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: 6
109
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Here's my thought on what should be done with the 100+ mpg carb:
The US government should take it from big oil or who ever has it and engineer a kit that will retrofit to any vehicle with proper attachments etc. Now before you say "Give? You F-ing crazy!!!"- it would come with a price in the end!
The fuel tax would be raised so much that the operating cost for a car would go down, about 50% of what it is now at $4 per gallon. Everyone would be much happier with reduced costs, the green people would be MUCH happier and the extra taxes from the increase in fuel price would start to take care of that $15+ Trillion debt.
Now if the gas price would be hard to increase since some smart asses would find a way to get it cheaper and cheat the system, the 100+ mpg carbs could be "leased" at a per mile cost.
You might be paying $5 per gallon in the next month, so you would end up paying say $167 a month normally in gas costs (30mpg avg at 1000 miles per month), but with the "leased" carb you would end up paying for $50 in gas for 10 gallons, than an extra $50 per 1000 miles used in "lease fees". The average person would save almost $70 a month in gas costs and Uncle Sam would be that much happier!
$50 per month X per driven automobile = a ton of tax money!




posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude

excellent thread. I see you didn't even mention Stan Meyer, but his little world may well have been a hoax. I am a bit confused as to how Honda could make a CRX HF in 1986 that got 54 miles to the gallon, but now cannot do any better than 40MPG without battery assist.


I totally agree..... my Geo Metro Convertible got 52 HWY and 48 City. That was 20 years ago..........you seriously mean to tell me that the great minds of the auto world have actually managed to go backward from those type of mileages??? I wonder what kind of mileage a Hybrid Geo Metro would get??? Car and Driver put the Metro up against the Prius and Insight and it tied for first place with the Prius for best mileage.

Just following a 2% year increase in mileage performance per year would put the CRX at 90 MPG.

I don't think the auto industry wants to make a super efficient vehicle.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 10:09 PM
link   
One of the biggest problems with a carb is the fact most of them still put in the liquid without atomising it down to a finer amount for the engine to burn efficiently. So if you could atomise the fuel to a fine amount so the engine has to do the least amount of work could be a great thing. Now if you can atomise the fuel extremely fine and also add a second injector to inject water at the same time could make it run even more efficiently.

The one thing I find hard to believe is the replace the carby with a filter because if you run a car too lean it will destroy its self due to heat this maybe why water would help with the cooling side of things. Now if you could have a turbo with fine fuel and water that may work but all depends on the amount of heat that is occuring during operation.

Now this is basically my opinion but basic operation of an engine is not that is fact.
Lean = extremely hot engine then destroyed engine
rich= an car sucking so much fuel it clogs up everything and runs like crap.

A lot of people who have a computer on the electronic injectio have played with leaning out the engine and find it does go a lot better then it blows up.

So what you might want to try first is a way to burn water in a fine form and see if the temp goes down if you can do that then look at the fuel side of things. Now one way I could think of doing this and if the internals of a fuel injector can cope with it is to make a custom inlet manifold or play around with an existing one by putting two sets of injectors into each cyclinder. But this would need you to get the fuel hot enough before it gets to the injector to the right amount and would make the injectors last longer because they wouldn't clog up.

I don't think you need to make water hydrogen first I believe if you do what others have stated is wrapping copper around the exhaust manifold with copper pipes with fuel and water getting the water near boiling point would do what you are after. This whole hydrogen gas thing they want to do I believe is just to get you thinking in the wrong direction of how it should go but think you might require a hydrogen battery sort of set up to get the engine to operating temp them switch it off and run a seperate pump for water. With a lot of sensors you could probably get this all to run automatically.

When I get enough cash or can find a good car to start off with and a shed to work in will most prbably try this and if successful would put this out there for everyone for free and if anyone else trie this before I can hope they do the same but before you do make sure you get all your drawings and blueprints together and post them to yourself and don't open the envelope put away for safe keeping just incase someone tries to make cash off it by patenting it. Doing as I said will show the post office stamp date and prove without a doubt that you were the one that came up with it first.

