretty big disadvantages, not the least of which is all that
>particulate matter they emit. Blech.
If I recall correctly, diesel fuel has a lower calorific value than gasoline.
Diesels (compression iginition engines) are more efficient for several
reasons, not the least of which is the more efficient combustion
cycle, due to a more constant pressure during combustion and expansion.
Another reason is the means of fuel delivery. Diesels use quantitative
regulation whereas petrol (oops, gasoline) engines generally use
qualitative regulation. Basically, this means that in a diesel, the
quantity of fuel is varied, whereas in petrol engines, the quality
(air-fuel ratio) is varied, to alter the engine's output power.
As petrol engines only operate over a fairly narrow range of air-fuel
ratio, it cannot be made to burn as "lean" as a diesel. It's this
part-load behaviour which has the greates contibution to fuel savings.
A diesel only consumes as much fuel as is necessary to keep the car
moving, whereas a petrol engine requires more fuel just to keep ticking
over.
Petrol engines can become as efficient as diesels if they have a good
fuel-injection/ignition system, and a wide rev range (you get more
air, to burn more fuel, keeping the air-fuel ratio in it's most
efficient range). Direct-injection petrol engines are on the horizon,
which will significantly aid efficiency.
--
+-----+ Bernd Felsche _--_|\ #include <std/disclaimer.h>
| | | | MetaPro Systems Pty Ltd / \ ber...@metapro.DIALix.oz.au
| | | | 328 Albany Highway, X_.--._/ Fax: +61 9 472 3337
|m|p|s| Victoria Park, Western Australia 6100 v Phone: +61 9 362 9355
Gary Coffman
>
>Do you get higher mileage from diesel because it is burned more completely or
>because it simply contains more energy per unit volume of fuel? Diesels
>have some pretty big disadvantages, not the least of which is all that
>particulate matter they emit. Blech.
There are a number of factors that determine the efficiency of internal
combustion engines. Roughly in order of importance they are:
1. Pumping losses
Internal combustion engines are basically air pumps. Throttling the
pump, inlet or exhaust, reduces engine efficiency. Diesel engines
don't have inlet air throttles and *usually* have low back pressure
exhausts. Therefore the biggest source of loss in an engine is minimized
with a diesel. Also, pumping losses increase with the cube of RPM and
diesels are normally operated at lower RPM than gasoline engines.
2. Expansion ratio
Engine efficiency is directly proportional to the compression ratio of
the engine. Diesels at 22 to 1 are much more efficient than gasoline
engines at 8.5 to 1. A high expansion ratio means an engine can extract
as much energy as possible from the gas before it is exhausted by expanding
and cooling the exhaust. This gives the maximum Carnot spread between
T(in) and T(out). Normal gasoline engines, due to their low expansion
ratios and high rpm, operate mostly in an isothermal regime.
3. BTU/gal of fuel
Diesel fuel has a higher BTU content than gasoline.
4. Mechanical losses
Mechanical losses increase with the square of RPM. Most diesels operate
at lower RPM than gasoline engines.
There are many more factors such as chamber design, piston area, scavenging,
and like that favor the diesel. Diesels are normally operated as "lean
burn" engines with an excess of oxygen in the chamber while gasoline
engines are normally operated at stoichiometric mixtures to promote smooth
burning, prevent detonation, and reduce emissions.
Government regulations have conspired to reduce gasoline engine efficiency
by causing compression ratios to be lowered and increasing pumping losses.
Regulations that removed octane improvers from the fuel and regulations
that reduced allowable NOx emissions have caused a drop in compression
ratio from 10.5:1 to 8.5:1. This has resulted in a 20% drop in engine
efficiency. Hydrocarbon emissions standards and noise emission standards
have substantially increased engine back pressure, resulting in a further
10 to 15 percent penalty in engine efficiency. Federal CAFE standards
have resulted in smaller cars and smaller engines. The smaller engines
have to operate at higher RPMs increasing mechanical losses by the square
and pumping losses by the cube.
