It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Big oil conspiracy! 376mpg Opel car back in 1973

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by survivalstation

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by picrat
 

I don't know where Shell's data is on the nitrogen enrichment, but I will say that I would rather put that into my car before hooking up some "HHO" or likewise device peddled by crackpots.


And that type of thinking is exactly the reason why the average U.S. car only gets 24MPG. I doubt if Newton, da Vinci, Tesla or Einstein would have thought the same way.
I don't think Di Vinci had access to cars in his day.




posted on May, 18 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Way back in the day -- No in the late 60's I drove a 1953 Ford with a 85 hp V-8.

At the time gas cost 29.9 cents per gallon.

I would check my milage by going to the same pump, once a week, and allowing the pump to stop filling on it's own so the gas tank should have been at almost the same level each time.

I then calculated my milage by the amount of gas used and the miles driven.

I always came out with the same numbers -- 32 mpg.

It was almost getting paid to drive.


I have my own opinions as to why our "modern technology" has decreased our milage so badly, but it will have to be kept for another day.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


It doesn't matter if he did or not. The point is everyone I named thought "outside the box."

You can cite all the scientifically accepted "laws" you want, as far as I'm concerned, laws were made to be broken.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by survivalstation
reply to post by boncho
 


It doesn't matter if he did or not. The point is everyone I named thought "outside the box."

You can cite all the scientifically accepted "laws" you want, as far as I'm concerned, laws were made to be broken.

One thing the data would suggest is that sometimes you have to suspend "KNOWN" principles and laws or very few things get discovered. Tesla cerntainly worked outside the box. From what I studied about it, Marconi then "invented" the radio officially in an 'Atlas Shrugged' intellectual theft scenario where Nikola was apparently robbed of his invention of radio transmission of energy. After all a radio broadcast is exactly the way electricity was to be sent to our homes. J. P. Morgan could not get rich off of that one so he scrapped Tesla and the government of the day took the data. What the've done with it is certainly fodder for ATS threads.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by survivalstation
reply to post by boncho
 


It doesn't matter if he did or not. The point is everyone I named thought "outside the box."

You can cite all the scientifically accepted "laws" you want, as far as I'm concerned, laws were made to be broken.


There is thinking outside the box, and there is, thinking outside of reality. To think outside the box and make new laws you have to understand the current ones, or at least discover something novel that will either be explained by yourself our someone else.

This thread is not about that however, this is a sensationalist thread with bad information in the OP, that ignored facts about the subject matter. Misrepresented information and flat out lies do not help anyone think outside the box.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by survivalstation
reply to post by boncho
 


It doesn't matter if he did or not. The point is everyone I named thought "outside the box."

You can cite all the scientifically accepted "laws" you want, as far as I'm concerned, laws were made to be broken.


There is thinking outside the box, and there is, thinking outside of reality. To think outside the box and make new laws you have to understand the current ones, or at least discover something novel that will either be explained by yourself our someone else.

This thread is not about that however, this is a sensationalist thread with bad information in the OP, that ignored facts about the subject matter. Misrepresented information and flat out lies do not help anyone think outside the box.


Always with those negative waves, eh boncho?



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by anumohi
you can vaporize fuel by preheating it and it being sucked through a screen into the intake, but the greatest way to increase fuel efficiency is through gear reduction. the more gears you have the less fuel is required.
also the shorter the stroke and diameter of the piston requires less fuel as well timing.


This



New engine sends shock waves through auto industry

Researchers at Michigan State University have built a prototype gasoline engine that requires no transmission, crankshaft, pistons, valves, fuel compression, cooling systems or fluids.

The engine has a rotor that's equipped with wave-like channels that trap and mix oxygen and fuel as the rotor spins. These central inlets are blocked off, building pressure within the chamber, causing a shock wave that ignites the compressed air and fuel to transmit energy.

