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.

 

The mystery of 100+ mpg cars, and the disappearance & deaths of men behind it

page: 4
109
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by mossme89
 
My experience as a backyard mechanic one day ...I had read in a article from a hot rod mag. a solution to a problem I was having as well as other muscle car enthusiast have ..The problem with detonation ..it happens when the fuels octane is too low for the combination of compression and engine timeing ...By using a higher octane fuel you eliminate it ,but the cost is higher ....The solution in the mag.article was to use a water injection kit ..I think it was called verra injection ...I understood the principal so I took a water reservoir with a built in pump .(wind shield washer ) and run a simple line to the carb on the air intake side ....Sure enough it worked ...I noticed something else , When I turned the water on while driving the car went faster without giving it more throttle ...and as long as I drove that car and it was for 3 years every time I went to change the spark plugs they were as good as the first day I put them in . oh and my gas mileage went from about 18 to 25 mpg..things that make you go ummm.....peace




posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
I remember some Volkswagen Gulfs got 65 MPG back in the early '90s if my memory isn't flawed -- and we are in the 21st century and some cars are BRAGGING about 35 MPG?

While I agree that cars are not anywhere as efficient as they could be -- this "do away with the carburetor" and replacing it with a filter that turns gas into fumes sounds like a distinction without a difference -- that's what the carburetor is supposed to be doing anyway.

Maybe he had a more efficient carb -- maybe he's heating it hot enough to fire but it doesn't get oxygen until it hits the cylinder.

If he is merely doing away with a carb and substituting air from the outlet as the air the combined with fuel -- then his device can heat the fuel/air to a higher temperature. Getting it MUCH hotter means you don't need a spark plug -- but you've got something that cannot have an air leak or it will blow up in the line leading to the engine.

Most new engines have a bit of feedback from the outlet to "reburn" some of the air from the pistons in case there is unused fuel. If you starve the piston MORE and heat the air much hotter, there is a chance that you get a more efficient burn than with the spark and cooler fuel/air. This might just be re-inventing diesel yet applied to regular gas. Other than profit-taking, I'm not sure why diesel fuel costs more than regular gas.

>> I used to play around with some ideas for engines as a kid -- but I figured that we would have other fuel sources by this time.

What REALLY needs to happen is that we junk the fossil fuels because we cannot afford to use it anymore -- unless of course we have a combustion engine that re-uses ALL the carbon monoxide or has some device that traps it.

>> Another way to achieve more efficiency is with a device invented by the same "rocket scientist" who left NASA and created the "super soaker" toy water gun. He has a device that can use HEAT to create electricity if you've got a large enough thermal difference -- and a hotter running engine would be ideal. It works by having a very thin molecular membrane that allows a hydrogen ion to be forced through by heat (basically a proton or a proton with a neutron), it recombines with an electron in the "cooler" chamber -- which causes a current flow. Then this chamber is heated and the hydrogen is "burned", producing a free proton again for a moment that gets trapped in the other, now cooler but lower pressure chamber.

By rotating the chamber into and out of heat, the reaction keeps going. The efficiency is dependent on how ideal the material is at transmitting heat (and carbon nanotubes seem ideal), and how much heat concentration you can get. And of course, how thin you can make the barrier with an ideal density that it restricts hydrogen but not single protons -- which is probably a lot of work for material scientists to get thin enough without being weak.


>> I can't argue the "conspiracy" to kill people who engineer better weapons -- but I would argue to anyone that there is NOT THE WILL and the MEANS to do it. The Oil Companies met with Dick Cheney at the Energy Task Force Meeting and carved up Iraq -- they wanted to punish Saddam for kicking them out and force Iraq to stay on dollar denominated oil trades or their economic house of cards could collapse. Over 100,000 people dead, 2 million displaced, and probably another million kids will be born deformed over the decades from Depleted Uranium. Even Chiquita Banana hired mercenaries to kill Union organizers trying to help banana pickers get a fair deal.

People get killed all the time for the sake of profits and maintaining the status quo. I'm no longer under any child like illusions that Honor and competing on Better ideas has anything to do with the world we live in.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
I remember some Volkswagen Gulfs got 65 MPG back in the early '90s if my memory isn't flawed -- and we are in the 21st century and some cars are BRAGGING about 35 MPG?

While I agree that cars are not anywhere as efficient as they could be -- this "do away with the carburetor" and replacing it with a filter that turns gas into fumes sounds like a distinction without a difference -- that's what the carburetor is supposed to be doing anyway.

Maybe he had a more efficient carb -- maybe he's heating it hot enough to fire but it doesn't get oxygen until it hits the cylinder.

If he is merely doing away with a carb and substituting air from the outlet as the air the combined with fuel -- then his device can heat the fuel/air to a higher temperature. Getting it MUCH hotter means you don't need a spark plug -- but you've got something that cannot have an air leak or it will blow up in the line leading to the engine.

