| Science Forum Index » Mechanics Forum » 100 MPG X-Prize... |
|
Page 2 of 4 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Scotius... |
 Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 9:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:36:01 -0500, "hls" <hls at (no spam) nospam.nix> wrote:
[quote:00c38d428d]
"necromancer - ECHM"
Then why doesn't Ford bring it to market and capitalize on the,
"green," trend with some 100+ MPG cars that don't rely on highly
sophisticated junk like hybrid drives?
Because it is all horse carp. Pogue designed a carburetor that was
supposed to do this, but it failed miserably. Fish also put out some
"high mileage" carburetors, but they werent.
You CANNOT avoid the laws of thermodynamics. There is NO
perpetual motion,and there is no super high economy carburetor.
[/quote:00c38d428d]
No one was talking about "perpetual motion" as far as I know.
That's a straw man argument, and not one I was trying to make. And by
the way, the universe is in perpetual motion.
[quote:00c38d428d]
Anyone who believes there is has to be severaly under-educated.
[/quote:00c38d428d]
Right, like the guy with the masters degree at the Canadian
university whose page on this I read. Yup, a real nitwit. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Scott Dorsey... |
| Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 9:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Scotius <yodasbud at (no spam) mnsi.net> wrote:
[quote:50a4ed50d1]On 29 Jul 2009 15:40:07 -0400, kludge at (no spam) panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Scotius <yodasbud at (no spam) mnsi.net> wrote:
A former Ford executive I met at a dinner I recently went to
for a friend told me the "super-carburetor" was real. I think he would
know.
So, why isn't he using one?
I've read that they work for a while, but the additives gas
companies put in make it gum up rather quickly and it degrades back to
about average.
[/quote:50a4ed50d1]
That sounds just like my Solex....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| jim... |
| Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 9:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Scotius wrote:
[quote:be16563038]
On 29 Jul 2009 15:40:07 -0400, kludge at (no spam) panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Scotius <yodasbud at (no spam) mnsi.net> wrote:
A former Ford executive I met at a dinner I recently went to
for a friend told me the "super-carburetor" was real. I think he would
know.
So, why isn't he using one?
--scott
I've read that they work for a while, but the additives gas
companies put in make it gum up rather quickly and it degrades back to
about average.
[/quote:be16563038]
I always wonder what the purpose of the additives were.
-jim |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| hls... |
| Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 9:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Scotius" <yodasbud at (no spam) mnsi.net> wrote in message
[quote:feb14570b3]
You CANNOT avoid the laws of thermodynamics. There is NO
perpetual motion,and there is no super high economy carburetor.
No one was talking about "perpetual motion" as far as I know.
That's a straw man argument, and not one I was trying to make. And by
the way, the universe is in perpetual motion.
[/quote:feb14570b3]
Are you versed in thermodynamics? If not, spend a little time and
educate yourself. When you do, you will realize the defects in your
arguments.
One cannot, with magic carburetors or anything else, avoid the rules
of thermo.
Yes, some engines in some vehicles can deliver 100 mpg, but these
are not magically carburetted. They follow the same rules of science
that all other engines follow. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Brent... |
| Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:07 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 2009-07-30, jim <".sjedgingN0sp" at (no spam) m> wrote:
[quote:d5ce444ddb]
Brent wrote:
On 2009-07-30, jim <".sjedgingN0sp" at (no spam) m> wrote:
Brent wrote:
laws of phsyics... bah. Just have congress legislate a 100mpg minimum
and cars will get that. The government defines reality!
All congress would have to do is put a $200/barrel tax on petroleum and lots of
fuel efficient transportation solutions would come popping out of the woodwork.
um no. government intervention cannot change reality and its
consequences are usually worse than what the intervention was supposed
to correct.
Government intervention is already changing reality.
[/quote:d5ce444ddb]
Reality defined as things like the laws of physics. Laws of the market
place, etc and so on. These things do not change. They are not suspended
because of government intervention. Those in elected office think they
can change such things with a new tax or law or regulation, but all they
end up doing is causing consquences that they couldn't see (if we are to
believe them) (but anyone with half a brain could)
In response to the mess they created government demands more power to
tax, legislate, and regulate to fix it. They get the power and make a
bigger mess. Rinse, repeat. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| jim... |
| Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 11:10 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Brent wrote:
[quote:e9875372ed]
laws of phsyics... bah. Just have congress legislate a 100mpg minimum
and cars will get that. The government defines reality!
