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: 5
109
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ANNED
 


so as i live in a state with out smog laws can you reccomend a process for incresing the mpg of my jeep?its decent at about 26ish (v6) but id like it to be better dont know how to fiddle with fuel injection but im sure i could figure it out if it saves me money im all for it




posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pelvi
reply to post by DaRAGE
 


If you were a big wig executive for say.. GM.. and all of the gas companies paid you a pretty penny to NOT create these vehicles, what would you do? Now I know right now you say, turn it down. Well then you gotta remind yourself that no one has showed up at your doorstep yet offering say.. 50 million. Maybe even more for all we know


It would have to be a much MUCH higher payoff than that. In June 2010 (Just the first link that popped up) there were 38,541 Ford F150s sold. If they just raised the price by $1000 (I assume with this kind of tech it would go up quite a bit more than a grand) the company would make an additional 38.5 million a month give or take. Take into consideration that sales would skyrocket with the introduction of this and you are looking at a payoff well into the billions to even make the manufacturer consider it.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   
In Japan there are clubs that maximize the mileage of a Toyoto Prius. They drive very carefully, and get over 100 mpg. You can build your own 3 wheeler, with a small motorcycle engine, and with an aerodynamic body, you can get over 100 mpg.
There is no conspiracy from the auto companies. Everything is a tradeoff between what customers are willing to buy, and how much it costs to produce a car. I was an engineer at one. GM in fact. Whatever else you may say about GM, they are very sincere in trying to make fuel efficient cars.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
All this talk about gasoline....

How about we forget about gasoline, and switch BACK to alcohol?

Lets stop paying big oil for the privilege of disposing of their industrial waste?



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by mossme89
Well what many people don't realize is that the carburetor is EXTREMELY inefficient.



That's correct, they are quite inefficient. But they're not inefficient in the respect that a 25 mpg car should be getting 100 mpg as some people think. Rather, they are in the 10-20% range of inefficiency. This is why you can't find them on production cars anymore, they've been replaced with fuel injection which is much more efficient. Basically what is described in the OP is a very primitive (and likely unreliable) form of fuel injection, so while you imply that the industry ignored what this man was doing, in fact it was the opposite, they have embraced it and incorporated it into all modern vehicles. Except modern fuel injection is a far cry from his simplistic system.

There's really no secret regarding how to get extreme gas mileage, all you have to do is get a Prius or Civic Hybrid and change the way you drive. There are "hypermilers" that drive these cars and get 60+ mpg pretty consistently. The problem is Americans don't want small cars, they want big land yachts, and they want to drive them like they're freakin' AJ Foyt. What we need to change is public perception, we need to somehow convince people to quit driving living rooms on wheels and embrace fuel efficient cars instead. Personally I don't think it'll happen until the price of gas goes to the moon and people are forced into it.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Op, your asking a question that you already answered. The paradigm of it is our governemnt since 1954 has increased it's technology 44 percent per year. You do the math as i am currently cooking ribs, but this technology has been around, but the puppeters do not want it getting out. Thus, the suicides, estranges deaths. I mean so easy to assume what is going on a fifth grader could understand.
Thanks however for the info



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by anonentity
 



A friend just wrapped the copper fuel line around the exhaust,so it preheated the fuel before it .ed into the carb.

Nothing dangerous about that.



He claimed a big boost in the mileage.

Placebo effect. Heating the fuel does not increase its chemical potential energy.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by mossme89
 



Seems simple, right? Well what many people don't realize is that the carburetor is EXTREMELY inefficient.

The internal combustion engine is extremely inefficient. The carburetor does not waste any fuel as it feeds it to the engine.


So… It doesn't take a genius to realize that if that fuel could be used more for kinetic energy than heat, than cars would be incredibly efficient.

A problem of the combustion process, not the method of feeding fuel into the combustion chamber.


Even at 50% efficiency, a Hummer, which struggles to get 10mpg, could get 40mpg.

Hummers are fuel injected.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by drock905
There are millions of people in the USA alone that work on their cars, hundreds of magazines dedicated to achieving the highest performance and efficiency out of their motors. To think that if this was possible and no one is pursuing it in the hobby world and the fact that it isn't common knowledge and repeatable proves to me that it's a hoax at best and at worst a scam to swindle automotive illiterate people out of their money. It's scary how many people have absolutely zero idea of how a machine they use everyday of their adult lives even works.

Automotive companies are hugely competitive, spending billions of dollars on research . every new model is a giant leap in tech, their competitors have to be better every time and if they fail they lose their jobs. To think that a company would keep tech like this in the modern era secret and hidden is kind of ridiculous in my opinion.