For really high efficiency, an engine should have a stroke long enough
to allow complete burning of the fuel and expansion sufficient to
cool the gas to near ambient. It should have maximum piston area to
allow greatest torque at low RPMs. This implies that it have many
cylinders relative to it's displacement. And should operate at the
lowest feasible RPM. It should have minimum restriction to air inlet
and exhaust. This also usually implies many cylinders with large
valve area or a scavenge cycle port design with super or turbo charging.
It should have metered direct chamber fuel injection and the fuel should
not detonate at the operating compression ratio or in lean mixtures.
This implies diesel rather than gasoline fuel, or gasoline that has
been treated with octane enhancers such as tetraethyl lead.
For gasoline engines of a given displacement, more cylinders are better
than fewer, lower RPMs are better than higher, and long strokes and
high compression ratios are better than short strokes and low compression
ratios. To promote maximum mass flow, engine inlet air temperature should
be as low as possible, air density increases with decreasing temperature.
Federal standards have caused a shift of all these parameters into the wrong
direction for achieving maximum engine efficiency.
MPG is not a direct measure of engine efficiency. MPG is more sensitive to
vehicle mass and drag than it is to engine efficiency. Therefore a small
inefficient engine can deliver impressive MPG in a small car while a highly
efficient larger engine can deliver relatively unimpressive MPG in a large
truck. A better measure is lbs_payload*miles/gal. Here big diesel trucks
outshine little rice rockets and motorcycles outshine most cars in single
passenger use.
Gary
Ron Carter
>For really high efficiency, an engine should have a stroke long enough
>to allow complete burning of the fuel and expansion sufficient to
>cool the gas to near ambient. It should have maximum piston area to
>allow greatest torque at low RPMs. This implies that it have many
>cylinders relative to it's displacement. And should operate at the
>lowest feasible RPM. It should have minimum restriction to air inlet
>and exhaust. This also usually implies many cylinders with large
>valve area or a scavenge cycle port design with super or turbo charging.
There is something that Gary is missing here, and that is heat loss.
Heat loss is murder on a heat engine; every BTU of heat lost to the
cylinder wall is 778 ft-lbs of energy which can never appear on the
crankshaft. The larger the cylinder area is, the more heat transfer
area exists and the larger the heat losses will be.
For a given displacement, a multi-cylinder engine has more area
than a single-cylinder engine. It follows that the single-cylinder
engine will have lower heat losses (though higher breathing losses,
because it has less valve area). This must be traded off against
considerations of volumetric efficiency. Sooner or later, as the
speeds go down and the fluid losses drop, increases in heat
transfer will overwhelm the savings from other causes. At that
point it's time to cut the number of cylinders down.
A 2.5 liter 4-cylinder engine is going to be more efficient than
a 5-liter 8-cylinder engine when both are cranking out 20 horsepower.
When both are turning out 200 horsepower (you better supercharge that
little 4, or give it another 8 valves!), the 8-cylinder will probably
be more efficient. It is all a matter of frictional and fluid losses
versus heat loss, and in big engines running at slow speeds, the
latter can get you with a vengeance.
There is a reason that the 12-cylinder aluminum (!) V-12 in the
BMW 750il gets lousy gas mileage. It's all that cylinder area
and the heat the aluminum (!) conducts away, wasted forever.
Robert W Mangum II
>
>Most mechanical and chemical engineers are aware of the fact that the
>current technology sold under the hood of your car to supply an
>air-gasoline mixture is an outdated technology. Carburetors and fuel
>injection rely on gas atomization to form tiny droplets of gasoline
>which form the combustion mixture used in the engine cylinders. These
>tiny droplets begin to combust in the cylinder upon ignition and
>continue to burn in the exhaust manifold which much of the energy wasted
>in addition to that already wasted as heat.
>
>Many individual have succesfully developed gas vaporization technology
>which vaporizes the gasoline before introducing into the engine and have
>typically tripled the gas mileage of the autombile. I'm aware of
>inventors in Virginia, Washington State, California, Arizona, Idaho and
>other states who have been forced to sell their ideas to companies such
>as Exxon, DuPont, Chrysler, and others under threat to their lives.