[/quote:e9875372ed]
All congress would have to do is put a $200/barrel tax on petroleum and lots of
fuel efficient transportation solutions would come popping out of the woodwork.
-jim |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| necromancer - ECHM... |
| Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 1:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:36:01 -0500, "hls" <hls at (no spam) nospam.nix> wrote:
[quote:bb67db8455]
"necromancer - ECHM"
Then why doesn't Ford bring it to market and capitalize on the,
"green," trend with some 100+ MPG cars that don't rely on highly
sophisticated junk like hybrid drives?
Because it is all horse carp. Pogue designed a carburetor that was
supposed to do this, but it failed miserably. Fish also put out some
"high mileage" carburetors, but they werent.
[/quote:bb67db8455]
Precisely my point: the thing doesn't exist. Otherwise it would not
make any business sense for Ford to sit on the damn thing in this,
"GREEN IS GOOD," environment we are in right now.
--
"I... Can't drive... FIFTY-FIVE!!"
--Sammy Hagar |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| jim... |
| Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 1:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Brent wrote:
[quote:f149783d90]
On 2009-07-30, jim <".sjedgingN0sp" at (no spam) m> wrote:
Brent wrote:
laws of phsyics... bah. Just have congress legislate a 100mpg minimum
and cars will get that. The government defines reality!
All congress would have to do is put a $200/barrel tax on petroleum and lots of
fuel efficient transportation solutions would come popping out of the woodwork.
um no. government intervention cannot change reality and its
consequences are usually worse than what the intervention was supposed
to correct.
[/quote:f149783d90]
Government intervention is already changing reality.
In US factories cost of labor about 1/2 goes to taxes (combined employee
employer taxes). In China factory labor isn't taxed - that is part of the reason
Chinese labor is so much cheaper. In the US we go to great pains to make sure
that the transportation cost of getting those Chinese made factory goods to your
local store is as cheap as possible. That whole system doesn't make a lot of
sense. It is like we have found the perfect way to put ourselves out of
business. The current tax policy seems to be designed to benefit the Chinese.
The result of the current US strategy is The U.S. as a nation is sitting on a
mountain of debt and the Chinese have no debt and are sitting on a 2 trillion
dollar cash surplus. And on top of that about half the US work force is planning
to retire soon and collect money from the government that the government doesn't
really have to give. Where do you think that money is going to come from?
http://www.comstockfunds.com/files/NLPP00000%5C292.pdf
Look at that graph. For 25 years we have operated with massive trade and
federal budget deficits and that fact pretty clearly shows up if you look at the
last 25 years of debt growth. How long do you think that graph can keep sailing
upward like that?
The purpose of taxing oil would be to avoid bankruptcy. Our current debt is
largely caused by a dependence on oil we get from foreign nations and a failure
to produce enough US made goods to sell to balance the books. There is little
doubt that a tax on oil would help reduce the massive government debt and at the
same time reduce the dependence on the substance that is really the root cause
of the debt.
-jim |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Brent... |
| Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 4:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 2009-07-30, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp" at (no spam) m> wrote:
[quote:3e8e7c482d]
Brent wrote:
You're missing the point. It's those laws that will bring about the
crash. The government tries to deny their reality.
So just keep on borrowing everything is fine
[/quote:3e8e7c482d]
Are you just stupid or trolling? That's how the government tries to
deny reality, they really believe in the keynesian nonsense
[quote:3e8e7c482d]So just keep on borrowing everything will be fine?
[/quote:3e8e7c482d]
Buh bye troll. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| AMuzi... |
| Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 8:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
-snip-
Scotius wrote:
[quote:febcc94379]And by
the way, the universe is in perpetual motion.
[/quote:febcc94379]
No, it is not.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| jim... |
| Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 5:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Brent wrote:
[quote:3563be869e]
On 2009-07-30, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp" at (no spam) m> wrote:
Brent wrote:
You're missing the point. It's those laws that will bring about the
crash. The government tries to deny their reality.