Most new engines have a bit of feedback from the outlet to "reburn" some of the air from the pistons in case there is unused fuel. If you starve the piston MORE and heat the air much hotter, there is a chance that you get a more efficient burn than with the spark and cooler fuel/air. This might just be re-inventing diesel yet applied to regular gas. Other than profit-taking, I'm not sure why diesel fuel costs more than regular gas.

>> I used to play around with some ideas for engines as a kid -- but I figured that we would have other fuel sources by this time.

What REALLY needs to happen is that we junk the fossil fuels because we cannot afford to use it anymore -- unless of course we have a combustion engine that re-uses ALL the carbon monoxide or has some device that traps it.

>> Another way to achieve more efficiency is with a device invented by the same "rocket scientist" who left NASA and created the "super soaker" toy water gun. He has a device that can use HEAT to create electricity if you've got a large enough thermal difference -- and a hotter running engine would be ideal. It works by having a very thin molecular membrane that allows a hydrogen ion to be forced through by heat (basically a proton or a proton with a neutron), it recombines with an electron in the "cooler" chamber -- which causes a current flow. Then this chamber is heated and the hydrogen is "burned", producing a free proton again for a moment that gets trapped in the other, now cooler but lower pressure chamber.

By rotating the chamber into and out of heat, the reaction keeps going. The efficiency is dependent on how ideal the material is at transmitting heat (and carbon nanotubes seem ideal), and how much heat concentration you can get. And of course, how thin you can make the barrier with an ideal density that it restricts hydrogen but not single protons -- which is probably a lot of work for material scientists to get thin enough without being weak.


>> I can't argue the "conspiracy" to kill people who engineer better weapons -- but I would argue to anyone that there is NOT THE WILL and the MEANS to do it. The Oil Companies met with Dick Cheney at the Energy Task Force Meeting and carved up Iraq -- they wanted to punish Saddam for kicking them out and force Iraq to stay on dollar denominated oil trades or their economic house of cards could collapse. Over 100,000 people dead, 2 million displaced, and probably another million kids will be born deformed over the decades from Depleted Uranium. Even Chiquita Banana hired mercenaries to kill Union organizers trying to help banana pickers get a fair deal.

People get killed all the time for the sake of profits and maintaining the status quo. I'm no longer under any child like illusions that Honor and competing on Better ideas has anything to do with the world we live in.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   
It's a problem they dont want to solve.....smh...and when someone comes around who's willing to solve it, they mysteriously die or vanish.... I wish some billionaire would step forward who had the BALLS to develop a car to run on 100+mpg and than present it to the world.... It's much easier to shut up some nobody, but it would be much harder to shut up a known billionaire who has the resources to do whatever he wants...



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   
When gas hits 2-3 dollars per liter, I will be getting out of dodge. The economy won't be able to handle those prices.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by the2ofusr1
 

Yes, I remember those, they were called "Water Injection Systems." They worked because the water cooled the mixture, which eliminated detonation, (remember that problem too) and the steam took all of the carbon out, in other words, steam-cleaned the combustion chambers as you drove. Trouble is, water steam will not combust, but Hydrogen will. What I do is split the molecules of the water into hydrogen and oxygen using electrolysis, twice as much hydrogen as oxygen, thus the term "HHO." I "excite" the water in the reactors with KOH.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
I just dunno
Nowadays if someone boasted such a huge claim, I'd call bullspit.
Why put yourself in danger when you know you will not make a buck off of it?
Put your blueprints and schematics online open source and if it works, people will make the modifications.
Will the Gumment arrest the larger part of the population??
I don't think so.
But the guys out there who claim to have a system and will give you the secret for a price...
Yep, scammin.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by mossme89

Originally posted by DaRAGE
I've heard about these carburetors for ages. I want one.

I want to believe!

I just dont understand why car companies dont just release these carburetors that can do that..

People would FLOCK to that company to buy their cars.
edit on 27-1-2012 by DaRAGE because: (no reason given)

It's not the car companies, it's big oil. If an average person's gas efficiency was multiplied by 5, then they would only buy 1/5 as much gas, meaning the oil companies only get 1/5 as much profit from a person than now.

It's really comes down to greed.


You say "It's not the car companies, it's big oil."

If you dig you will find the people who own the car companies are big oil.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 
I knew there was a reason I only read the first sentence and rolled on threw ...thanks for the link to that other thread ..




posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 
I think the water hitting the hot chamber expanded and released more o2 and worked like a turbo ..a small amount of boost I think ...peace



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
It blows my mind that there is a design out there for ridiculous fuel-efficiency and the Govt. isnt making it a mandatory requirement to all companies that want to do business here in the US.... I bet that would stimulate our economy... Companies would be able to sell and move products so much cheaper... With that cost being minimized they could reinvest the saved money into new hires, infrastructure, etc...



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
I always find it interesting that so many inventors have "accidents" when their inventions will make someone powerful lose money. It is enough to scare most people into hiding or to destroy their designs.

