"KIMOSABE" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:7e79a228-1909-4afa-8e33-6806327da17e@x10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> Explanatory videos are about halfway down the page.
>
> http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Massive_Yet_Tiny_(MYT)_Engine#How_it_Works
>
>
That is pretty amazing stuff. If this engine checks out, it could change
some things. The idea of just retrofitting vehicles is a good one. It
makes it an individual thing. You don't have to change the world or get the
auto manufacturers to change their religions.
We need more mad geniuses out there tackling present day problems Wanna
solve the energy crisis? Spend some money on guys like this. Instead of
the SOS or corporate big boys.
I am curious as to how vehicle design would change with an engine that is
much smaller and lighter. Hmmmmmmmmm....., lots of stuff to ponder here.
"KIMOSABE" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:7e79a228-1909-4afa-8e33-6806327da17e@x10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> Explanatory videos are about halfway down the page.
>
> http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Massive_Yet_Tiny_(MYT)_Engine#How_it_Works
>
>
I am downloading more about this guy and his technology. It is fascinating
stuff. Where did you learn about him?
I am going to spend a very pleasurable hour or two perusing this topic.
Thanks for the heads up.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Lee Michaels" wrote
>>
>>> I am downloading more about this guy and his technology. It is
>>> fascinating stuff. Where did you learn about him?
>>>
>>> I am going to spend a very pleasurable hour or two perusing this topic.
>>> Thanks for the heads up.
>>
>> Here's hoping his bodyguards are top notch ....
>
>
> And or does not get offered 10 million for the patents and then we never
> hear anything again.
>
That already happened. He offered it to the big three car companies and the
only way they would do it if he signed over control to outside parties.
Which is why he went dark for two years. The military also offered to
bankroll him if he produced the engine just for them. He said no.
His game plan is to start a small manufacturing plant and offer franchises
to retrofit existing vehicles. Once that is developed enough, he would then
license the technology to others. Thereby maintaining control and
ownership.
There is a lot of interest in this technology and NASA has given him an
award. It is getting out there in terms of working pototypes, etc. The
trick, of course, is a working engine for sale. If he pulls that off, it
will get very interesting.
As for the skeptics, read his stuff. He explains how he does it. I have two
primary concerns. The first is that the metals, machining, bearings, etc
will all work together in a fashion that the engine would be viable for a
reasonable service life. The other concern is that some psycho (or spook)
will blow him away.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> Right now it looks like he's got a cute little air motor. If it
> actually runs on fuel, doesn't overheat at high power, holds together
> for a few thousand hours, gives reasonable throttle response, passes
> emissions, and if it really achieves the efficiency he claims, _then_
> he's got an engine.
>
The air is used in public settings to meet fire codes. He has run them on
fuel for awhile now. The easiest fuel for it to use is deisel. All of his
initial offerings will be in deisel. He can make a few changes to use other
fuels.
Again, he has to build something beyond prototypes. I wish him the best. It
is a real creative feat. But real life has a way of dashing dreams.
"Larry Blanchard" wrote
>
> I've been reading a book called "Chain of Blame" that explains what
> happened pretty well.
>
> It only mentions deregulation in passing, which will upset the liberals.
> It doesn't blame it all on Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, which will upset
> the conservatives. All in all, a pretty balanced analysis.
>
> Talks about all the major players and their part in the meltdown. In
> essence, like you said, it was a bunch of mortgage brokers and non-bank
> lenders doing things that, if not illegal, were certainly unethical.
>
I was amazed by the stories of the "mortgage sluts".
Apparently, attractive young women were seducing both mortgate clients and
various bamker/security guys to both get the biz and approve of loans that
did not even meet their standards. I suppose it makes sense. But it was
quite brazen.
How come nothing like that ever happened to me? "-(
"dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> J. Clarke wrote:
> ...
>
>> The actual claim I saw was 60 percent. IIRC the best diesels achieve
>> around 50 percent when running on their design condition. Saw no claim
>> on his site that he was going to achieve 100 percent. I'd be very
>> surprised if he hits a real-world 60 with a brand new design.
>
> Here's the quote from the site in the OP's link...
>
>> Fuel Economy
>>
>> In a phone interview on May 1, 2006 and subsequent email, Jin K. Kim,
>> Ph.D, Managing Member, Angel Labs, LLC said that the design of the
>> engine is such that there is a "long dwell time at top dead center."
>> This means that there is a much higher chance that all of the fuel is
>> ignited, resulting in achieving "very close to 100% theoretical
>> efficiency."
>> ...
>> "One more factor is much higher mechanical efficiency due to
>> radically small number of components. (only 20 parts vs. thousands.)"
>
>
> What else can I say...it's what I said it was--he claims the mechanical
> efficiency is going to be very high; I simply said I doubt that and that
> the claim based purely on component count is specious.
>
> What else you want?
>
> --
What part of "theoretical efficiency" didn't you guys understand?