Well hope I have added some extra info for anyone and hope someone tries it as I can't yet.
edit on 28-1-2012 by vkturbo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   
I had a course in college on the internal combustion engine, and it is true they are inherently inefficient.

A tremendous amount of energy gets lost to heat. One thing I remember being discussed was that a ceramic engine that was impervious to heat could theoretically be made - and give it no cooling system. Keep the heat inside, and efficiency goes way up. The cooling system on the typical engine is just throwing energy away.

Now, also, my grandpa worked for Ford. Years ago when I was young and he was still alive, I was telling him about the GMC cyclone truck and how cool I thought it was. I mentioned how it only got 14 MPG. He said "Do you know why it gets such low mileage?" "No, why?" "To keep it cool, they could have it get higher mpg but it would run too hot..." Now that I know more about that kind of stuff he was eluding to the necessity to keep the mixture on the rich side to avoid detonation due to the turbo, which would destroy the engine quickly.

A/F Mixture, combustion quality, exhaust backpressure, intake flow, timing, compression ratio, fuel quality, weight, air resistance, rolling resistance, driving habits, etc etc etc all that stuff affects MPG.

I personally don't have any personal knowledge of any conspiracy from the oil industry to keep the mileage of our cars low, but I do know that the auto industry can definitely do a lot of little things to make the efficiency higher, at a cost. Every little tweak, every little refinement, every add-on costs them money. They have to balance their cost, what we are willing to pay and what the CAFE standards require of them. After all, at the end of the day they have to make money.

Personally I'm very curious about the possibilities of on-board electrolysis used for hydrogen injection into the combustion chamber. Everyone says that the energy cost to split the water is less than the energy produced by the hydrogen - true... But the theory is that it improves combustion thus mileage, and not really using the hydrogen as a fuel.

Alas, the only person I know personally who says he has tried it and that it works is also known for being a bit of a ... joker, but reportedly a Hyundai that was in the 30s was bumped up to the 50s or so. Also, the guy left the h2 system on and blew up the top of his engine when he started it up later.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by DrinkYourDrug
 


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

I'm sorry... I assumed ALL of your answers in this thread were some kind of cutting avant garde sarcasm...

Oh, those were SERIOUS answers!



Let's get real DrinkYourDrug...

There are countless 'graduates' with all kinds of advanced degrees that graduate EVERY year.

What exactly is their contribution to the cause? Fairly close to nil.

Those institutions are hardly anything more than degree mills.


Is that simple enough for you?


The discussion originated by the OP had to do with normally aspirated engines. Those engines are notoriously inefficent... No matter what standard of comparison is used.

Let's focus on the real standard which would be extracting as much of the usable energy out of a gallon of gasoline as possible. Simple enough?

You somehow seem convinced that since most 'modern' engines now use fuel-injection systems that we have suddenly... automagically entered some new golden age (of engineering?
).

That's kind of funny.

The efficiencies that have been gained are marginal at best, with the added downside that the systems are now in effect closed systems that for the most part prevent the average person from being able to perform any repairs.

Most of the observations made by your thread mates have dealt with attempts to increase the vaporization rate of the fuel, which is the major defect in these engines (including **cou fuel-injection gh***
)

Say... Isn't that why they 'invented' catalytic converters?

You know... Cuz the engines were dumping the raw unconsumed fuel out the exhaust system? You know eco-hazard and all that stuff... Even in the automagic 'fuel-injected' systems.

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

Dude! I hurt myself laughing when I read that one!

In closing...

Scarcity paradigm. Disruptive technologies.

Those that are slow on the uptake often come down with a case of the suddenly deads or you're SUDDENLY a felon!