>
>vaults of oil or auto companies to keep them off the market. It's time
>to change this situation.
>
I can see what the oil companies have to lose by increasing gas
mileage, but what do the auto companies have to lose? Chrysler
would want to increase the gas mileage on their cars to increase
their share of the market. I can't imagine that they are throwing
away such ideas just to avoid retooling costs.
__________________________________ ____________________________________
( ) ( \
\ Robert W Mangum II (_____) Email: man...@eola.cs.ucf.edu \
) 10484 Cresto Del Sol Circle _____ Voice: (407) 679-4751 )
/ Orlando, FL 32817 ( ) /
(__________________________________) (____________________________________/
David Kane
|>I can see what the oil companies have to lose by increasing gas
|>mileage, but what do the auto companies have to lose? Chrysler
|>would want to increase the gas mileage on their cars to increase
|>their share of the market. I can't imagine that they are throwing
|>away such ideas just to avoid retooling costs.
The easiest way to improve milage is to build smaller cars. This
presents several problems:
(1) Smaller profit margin on compacts and subcompacts
(2) Competition from overseas. The Big Three got burned
already in the small car market
(3) Americans don't want small cars, so building them is a
bad business move.
Other milage solutions are more technical. You then run into
problems of convincing the public that the solutions work AND they don't
adversely affect performance. The costs of these solutions, can raise
the price of cars, once again a bad business idea.
Until the American public decides that it wants fuel effecient cars,
and are willing to pay for them, no one will make them in large numbers. Why
build a product that nobody wants?
=================================================================
= =
= David Kane con...@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu =
= =
= "I'm here." =
= =
=================================================================
Eric Struble
> >>To vaporize fuel at useful pressures, it has to be heated. How many readers
> >>think that heating gasoline outside of the armored metal of the cylinder heads
> >>is an excellent method of turning a car into a bomb?
> >
> >Petroleum testing bureau. They regularly distill gasoline in glass
> >containers over an open coil. One said he knew of only a couple fires,
> >and besides, the ceiling is hinged to release the blast pressure..........
> Easy to make gasoline burn. Hard to make it explode. Need to make a
> lean mixture of gas and air, and then ignite the mixture.
> This is unlikely to happen in the apparatus you describe.
> To make a satisfying gasoline-air explosion, drop 2 drops of gas into a
> 1 gallon plastic bag with an electrical igniter like a wire that glows
> red to white on application of current. Shake to evaporate gas. Stand
> back and energize.
> NOTE:
> This information is for information only, and is not provided as an
> incentive to illegal and/or dangerous activities.
>
This might go to prove that Gasoline is not something to mess around with unless
you know what you are doing. I have heard on cleaning companys using gas
to strip wax from floors. Some people haven't got enough brains to blow up..
Back a couple a hundred years ago while I was in boy scouts, I was privliged
to see a demo of what 1 drop of gas in a container will do. It showed me just
how dangerious gas can be.
These are just my opinions and I wanted to express my concern for safety around
flamable liquids..
Eric........
Arthur Wouk
>
> The easiest way to improve milage is to build smaller cars. This
>presents several problems:
>
> (1) Smaller profit margin on compacts and subcompacts
> (2) Competition from overseas. The Big Three got burned
> already in the small car market
> (3) Americans don't want small cars, so building them is a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> bad business move.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
if this were to be true, it would contradict the fact that japanese
makers, making small cars, are in fact approaching 40% of the domestic
car market in the us. something is wrong with your thinking.
the fact is that detroit can't or won't build a reliable, durable, small car.
--
arthur wouk
internet: wo...@cs.colorado.edu
John Otto
>In article <1991Aug2.1...@utdallas.edu>, r...@utdallas.edu (Shane Davis) writes:
>|> In article <1991Aug1.1...@pmafire.inel.gov>, rei...@pmafire.inel.gov (Steve Reiser) writes:
>|> I would not be at all surprised if there were a conspiracy to prevent use
>|> of such technology. Just think, we would lose the "protect our national
>|> security-- we depend on Middle East oil" rationale used to start wars in that
>|> part of the world. What would the nationalists do for fun?