The Wave Disk Generator uses 60 percent of its fuel for propulsion; standard car engines use just 15 percent. Researchers estimate the new model could shave almost 1,000 pounds off a car's weight currently taken up by conventional engine systems.


www.msnbc.msn.com...
edit on 18-5-2011 by METACOMET because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


You do make some very good points, but frankly you sound like the local shell dealership


Despite all the advances espoused by manufacturers and fuel companies alike, neither has a vested interest in a long running, efficient car, and this is confirmed by the 5 year lifespan of modern cars, and the fact that despite lowering weight, increasing burn efficiency, and all sorts of other tricks, is still only giving the same numbers as the 50's.

When you include the actual cost per vehicle, and compare maintenance and repairs, well we're not really any better off are we? The stupidly high fuel price only means that it costs more for me to get anywhere than before.

Yes there has been a lot of changes in motor vehicle production over the last century, but not as much true progress of they would have us believe.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by harryhaller
 




When you include the actual cost per vehicle, and compare maintenance and repairs, well we're not really any better off are we? The stupidly high fuel price only means that it costs more for me to get anywhere than before.

Yes there has been a lot of changes in motor vehicle production over the last century, but not as much true progress of they would have us believe.


And there is no responsibility by the consumer at all? There has always been options for people to buy better fuel efficient cars as well as buying cars that are of better quality.

Consumer demand has pushed a lot of the crap there is into the market.

While there has been many decisions based on profit by the car companies, it is the people that buy the cars that are making the choices of which models they buy.

You also have the option of taking public transport, and for people who are in areas that don't have decent public transport you have the option of lobbying your local representatives to provide better systems in the future.

While business and politics does not always lead us down the most beneficial/logical path, it is a driving force for society.

So either say something that is realistic, make individual changes or sit blindly while other people call the shots. It is not some mass conspiracy but rather apathy on the consumer level.

And if you can't see changes in cars from the 50's until today than you are completely blind. There are many things that have improved, emissions being one of the biggest.

For the people that were expecting flying cars that run on a drop of gasoline by the year 2000, it was never realistic.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by picrat
reply to post by daddio
 


nitrogen enriched gasoline -i wonder what brain dead moron that works for the oil giant came up with this fanciful farce of an idea.i would like to know how they came up with this brilliant scam of theirs . as it is just another way of fleecing us their customers.
the reason being that i work for a u.s. based food company and we use nitrogen to blanket our cooking oil so that it does not go rancid in the holding tanks .key word here is BLANKET ;meaning that it forms a layer above the oil to keep the air from getting to the oil.
being as that nitrogen is a colorless odorless GAS that floats above a liquid ,how in the hell did they combine the 2 ,the old gag of go to the stockroom and get me a bucket full of air to the new kid on the block,they must think we are as gullible as can be .


Exactly, I use compressed Nitrogen in my motorcycle shocks. Under compression, the Nitrogen COOLS the oil and the shock body. That is why I find it so funny, we use it in food barrels to keep the grain or seed from rotting and so forth, so who in their right mind would think it would work in a combustion engine?

I could only laugh when I see these people do the commercials, they have NO IDEA what they are promoting and don't care, they get a paycheck out of it.

That is what I hear everywhere, from cops to mechanics, "I still get a check on friday", so they do not care WHO they screw over. Isn't that the great American ideology these days!!!! How very sad for humanity everywhere.

All you have to do is look at a Formula 1 car for milage. 700 HP and back in the day it was 1100 hp out of 3 to 3.5 liter engines. And the milage is insane!!



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by survivalstation

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by picrat
 

I don't know where Shell's data is on the nitrogen enrichment, but I will say that I would rather put that into my car before hooking up some "HHO" or likewise device peddled by crackpots.


And that type of thinking is exactly the reason why the average U.S. car only gets 24MPG. I doubt if Newton, da Vinci, Tesla or Einstein would have thought the same way.


Da Vinci designed flying machines...

Did he take any off the side of a cliff?




top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join