Ask the MegaVideo guy.


edit on 28-1-2012 by golemina because: Typos/formatting.




posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Back in the early 70's during the gas crisis I was at a friend's house for dinner. We were talking about the gas crisis and his wife told the story of her father in the late 50's inventing an engine modification that boosted auto engine efficiency to the 100 mpg range. He contacted GM and they sent representatives to check it out. About a month later her father was found murdered from a what was reported as a mugging. She was just a baby at the time, but her mother told her the story and she kept the news clipping on his murder. I knew her father died when she was a child, but I didn't believe her about the 100 mpg modification. Now I have my doubts......



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by anonentity
 
Yea but its not quite the same deal ..its more like a re combining the water into a form of alchol ...I used to do the same thing for my truck in the winter to take the water out ...The water injection into the air intake doesent mix with the fuel ...peace



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   
The energy potential of gasoline is limited! As a fuel, gasoline is one of the dirtiest most inefficient fuels. The octanes available even with today's most "energy efficient" engines are no where close to giving anything near 100MPG.

Look at your fuel source which is refined oil cracked to different grades of hydro-carbons. The energy density of gasoline is no where near the energy density of most high energy density metals like Lithium.

Anyone with a mediocre knowledge -base of Chemistry knows this.

It is no wonder why the many educated people who periodically contribute to these threads are not taken seriously.

When there is no one like-minded enough to understand them.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by golemina
 



I'm sorry... I assumed ALL of your answers in this thread were some kind of cutting avant garde sarcasm...

Oh, those were SERIOUS answers!

Have I offended you? Sorry for using sarcasm to highlight a serious safety concern...


There are countless 'graduates' with all kinds of advanced degrees that graduate EVERY year.

What exactly is their contribution to the cause? Fairly close to nil.

Whist I'm a huge critic of the tertiary education system, I think you will find the reason these graduates are not contributing to your "cause" to triple the efficiency of the internal combustion engine by supplying it with fuel in a more efficient manor is not actually possible, hence the non-participation by anyone with a basic understanding of mechanics and conservation of energy.


Is that simple enough for you?

I appear to be the educated one here.



The discussion originated by the OP had to do with normally aspirated engines. Those engines are notoriously inefficent...

Boosted internal combustion engines are also notoriously inefficient when compared with electric motors.


Let's focus on the real standard which would be extracting as much of the usable energy out of a gallon of gasoline as possible. Simple enough?

I'd prefer to extract as much usable energy per dollar of energy purchase price (as to consider alternatives to the ICE), but whatever.


You somehow seem convinced that since most 'modern' engines now use fuel-injection systems that we have suddenly... automagically entered some new golden age (of engineering? ).

No, its just that supplying fuel to the engine is about as efficient as it's going to get. The optimal solution is being used by manufacturers, there are no impressive fuel economy gains to be made.


That's kind of funny.

I enjoy irony.


The efficiencies that have been gained are marginal at best

My point exactly, and you still think there's room for amazing improvements in efficiency by further improving the delivery of fuel to the engine?



Most of the observations made by your thread mates have dealt with attempts to increase the vaporization rate of the fuel, which is the major defect in these engines (including **cou fuel-injection gh*** )

And here I was with my degree-mill education thinking the wastage of energy as heat was the major defect in these engines.


Say... Isn't that why they 'invented' catalytic converters?

They form part of the exhaust system and their purpose is to reduce harmful emissions. While they decrease flow in the exhaust system, this does not effect the intake system or supply of fuel to the engine.


You know... Cuz the engines were dumping the raw unconsumed fuel out the exhaust system? You know eco-hazard and all that stuff... Even in the automagic 'fuel-injected' systems.

Unburned fuel actually damages cat converters. Properly functioning fuel injection systems ensure complete combustion.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Great thread OP. Technical minded people all over should experiment these. As a collective we can make the oil companies rattle.



 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 12:21 AM
link   
I'm sure someone said this already, but the carburetor has been replaced by EFI (Electronic Fuel Injection) on mass produced cars for the past 30 year ago: More in some cases. Your first post has incorrect theories and I just wanted to clarify...