If anyone on here is an inventor of such a product or personally knows someone who has invented such a product and is afraid of what might happen to them if they release it, send me a private message. I'll personally take all the risk involved along with the threats to get this product into the market while you get rich off it. I'm not in it for greed. If your product will make you billions then I just ask for a couple million.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   
The change to better efficiency began long ago because what is happening now has been catalyzed long ago. Its a ripple effect upon ripple effects.

The complete change will most likely occur after reaching the threshold, emitting chaos. What can we expect during periods of chaos? Like anything shown in history, first there will be confusion. Then there will be war, but it won't be the end. There will be losses, but it won't be the end.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 
I was thinking that if you were to use you hh system along with water and a plasma spark plug ,it should yield a pretty good result ..I watched a youtube vid of a guy spraying water on a plasma spark plug and he was getting bigger bangs ...add a little hydrogen which has a big bang along with the water that might be releasing small quantise of o2 as well as h ..I don't know but might be worth considering ...peace



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by fuzzy0087
 
Or maybe you work for TPTB and would take care of the problem for the oil companies

peace



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
I believe there are carbs that can achieve more then what is beig sold.
Now for something a little different but true.
In 1974 my father and his brother designed and patent pended an Oil Filter for Diesel Engines (trucks and heavy equipment) utilizing the housing that most trucks have the Luber Finer 750 by-pass filter.
Their invention created the oil crank case oil to flow through 100% virgin cellulose with a flow plate added to top of filter element. They ran LAb Test's and marketed the filter with seed money they had invested. Du Pont ran the new system on several of their fleet rucks for 500,000 miles without ever changing the Oil in Crankcase. All reports when element was changed every 300 hrs came back totally clean with no contaminents and still cleaning agents in tact.
They had many customers, but where in constant court battles with Mobil who sued them to cease from production stating it caused damage to engines and that Oil must be changed in order for engine to be maintained properly. They ran my dad out of money in courts right to heart failure and filter was ceased in production. Thanks to Mobil Oil.
Well what dad did have was a Confidential Report that I have that he had paid an Investigated to take from Mobils Labs on the actually Lab results of their own test's. I have the report. Report states that the Oil was found to be Perfect condition as new when crankcase oil pan was removed from a test vehicle after 500,000 miles.
DuPont also reported the same results that their engines still met OEM spec's as such of a new engine.
Now here is fact.
oil never wears out. Why?
Go to a refinery and learn the process. What is the process?
The more you heat and cool the oil the more refined it gets.
Why did the oil remain clean as new?
Because it the filter cleaned everything to 0.05 microns which is the finest filtration such as Lab testing.
The big plus besides cost and oil disposal was that the filter also removed water from engine block in case of a gasket seal leak.
plus upon removal every month of filter element you could see the wear on your engine by examining the top of the element. If you needed a screw driver to get it out it was filled with up to a gallon of water. Thus saving your engine.
Now do the math:
48 quarts of oil in crank case + 12 quarts in housing x 12 months x cost per quart equalizing 60 qts @ $2.80 per qt + WHAT?
Then add the old style element cost times $15 x 12 = WHAT?
Add that up.

Now my Dad's Filter.

12qts in housing x $2.80 = x 12 months = What?
Element $15 x 12 = What?

Now your hazardous waste removal fee per gallon a year is WHAT?

Now multiply the totals for one truck for both systems and multiply that by say 2 million trucks on the road +WHAT the Frak! Ton's of oil being wasted and money to boot.

But the story is you can't win against BIG OIL, NO WAY!!!!!

I still have reports and design drawings and knowledge on how to make it.
Any one know a foreign country that isn't influenced by BIG OIL. I don't think so, so it will never be seen cause it works and can help save our Oil situation.

And that ain't gonna ever happen.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
If CSX can move a ton of freight, 423 miles on 1 gallon of fuel,




Why can't the auto industry figure out how to do it?



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by mossme89
With gas prices close to $4 a gallon again in many areas, and a possible war with Iran looming, meaning gas prices could reach upwards of $7



Christ would be so happy if fuel was $7 a gallon here in the uk , just filled up with diesel last night and it works out to just over $10 a gallon!!



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by XL5
 


A friend just wrapped the copper fuel line around the exhaust,so it preheated the fuel before it headed into the carb.He claimed a big boost in the mileage.I had an old english A30..the way the carb was positioned above the exhaust made starting after a quick stop difficult as the fuel got vaporised in the carb ..but i was getting 50 mpg back than.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by the2ofusr1
 


During a job on a building site, one of the trucks got a lot of water in the fuel due to a rainstorm, I told the foreman,who just shrugged and poured a capfull of meths into the tank...he said it makes the water and petrol combine,This got me thinking how much meth and how much water???Since there was a lot of water in the tank and only a capfull of meths to make it combine, you would think their might be some fuel saving there.After a few turns the truck turned over and carried on as normal.



new topics

top topics



 
109
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join