> Well, I don't know about the oilindustry. But the car industry would
>have loved to be the first to present such an engine! I'm realy sorry there
>are no easy way's to improve the car engines, all kinds of things have been
>tried during the last 80 years. (But if everybody used *diesel engines*
>they would get about 20-30% higher milage. I know that in the US diesel
>costs more than gasoline, here in Norway diesel is about half price of gasoline.
>(And about twice the price of your gasoline :-( ))
No thanks. Every time I get near a diesel vehicle, I have trouble
breathing and get a headache. I'll stick with the Otto cycle.
B-)}
John G. Otto j...@rai.cc.fsu.edu fsu1$hepnet::otto
Shailendra Save
> (2) Competition from overseas. The Big Three got burned
> already in the small car market
> (3) Americans don't want small cars, so building them is a
> bad business move.
Are you not contradicting yourself here? If the Big Three got
burned in the small car market, then obviously Americans want to
buy them.
Not all Americans want a boat for a car. When this present
generation (I call them the baby-boomer generation) passes, people
will buy smaller, more efficient cars. This is a more progressive,
willing to change generation. We should be ready to provide
efficient cars for them.
Shailendra
ss...@caen.engin.umich.edu
ole!ss...@sumax.seattleu.edu
Marcin Kolbuszewski
starts with the considearble taxation of gas:
prices per liter ( I am european )
USA : 25 c
Canada : 50
Most of Europe : between 75 an 120.
So a 40 MPG car in Europe is equal to the 13 MPG car in the US.
Both numbers are pretty standard for respective continents.
I drive a Festiva ( 50 MPG ) and really DO NOT NEED a Caddy for
commuting.
PS. The saving on a 7500 $ ( canadian ) vs 14000 for average sedan
bought me pretty nice holiday in Europe - dont you think. I drove
a Renault 5 there. gas miser...
Wayne Throop
->But if everybody used *diesel engines*
->they would get about 20-30% higher milage.
In miles-per-gallon, maybe. In miles-per-kilogram, though...
--
Wayne Throop ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw
Ron Carter
In article <1991Aug10.2...@colorado.edu>, arthur wouk wrote:
>if this were to be true, it would contradict the fact that japanese
>makers, making small cars, are in fact approaching 40% of the domestic
>car market in the us. something is wrong with your thinking.
Excuse me, but it is time for an injection of the facts.
Please take a look at the cars which the Japanese are selling here.
I mean selling, not showing. The big seller is the Honda Accord,
which is not a small car any more and gets worse mileage than many
cars out of Detroit. Lexus, Infinity, Acura... need I say more?
The mileage champs like the Honda CRX HF sell very few units.
Detroit finds it better to let the Japanese have that tiny niche
rather than engineering a car which so few people want to buy.
It's more profitable to re-badge something else rather than build it.
>the fact is that detroit can't or won't build a reliable, durable, small car.
But we are building reliable, durable cars; we're beating out some
of the Japanese makes and many others these days. We'll build small
cars when the demand is big enough to let us do it profitably, which
is a sine qua non given our current economic troubles.
Dave Sill
>
>My daughter gets nearly 60 miles per gallon from her Geo Metro. It's
>a fine car. Quite fuel efficient. Handles pretty well too.
>BUT! Most folks would rather have a larger, more comfortable car
>that has more trim, air conditioning, power steering etc....
Folks in hell want ice water, too, as they say. I guess it all boils
down to what we think we need vs. what we really need. Air
conditioning, chrome trim, electric windows & locks, seating for 6-8,
acoustic isolation, mass advantage, etc. are not necessities, they're
*wants*. Until our *needs*, which include clean air and water, are
satisfied, it's foolish to sacrifice them for our *wants*.
--
Dave Sill (d...@ornl.gov) Tug on anything in nature and you will find
Martin Marietta Energy Systems it connected to everything else.