The Hummer gets 10mpg, because its structurally and aerodynamically inefficient. The engines EFI tuning, via it's ECU, is also tuned down to be 'safe' and keep the crappily built American engine from exploding during whats call 'detonation' from a fuel mixture that is too 'lean.' Fuel is not nearly as combustible as oxygen...thus your average naturally aspirated motor runs at around a 14:1 Air:Fuel mixture (at it's most efficient tune.) I know this because when I was in college majoring in Mechanical Engineering, I built 8-second drag racers from small, light, 4-cylinder import cars. We even built one with a 1.5L motor, that ran 11's (faster than Z06's at the time), had an automatic transmission, and drove on the highway with 47mpg.

We used to tune stock motors to much better fuel mileages than stock. My old RSX-S was factory rated at something like 28mpg. Mine ended getting a full on N/A racing setup, having a built, high-compression, 2.4L block in place of the standard 2.0L. A much more efficient valve head and valve-train and a whole host of other 'power adders'. The best of which was a few hours on a Dynometer. My stock 2.0L engine made 183hp AT THE WHEELS and 203hp AT THE CRANK. There's a few lost in the drivetrain (like any car), but front wheel drive cars are more direct (thus more efficient) than rear wheel drive cars. Anyhow, the built motor made 331hp AT THE WHEELS and my fuel mileage...went UP to 33mpg on the highway, so long as I drove it sweetly.

My second motor, a 2.0L custom built turbocharged monster, made 660hp at the wheels and drank fuel faster than my most previous truck...somewhere around 6mpg at the drag strip. However, if I drove it out of boost, it maintained 29mpg.

My current car, a 2012 VW CC R-Line, is suppose to get 31mpg. I drive it to and from work OUT OF SPORT MODE, and follow certain 'hyper-mileing' techniques, and I've been able to average 41mpg.

Look at 1980's cars...there were several gas models that made 60+mpg. However, it's the weight and aerodynamics that effects mpg the most. "Efficiency" includes those two properties, as well as a dozen other factors.

Now, I'd LOVE a way to turn an FJ cruiser into a water (or urine) drinking machine. THAT would be a project to undertake. I drink my share of water...pee it into the tank...and it happily consumes my waste and moves me from location to location...with 4WD and Air Conditioning. :-D

Anyhow, I'll finish reading your posts tomorrow...I'm bushed, but it looks like you've done a lot of research and I wanted to just clear up your fundamental theory in your original 1st post.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by maestromason
The energy potential of gasoline is limited! As a fuel, gasoline is one of the dirtiest most inefficient fuels. The octanes available even with today's most "energy efficient" engines are no where close to giving anything near 100MPG.

Look at your fuel source which is refined oil cracked to different grades of hydro-carbons. The energy density of gasoline is no where near the energy density of most high energy density metals like Lithiu
Anyone with a mediocre knowledge -base of Chemistry knows this.


Please inform those of us without a mediocre knowledge base of chemistry what specific reactions you have in mind, their energy output and thermodynamic cycles in question to support your claim.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   
Sounds like all these miracle cars use fuel vapor of some sort. Pretty much all the new cars these days have an EVAP system built into them to increase fuel economy and reduce emissions. And they work in almost the same exact way as the first car in the OP supposedly did. By sucking up and collecting the fuel VAPOR floating in your tank and periodically injecting it into your engine at the most opportune and efficient times by use of vacuum.

So why don't they get 100mpg?



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Until fossil fuels are exhausted and the oil companies have as close to a full monopoly over whatever alternate method of energy generation becomes staple, there will be no 'miracle invention'.

Hit men will see to, and have.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


I am not here to give dissertations... I do not do people's homework or assign coursework. If you do not understand chemistry and how it is that your motor vehicle processes fuel PLEASE BY ALL MEANS DO NOT INCLUDE ANYTHING OPINIONATED TO ME....JUST STICK TO THE CREDIBLE FACTS a.k.a. cut and paste from reliable sources.