So just keep on borrowing everything is fine
Are you just stupid or trolling? That's how the government tries to
deny reality, they really believe in the keynesian nonsense
[/quote:3563be869e]
The government isn't denying reality. It is now the voting public that
is in denial of reality. The reality for elected government officials is
that doing anything about the growing debt will only get them thrown out
of office.
-jim |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| hls... |
| Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 11:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Scotius" <yodasbud at (no spam) mnsi.net> wrote in message
[quote:82960a979b]If you're being purposefully thick, then it's okay, but
otherwise I'd stay indoors if I were you... geez... you could make the
average yard dangerous.
What I meant was is that he was the boss there. He knows more
about auto history than you do. He was a Ford executive, okay? He
knows what he's talking about.
[/quote:82960a979b]
Ric Wagoner was the biggest baddest boss at GM. Q.E.D.? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Matthew Russotto... |
| Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 11:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <8lnk75pqd615irkbcm2thb7tcp490pdfid at (no spam) 4ax.com>,
Scotius <yodasbud at (no spam) mnsi.net> wrote:
[quote:fe331ebe2d]Yes, the super carburetor IS a myth. Late carburetors, and even more
so, modern FI systems, adequately prepare the fuel/air mixture. Only a
fraction of one percent of fuel is left unburned in normal operating
conditions.
If that's true then why are those engines rated at only
20-some percent efficient?
[/quote:fe331ebe2d]
Because the efficiency of an internal combusion engine is not equal to
the fraction of the fuel it burns. The limit on efficiency of an
internal combustion engine is simply one minus the ratio of the
temperature of the combustion gas over the temperature of the outside
air. Both temperatures in absolute degrees, of course.
[quote:fe331ebe2d] I read some years back that there were people working on
producing a ceramic engine. Actually, it could already be done then,
but was cost prohibitive, so I guess I should say they were looking at
bringing down the cost of production of ceramic engines.
Since the ceramics can withstand temperatures far higher than
steel, the engines could operate hotter and more efficiently.
[/quote:fe331ebe2d]
Sure, presuming you could get the mixture to burn that much hotter and
you could efficiently remove the heat before the next cycle starts.
The first part is pretty easy. The second, not so much.
[quote:fe331ebe2d] The supercarburetor is NOT a myth, however. I've read enough
about it to have formed a reasonable opinion, in my opinion, and mine
is that it's not.
[/quote:fe331ebe2d]
Electronic fuel injection provides a near ideal fuel to air ratio, and
yet fails to achieve the purported benefits of the supercarburetor. Therefore,
no such device existed.
--
It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Brent... |
| Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 3:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 2009-08-06, Major Debacle <major_debacle at (no spam) REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:e86edf049f]Rich is relative. More correct to say that O2 sensors are damaged by too
high a percentage of unburned HCs in the exhaust stream. Cats are
actually designed to burn off HCs before expelling the resultant
exhaust. That is what an air pump is designed to do. It injects a stream
of air into the cat expressly for the purpose of combining the O2 in the
air with HCs in order to burn them off.
[/quote:e86edf049f]
Air pump? If there's a modern car on the market that needs an air pump
to meet emissions I suggest not buying it.
It's not 1975 any longer. Air pumps and other kludges are gone and
the root problem of real time fuel mixture adjustments was
addressed. Modern systems hold the fuel mixture near perfect. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Brent... |
| Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 5:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 2009-08-07, Major Debacle <major_debacle at (no spam) REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:f5365aa15d]Brent wrote:
On 2009-08-06, Major Debacle <major_debacle at (no spam) REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
Rich is relative. More correct to say that O2 sensors are damaged by too
high a percentage of unburned HCs in the exhaust stream. Cats are
actually designed to burn off HCs before expelling the resultant
exhaust. That is what an air pump is designed to do. It injects a stream
of air into the cat expressly for the purpose of combining the O2 in the
air with HCs in order to burn them off.
Air pump? If there's a modern car on the market that needs an air pump
to meet emissions I suggest not buying it.
It's not 1975 any longer. Air pumps and other kludges are gone and
the root problem of real time fuel mixture adjustments was
addressed. Modern systems hold the fuel mixture near perfect.
Point being made was that burning HCs in the cat don't necessarily lead
to cat failure.
[/quote:f5365aa15d]
So you're just making a lame usenet point when anyone with a clue
understood what Nate wrote perfectly. Gotcha. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