Workstation Support --John Muir
Gary Coffman
That's 36 billion dollars a year. I don't believe it. That's one third
of total medical expenditures. Lots of people get sick for reasons other
than air pollution, and air pollution is not primarily caused by autos.
According to an article in last week's Science News, the largest source
of air pollution, under 10 micron particulates, in the LA basin is from
the charbroiling of meat, mostly commercial establishments, but backyard
barbeques too. Autos account for only 20% of particulate pollution.
>Most roads are not toll roads. Toll roads charge about $.05/mile. Since
>they are not supposed to make a profit, that gives an estimate
>of the cost of building and maintaining (including snow plowing, but not
>policing) a road. Assume 3000 miles/year on toll roads, and we have
>a cost of road maintenance of $600/year.
Aside from direct payments made by auto drivers to toll roads, none in
Georgia, the motor fuel tax pays for roads. How can this be considered
a subsidy since only those using the roads pay for the roads? You can't
add it in again, they already paid at the pump.
>Do we still have oil depletion allowances? That's another subsidy of
>oil consumers, principally cars.
Since when is depreciation a subsidy? Every business is allowed to
depreciate it's assets. The depletion allowance is the strict rule
by which oil and gas companies are allowed to depreciate their holdings.
This is no more a subsidy than allowing my company to depreciate this
computer. In fact, my company can depreciate this computer faster, at
a higher rate, than the oil depletion allowance permits.
Gary
Gary Coffman
>
>There is something that Gary is missing here, and that is heat loss.
>
>Heat loss is murder on a heat engine; every BTU of heat lost to the
>cylinder wall is 778 ft-lbs of energy which can never appear on the
>crankshaft. The larger the cylinder area is, the more heat transfer
>area exists and the larger the heat losses will be.
It's not something I missed, I just let it slide because my ideal
engine was running at wide open throttle at it's peak torque RPM.
Gas scavenging is so efficient at that point the main problem is
to keep the cylinder walls hot enough to prevent quenching and
excess hydrocarbon emissions. In real everyday auto engines that
spend 99% of their operating lives running at dismal efficiency
due to light loads and heavy pumping losses from closed throttles,
everything you say is right on the money. Designing a good compromise
auto engine is not easy. I don't envy you guys. Well not much anyway. :-)
Gary
Gary Coffman
The average Japanese import has been getting larger every year as they learn
the likes and dislikes of American car buyers. Faced with no full size cars
in the price range of the average American, buyers have been forced to
accept smaller cars, but don't believe that they prefer them. I'd buy a
new 67 Chevy Impala in a heartbeat if one were available. With a 300 hp
327 that car was fast, comfortable, and could manage 18 MPG on the highway.
All for $3400 list price. I do agree that American cars today aren't what
they used to be, but that's primarily because the government won't let
them sell cars like they used to build.
Gary
Dane Cantwell
writes:
>lel...@cbnewse.cb.att.com (leland.m.kornhaus) writes:
>
>>There are several new fuels on the market which claim to lower emissions.
>>Most of these claim to be oxygenated. I have two questions about this:
>
>>1) Will they affect the fuel-air ratio in an engine with a oxygen sensor?
>No.
>
>>2) Could this affect performance or gas milage?
>I don't know, but my guess is that they do not (at least not appreciably).
>
>The primary use for these oxygenated additives is to increase the octane
>rating of the fuel. Remember leaded gasoline? Valve lubrication aside, the
>primary use of tetra-ethyl-lead was to increase octane rating without using
>more expensive blend stocks. One of the primary replacements for lead these
>days is methyl-tert-butyl-ether. BTW most claims of reduced emissions are
>pure garbage. Yes, ther removed the lead (because the government said they
>had to), but that is about it.
>--
>******************************************************************************
>J. T. O'Beck Litwin Process Automation j...@dynsim1.litwin.com
> 1250 W. Sam Houston Pkwy S.