Automotive journalists are pretty good, one of the best at uncovering industry secrets. There are very few stories that stay secret in that world for very long and something this big would not be a secret.

Oh and carburetors haven't been used on production cars for 25+ years.

edit on 27-1-2012 by drock905 because: (no reason given)


Not to kill you buzz Einstein but we're talking about something that was happening 25+ years ago, hence why they explain carburators as if they are still being used today... And even though carburators aren't use the principle is still very plausible and could be done today provide you have the proper skills and knowledge.


Now you can argue if you want but I just called my best buddy who's conveniently a mechanic engineer...



Yes there is magazines everywhere and people trying to get better performance out of their car but have you ever opened any of them??? THEY ARE ALL ABOUT HORSEPOWER! find me one thats dedicated to economically productive mods for fun...

Ask ANYONE that's been doing mechanic long enough if they'd rather use torch/welder close to a tank of gas that's full or one that's 1/4 full...

Now you engine NEEDS an explosion to work with, NOT HEAT, the heat is a byproduct of the explosion that pushes the piston down. Fumes will create a bigger/swiffer explosion but it'll be much cooler as the gas slow down this reaction creating much much more heat.

Same principle why people will buy water/methanol kits, primary it does more HP due to its "octane boosting if you will" effect... But the BIG thing about it is that the water cools down the engine operation from the INSIDE... That does TONS of goodies to your engine and components


edit on 28-1-2012 by _R4t_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   
I was talking to a 75 year old man about the 100 mpg carb.He said he had a old dodge truck years ago that he use to have that was a pig on gas.He said he put a stainless steel screen under his carb to help vaporize the fuel and it almost doubled his fuel economy!He also said something about preheating the fuel before it hit the carb.Going to have to try this out.Great post op thanks.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   
I have tested this myself. I have videos of the vaporizer I built and the testing. i was able to double the run time of the generator, but the results were a combination of factors not only related to vaporization of the fuel. The exhaust accounted for 10%, the magnets (surprisingly enough) added 10% and the vaporizer could make up the remainder dependent on load. www.youtube.com...

When the early vaporizers were used the gas had less plastic additives because they contained lead for the valve seats. In the 80's that changed and teflon was used instead. What i found from the vaporization was that a small seed would form in an elbow on the intake and become a large obstruction over time until the entire intake was clogged with a teflon ball. I would have to remove the elbow and dig out the obstruction. If this were on a car it would go about a thousand miles and stop running.

Pantone is the designer of the system I used except for my own modifications. There have been others as well as fully hho or hydrogen/oxygen engines. An electric hydrogen generator was made to resonate at the frequency of the metal tubes or plates and the cell would act like a coil resonating at its critical frequency creating excess energy beyond what Faraday had calculated with conventional electrical principles. I have witnessed this phenomenon personally while testing hydrogen generators, but have never been able to replicate the anomaly. It is possible to resonate a cell, but it is akin to tuning the finest piano electronically.

There have also been plenty of scam artists involved in fringe sciences. recently a guy promised 50% gains on vehicles that installed his hydrogen systems. The systems were inefficient and overpriced and never produced the desired results. This same guy had been selling stock in a company that made an electric motor which used a small input for the huge output. He went to jail for that one.

I am of the opinion that if it cannot be replicated that does not disprove it, but I would love to see someone prove that their device is doing anything I have not been able to do myself. I have never had an engine running on hydrogen and oxygen HHO but I have seen it even though the hydrogen generator used more power than the motor could produce. Not very practical, but still cheaper than gas for a stationary engine.

I have been waiting for someone to show up on my steps for years. If I made a claim I could not absolutely back up I would not only expect a knock, I would deserve it. Some of the ideas put out were untested and purely theoretical, but never worked in all conditions. My tests showed that I could lose all my gains from vaporization just by placing the engine under max load where it needed more fuel.

Not enough money is spent right now with real innovators. The people who get the grants have professional grant writers and scientists on staff. It truly limits innovation by discriminating against open minded inventors. It will always be a struggle of the haves and have-nots, but right now J.P. Morgan is still fighting to control his energy even though he himself died a long time ago. The legacy is the norm and the noose will get ever tighter until oil is a memory. By that time the energy gurus will have bought all of the smaller companies and begaun a new empire based on plasma.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by RMFX1

Originally posted by Stryc9nine
tom ogle story makes me sad. you know he was murdered.




and for the record, there is no reason why the oil companies wouldn't want more life out of their gas. In fact, it would be beneficial to them. If we figure out a way to get 5 times the mileage per gallo, they can simply increase the price by 5 times and that way they have a longer run at the profit. It would simply last longer and if we were paying the same price to travel the same distance that we do now..who would really complain?