I simply stated that gasoline is an extremely dirty and inefficient fuel. The gasoline engine in its rough 100 years of existence is antiquated as well. The differences in energy densities mole per mole of Gasoline vs. Lithium as a energy source is like comparing the tortoise and the hare. Gasoline no matter how high the grade is archaic as a fuel source for a reason.

Gasoline will always be a very inefficient fuel due to its structured energy density mass not holding the potential and is literally prehistoric.

I worked for Energizer Labs as a Analytical Systems Engineer and was involved in modifying the electrolytic base formulas for Energizer batteries. Lithium imide is now replacing Li-ion as Nickel-cadmium was replaced by li-ion for high drain applications.

You can't choke me or bait me btw. May I suggest that you go start your pi$$ing contest with one of these youngsters!



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy
I saw this title and thought about something dad said to me about this over 30 years ago.
He worked for general motors for 25 plus years.. and we talked cars often, I remember him
mentioning this carb that was developed that achieved that kind of mileage. The entire story
is a bit fuzy, but i do remember him saying the man that came up with the idea was kinda forced
sell his rights to the carb..funny how greed always works its way in..


Your federal lawmakers could pass legislation that makes the purchase and suppression of fuel efficient systems a crime with severe punishment, and also applky the same to any continued suppression of the systems discussed on this thread. Why have they not done that? Oh, yeah. They're bought, paid for, lack integrity, and have no spine.

If this is true, then the enemy's of society who supppress that technology should meet a bad fate.
edit on 1/29/2012 by dubiousone because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by autowrenchI am a long time auto mechanic, spent 38 odd years under the hood. I remember cars that got 60 mpg out of the factory, I had a 1960 Plymouth Valiant with a slant 6 that did that.
 


Why do you lie so much?

It is clear the Valiant never got 60 mpg, not even close. I challenge you to find something that supports your ludicrous position...

But I know you won't, as you spend most of your time lying to people on ATS trying to convince them in something that doesn't exist; (HHO) as it were...



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by RMFX1
 


No, you don't make sense. Price is based on demand and supply, and chrony deals and politics. There is artificial scarcity, there is plenty of oil but none of it is being drilled and refined, forcing us to buy foreign and bow down to OPEC and big oil. The corruption is at the highest levels and governments like the hijacked banker/big oil run US government will never allow their people to benefit from good supply chains by lowering prices, and they know the more "scarcity" we have the more excuse they have to keep prices up, thats why obama isnt letting the oil flow down from alaska. you need to look at the big picture, they like you enslaved. they love it.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by autowrenchI am a long time auto mechanic, spent 38 odd years under the hood. I remember cars that got 60 mpg out of the factory, I had a 1960 Plymouth Valiant with a slant 6 that did that.
 


Why do you lie so much?

It is clear the Valiant never got 60 mpg, not even close. I challenge you to find something that supports your ludicrous position...

But I know you won't, as you spend most of your time lying to people on ATS trying to convince them in something that doesn't exist; (HHO) as it were...


Thank you for pointing this out as well, i did so a few pages back, some people really want to believe so much that they resort to bold face lies which ruin their credibilty..I never understand this... Also did you read that popular science mag all the way through...Damn so much good info packed into it. nowadays popular science is full of advertisements and worthless opinions and articles. Back in the 50's kids had it made with getting actual knowledge in their science mags.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by _R4t_
 


Actually it's not possible because it breaks the laws of thermodynamics, and im getting the impression these posters are writing thinking carbs are still be used and wondering why the carb on their modern car is not more efficient.

If you really want to get better mpg the single best thing you can do is change the way you drive. When I had my Last car , a 94 volvo that was rated at 24mpg average, I was averaging 30-35mpg, just by technique.

www.metrompg.com...

www.edmunds.com...

edit on 29-1-2012 by drock905 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
109
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join