> Houston TX, 77042
>
This guy knows nothing about oxygenated fuels. While I am not qualified to
answer your questions, I do know that oxygenated fuels do reduce emmissioins.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Dane Cantwell
Petroleum Engineer
ARCO Oil and Gas Company
d...@arco.com
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Irving Chidsey
<
<Both kinds of cars get rougghly the same efficiency (efficiency, of
<course, is measured NOT by miles per gallon, but by the ratio of
<energy out / gallons).
<
<Doug McDonald
But the object of the exercise is to move people, not to obtain
some ammount of energy. If you keep your eye on the donut, and not the
packaging, you get more meaningful results. It is only meaningful to include
the cost of moving the packaging if the packaging is important.
When the Queen and her entourage travel by horse and carriage to
open Parliament the parade is almost as important a statement as the one
she will make when she gets there. It is a very efficient way to maintain
the unity of Brittain, even if at ties up London traffic for a whole day.
A small econobox is much more efficient transportation for most people.
And shanks' mare is probably the most efficient of all within a few miles
of the scene for mere citizens.
Energy_out / fuel_in is the most appropriat measure of efficiency
for power plants, passenger_miles / fuel_consumed is more appropriate for
people movers.
Irv
--
I do not have signature authority. I am not authorized to sign anything.
I am not authorized to commit the BRL, the DA, the DOD, or the US Government
to anything, not even by implication. They do not tell me what their policy
is. They may not have one. Irving L. Chidsey <chi...@brl.mil>
E. G. Bauman
>
>>if this were to be true, it would contradict the fact that japanese
>>makers, making small cars, are in fact approaching 40% of the domestic
>>car market in the us. something is wrong with your thinking.
>
>Excuse me, but it is time for an injection of the facts.
>
>Please take a look at the cars which the Japanese are selling here.
>I mean selling, not showing. The big seller is the Honda Accord,
>which is not a small car any more and gets worse mileage than many
>cars out of Detroit. Lexus, Infinity, Acura... need I say more?
Agreed. I have an 88 RX-7 and I've been very disappointed with the mileage
which is about 19mpg. But it's a rotary and I heard that they were
lousy on mileage.
So I'm shopping for another car with better mileage. First I look
at the Nissan Maxima. 20mpg on the sticker. Well, I say, it's a V6
and a big car - let's try something smaller. Went to see a Subaru
Legacy. This is a 2.2l 4 cylinder. Big improvement. 21mpg.
Sigh.
Evan G. Bauman - Shell Development Company
PO Box 1380; Houston, TX 77251-1380
bau...@shell.com (713)-493-8937
---Views expressed are my own and not those of my employer---
David Wright
(E. G. Bauman) writes:
>In article <46...@fmsrl7.UUCP> wr...@fmsrl7.UUCP (Ron Carter) writes:
>>
>>In article <1991Aug10.2...@colorado.edu>, arthur wouk wrote:
>>>if this were to be true, it would contradict the fact that japanese
>>>makers, making small cars, are in fact approaching 40% of the domestic
>>>car market in the us. something is wrong with your thinking.
>>
>>Excuse me, but it is time for an injection of the facts.
We're waiting...
>>Please take a look at the cars which the Japanese are selling here.
>>I mean selling, not showing. The big seller is the Honda Accord,
>>which is not a small car any more and gets worse mileage than many
>>cars out of Detroit. Lexus, Infinity, Acura... need I say more?
A lot more, I think. My 86 Accord, which is a pretty similar power
train to the current model, gets about 35 mpg around here on my trip
to work (16 miles one way, takes me about 30 minutes). Lexus and
Infiniti (note spelling) are not high enough volume to make that much
of a difference, and an Acura Integra gets only slightly poorer
mileage (a few mpg) than an Accord.
While some Detroit iron gets better mileage than 35 mpg, it's not that
significant.
>Agreed. I have an 88 RX-7 and I've been very disappointed with the mileage
>which is about 19mpg. But it's a rotary and I heard that they were
>lousy on mileage.
It's a powerful engine, too. What did you expect from a sports car?