This conspiracy theory makes no sense at all.


This isn't actually correct. The reason if Fiat Currency. You'll note that during the fake energy crises, the ME cartel was set up to be a regulator for fiat currency. Oil was, up until recently (check Iraq) exclusively in Federal Reserve Notes. When the Fed wanted to print more notes for wars and mfg hardware etc, making sure the American Reimbursement System would pay it back, the were stuck with the problem of inflation. The key here was the ability to raise the price of oil, thereby pulling reserve notes out of America and putting them into the ME countries - whereby they were often NOT put back into circulation. The price of oil keeps the value of the Fed note higher than it should be. Iraq broke free from the petro dollar scheme first and look what happened.

As for the oil companies influence. I know some one personally who had a design for a car battery that never needed replacing. He took it to GM and was not only shown the door, but told his life would be ruined if he tried to show it elsewhere - that ruined his life.

One needs to understand that the controllers don't need anything we need. They are not in it for the greater good, but for control.

As for those who say "well, no hobbyist has solved the problem yet," there for it can't be solved is using a kind of bizzare logic that stands up only in the court of barroom arguing. Much of the reason that state has some validity is that most of those folks are trying to improve what exists, not make something new, as such their focus is not on beyond what is. The other problem with "them" is they are often working to improve things based on rules of competition, so there is no reason to think beyond competition rules.

Lastly, the may problem here is that way back when the engine was created, it was designed as we see it. The only wildly different design worth noting is the Rotary Engine, but other than that, we have been simply trying to improve what is - many seek to make sure maximization of that aren't in order. Folks say "the engine perfection is xyz based on computer models and calculations etc." and the problem is this: they look for the engine to look and work like it has for 100 years. They don't toss away the engine and look for something new.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   
So that guy became a raging alcoholic then "killed" himself at 26? yeah I can see that......not.

Its easy to see how much the energy companies are in bed with all the bad guys as well, its like they know we know and just laugh about it......



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by onecraftydude
I have tested this myself. I have videos of the vaporizer I built and the testing. i was able to double the run time of the generator, but the results were a combination of factors not only related to vaporization of the fuel. The exhaust accounted for 10%, the magnets (surprisingly enough) added 10% and the vaporizer could make up the remainder dependent on load. www.youtube.com...

When the early vaporizers were used the gas had less plastic additives because they contained lead for the valve seats. In the 80's that changed and teflon was used instead. What i found from the vaporization was that a small seed would form in an elbow on the intake and become a large obstruction over time until the entire intake was clogged with a teflon ball. I would have to remove the elbow and dig out the obstruction. If this were on a car it would go about a thousand miles and stop running.

Pantone is the designer of the system I used except for my own modifications. There have been others as well as fully hho or hydrogen/oxygen engines. An electric hydrogen generator was made to resonate at the frequency of the metal tubes or plates and the cell would act like a coil resonating at its critical frequency creating excess energy beyond what Faraday had calculated with conventional electrical principles. I have witnessed this phenomenon personally while testing hydrogen generators, but have never been able to replicate the anomaly. It is possible to resonate a cell, but it is akin to tuning the finest piano electronically.

There have also been plenty of scam artists involved in fringe sciences. recently a guy promised 50% gains on vehicles that installed his hydrogen systems. The systems were inefficient and overpriced and never produced the desired results. This same guy had been selling stock in a company that made an electric motor which used a small input for the huge output. He went to jail for that one.

I am of the opinion that if it cannot be replicated that does not disprove it, but I would love to see someone prove that their device is doing anything I have not been able to do myself. I have never had an engine running on hydrogen and oxygen HHO but I have seen it even though the hydrogen generator used more power than the motor could produce. Not very practical, but still cheaper than gas for a stationary engine.

I have been waiting for someone to show up on my steps for years. If I made a claim I could not absolutely back up I would not only expect a knock, I would deserve it. Some of the ideas put out were untested and purely theoretical, but never worked in all conditions. My tests showed that I could lose all my gains from vaporization just by placing the engine under max load where it needed more fuel.

Not enough money is spent right now with real innovators. The people who get the grants have professional grant writers and scientists on staff. It truly limits innovation by discriminating against open minded inventors. It will always be a struggle of the haves and have-nots, but right now J.P. Morgan is still fighting to control his energy even though he himself died a long time ago. The legacy is the norm and the noose will get ever tighter until oil is a memory. By that time the energy gurus will have bought all of the smaller companies and begaun a new empire based on plasma.