Also, you didn't specify what kind of driving you do. And as for EPA
sticker mileage, it has only the most tenuous relationship to the
mileage you'll get. If I want those kinds of numbers, I check
Consumer Reports. They drive on a highway, not a dynamometer.
-- David Wright, not officially representing Stardent Computer Inc
wri...@stardent.com or uunet!stardent!wright
"He doesn't know when he's beaten, this boy. He doesn't know when he's
winning, either. He doesn't have any sort of sensory apparatus known
to man." -- Monty Python
Gary Coffman
>In article <1991Aug2.1...@kodak.kodak.com> doe...@kodak.com (Paul Doering) writes:
>>bi...@iastate.edu (Bible Anthony E) writes in reply to yet another tome
>>about how big companies are illegitimately and selfishly depriving us of
>>super-high-efficient motors --
>
>There are super-high-efficient means of transport, they are called
>buses, trams, trolley-buses, trains, bicycles, and feet.
There are many kinds of efficiency besides miles per gallon. If everyone
moved in lockstep like some Nazi army, then mass transit would be the most
efficient system. Except during the morning and evening commutes, most mass
transit systems run nearly empty wasting large amounts of fuel to haul
relatively few people. Efficient use of time is important too. Waiting
half an hour for a bus and having to ride twenty minutes the wrong way in
order to get a transfer to ride another thirty minutes to arrive at your
destination when the trip would have taken fifteen minutes by car is a
terribly inefficient use of human resources.
Mass transit serves well when moving large groups of people who all start
at point A and all need to arrive at their common destination at point B
at the same time. But for the ordinary trip, mass transit is rarely the
most direct, or the quickest method of transport. And when travel is at
odd times, mass transit is horribly less fuel efficient than a private
automobile because the bus or train is operating way below capacity.
Bicycles and pedestrian travel are perfect for short trips in good weather
when nothing needs to be carried. But, add in the necessity of transporting
tools or samples, or even groceries for a family of four for a week, and
they become less attractive. Add in -20 temperatures and ice and snow, or
just a heavy rain shower on an otherwise nice day, and they can become
life threatening.
High personal mobility is a major contributor to quality of life. That
has a value higher than mere fuel savings. Even the lemming march of
the daily commuter is not the ideal load for mass transit. Rarely do
the people who work in a given building all live in the same area. They
must filter in from numerous different directions. Fixed rail is unable
to cope with this, and buses and trams also must maintain fixed routes,
though the routes can be more easily changed as population travel patterns
change. People rarely work at the same job all their lives, or live in
the same house. Their travel patterns must change over time. Inflexible
mass transit is unable to cope well with this meta-mobility of populations.
There are real costs to personal transportation systems, but there are
also real social costs to mass transportation systems. Limiting employment
mobility to jobs within walking distance of one's home, or to a corridor
defined by mass transit, seriously degrades the market for one's job
skills and consequently limits earning power. This is a real cost that
is often overlooked when discussing transportation alternatives. Living
conditions when one is confined to quarters along a mass transit line
often resemble a sewer with rat after rat piled on the heap until they
explode into frenzy from the crowding. This is a real cost of mass
transit. All kinds of efficiency must be considered when looking at
the transport picture.
Gary
Van Snyder
>In article <1991Aug16.1...@shell.shell.com> bau...@shell.com
>(E. G. Bauman) writes:
>>In article <46...@fmsrl7.UUCP> wr...@fmsrl7.UUCP (Ron Carter) writes:
>>Agreed. I have an 88 RX-7 and I've been very disappointed with the mileage
>>which is about 19mpg. But it's a rotary and I heard that they were
>>lousy on mileage.
>
It's not the power output that makes it have rotten mileage, it's the
surface-to-volume ratio. That quenches the flame, and gives you rotten
mileage and lots of smog. Same problem with a gas turbine. BUT, the
high surface-to-volume ratio gives you high specific power output, that
is, high power-to-volume and power-to-weight ratios.
--
vsn...@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov
ames!elroy!jato!vsnyder
vsn...@jato.uucp