Yes it would need to be under pressure so that it delivers more fumes when needed I guess... Was that on engines that used carbs or fuel injection you've tested on? I'm thinking perhaps a system that collect the expanded fumes in the tank and compress them either in a tank with a throttle based regulator that allows more/less fumes depending on how you press the gas.

This could be done easy using arduino and some basic electronic/chip programming. Maybe using a small turbo compressor to take the fumes and compress them prior to be injected in the cylinder.
edit on 28-1-2012 by _R4t_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by _R4t_
 



with a throttle based regulator that allows more/less fumes depending on how you press the gas.

Fuel injectors already perform this role with the advantage of not needing extra systems to convert and store fumes in.


Maybe using a small turbo compressor to take the fumes and compress them prior to be injected in the cylinder.

No need to waste energy pre-compressing the air/fuel, this role is already performed by the piston prior to combustion.


edit on 28-1-2012 by DrinkYourDrug because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   
It pisses me off to see so many "know it alls" and negitivity, from people who have an education in fields related to this thread. It is possible to double or triple the (if not more) efficiency.

The fuel air mixture has always been wrong. I wonder if it was intentional from the start. I would not think so.
There was a local guy, 3-5 years ago produceing something incredible with the fuel system.
The gasoline engine is a simple system compared to some of the nuclear powered systems driving some of our most powerfull warships. The local gas company provides a system for cars to drive using natural gas, fill up right in your own garage overnight. As for fuel injection, I can't help but to wonder if that was something done to eliminate or weigh down the possibility of discovering more fuel opertunities. But anyway it very ignorant to say something is impossible, when we have more then one claim of this happening. If you have that kind of education, they go a. and say its beyond YOU and YOUR education level. Other wise go a. and continue to tell these folks the world is flat, and keeping looking like a disinfo agent.
edit on 28-1-2012 by punisher2012 because: more to say



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Why is it that so many people think all cars have terribly inefficient methods of delivering fuel to the engine and that changing this could somehow reduce the amount of heat produced as a result of combusting the fuel or increase the potential chemical energy stored in the fuel?


reply to post by punisher2012
 


It pisses me off to see so many "know it alls" and negitivity, from people who have an education in fields related to this thread.

Perhaps it is because their education in engineering and mechanical fields frees them from the common misconceptions and ignorance surrounding this topic?


It is possible to double or triple the (if not more) efficiency.

No.


edit on 28-1-2012 by DrinkYourDrug because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 09:15 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.


i believe that is partly false. Ive read an article that said someone tried to patent one of these and the Patent Office contacted the man back ans said that General Motors Inc. (GM) had already owned a patent that was too similar. so that would contradict what you said. Just my two cents



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by mossme89
 


My first partner built a one cylinder 300 HP engine and had it patented. He was a plasma scientist. He was sick and his illness seemed to be precipitated and accelerated by an engineer that visited him (more on that later).

I'll call him Rob for posting and privacy purposes. After the engineer visited him, he pretty much died several months after. Rob patented many other ingenious feats of science.

Rob was an extremely intelligent engineer. He was hired by SAIC and Westinghouse. He had a short stint in New Mexico at the famous Sandia National Laboratories. He had a Top Secret Security clearance.

Rob had several patents. Every patent that was submitted was reviewed and were called the best patent submissions they ever saw. That...from the patent office.

After he died, I found out that he willed his patents to his mother. All I received was a small insurance payout. Frankly, I'm glad.

Rob was dying from Aids in the mid 90's. What a shame for such a bright human. However, he had a friend visit from an engineering group come to our house. It was quick after that visit, he died two months after. The guy stayed with us and brought his own coffee maker and other personal effects. Guess he kinda knew what was going on. Rob was strong until that visit.

He died shortly after. He left a wake of scratching .s and the pure and utter bereavement. What a beautiful mind and what a loss to the world. The man could of changed the world. He was only 32 when he died. Such a great loss.

Just for a parallel, it was rumored that Nikola Tesla was gay.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 





I remember cars that got 60 mpg out of the factory, I had a 1960 Plymouth Valiant with a slant 6 that did that.


lol The hell you did, I was barely stretching 47 MPG highway in a 1994 Geo metro and that was a 1.1lt straight 3 cyl. Please don't fill this topic with false testimony. The only way you got a 1960 valiant to get that kind of mileage is if it was stripped down to nothing, had a fiberglass shell and it was going down hill the whole time.



new topics

top topics



 
109
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join