On Feb 10, 9:00=A0am, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lee Michaels wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > Again, he has to build something beyond prototypes. =A0I wish him the b=
est. It
> > is a real creative feat. =A0But real life has a way of dashing dreams.
>
> Where real life is spelled "thermodynamics"...
>
> --
I can't see it keeping cool either. The method of displacement might
be different, but exothermic BTU are just that, exothermic.
850 HP of heat, is a lot of heat and in a concentrated package like
that?
Then there is the whole question of making it a sealed package.
I'm not optimistic.
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:52:33 -0500, Jack Stein cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:
>
> And next time I enjoy making a light weight bit of fun at an ad hominem
> spell cop attack, thank me for the entertainment, rather than getting
> your panties in a bunch.
You need to look up the definition of ad hominem. You are so far off the
mark that you're beyond amusing, to downright funny.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:48:11 -0500, Jack Stein cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:
>
> Why? I doubt anyone that spent more than a day in the public forums had
> trouble understanding what was meant. I also doubt anyone thinks I, or
> anyone else posting, doesn't know the difference between hall and haul.
>
I think it's just obvious you don't know how to spell "haul".
> I appreciate the sanctimonious attitudes of the spell cops but they are
> seldom to never needed on a public forum. As a matter of fact, the
> spell cops generally rear their ugly little heads when they have nothing
> left other than an ad hominem attack.
Jack - you present the classic usenet self-absorbed loser. A poor attempt
at escaping your own mis-steps. Recall - it was you who threw out the
first ad hominem attack after a rather light comment on your misuse of the
word "hall". Of course everyone could figure out what you meant - as well,
everyone could see that you did not know the proper spelling of "haul".
You exposing your panties in a usenet forum does not require that everyone
else accomodate you.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Chris Friesen wrote:
> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>
>> Some of the "really big" vehicles do pretty well. My '04 Silverado
>> 2500 Duramax diesel (6500 lbs) gets 21 mpg highway at 75mph and 14.5
>> mpg towing a 10,000 lb 5th wheel at 65 mph.
>
> What's the criteria for "pretty well"? A smaller vehicle could get
> twice that mileage on the highway (but of course couldn't pull the 5th
> wheel).
Seems like a question that pretty well answers itself.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:13:38 -0500, Jack Stein cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:
> I think the government should ban cars completely as a waste of
> resources. A truck halls people just like a car, but is easier to get
> in and out of than a pot hole with wheels on it. In a truck you can hall
> people, 2x4's, 2x6's 2x8's 2x10's 2x12's, full plywood sheets, fire
> wood, stoves, refrigerators, people, shingles, dogs, baseball teams,
> horse manure, people, brush, logs, scrap metal, table saws, band saws
> jointer's, planers, furniture, dog kennels, cat houses, people and a few
> other things I can think of. Why would anyone waste money on a damned
> car that does almost nothing?
>
Pssssst.... "hauls" man, "hauls". Not "halls".
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
J. Clarke wrote:
> Lee Michaels wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Right now it looks like he's got a cute little air motor. If it
>>> actually runs on fuel, doesn't overheat at high power, holds
>>> together
>>> for a few thousand hours, gives reasonable throttle response,
>>> passes
>>> emissions, and if it really achieves the efficiency he claims,
>>> _then_
>>> he's got an engine.
>>>
>> The air is used in public settings to meet fire codes. He has run
>> them on fuel for awhile now. The easiest fuel for it to use is
>> deisel. All of his initial offerings will be in deisel. He can
>> make
>> a few changes to use other fuels.
>
> Does he have a video of it running on something other than air? I
> didn't see one on his site. I know he _says_ that he has, but where's
> the meat?
>
>> Again, he has to build something beyond prototypes. I wish him the
>> best. It is a real creative feat. But real life has a way of
>> dashing
>> dreams.
>
> I wish him well too, but don't really expect him to deliver. In
> engineering when someone comes to you with something that looks too
> good to be true, it generally is.
>
People including those in Washington do not understand there is a fixed
amount of energy in the Carbon bond. When the Carbon molecule is
oxidized it release a known amount of energy that can be calculated.
(This energy can be found in any Handbook of Engineering, Physics, or
Chemistry and probably hundreds of sites online) Regardless of what you
do, you can only recover 100% of this energy. Hence with cars to get
higher miles per gallon you have to reduce the size of the car. A
roller skate should be able to get a couple of hundred miles per gallon.
Like Bigfoot, I have heard of the supper carburetor for years, but it
still is not real.
On Feb 17, 2:20=A0pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> That's good, at least I see why you're ignorant, abrasive probably just
> come naturally...
>
> That's good, at least I see why you're ignorant. Abrasive probably just
> comes naturally...
There... fixed it for you.
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 12:14:47 -0500, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
wrote:
>No, my little bitty GMC van was a 1500 and had a small 305 cubic inch
>engine. I have no clue how many liters 305 CI is.
Oh, that's so hard: 305/61. It's almost exactly 5 liters. You're
obviously not a car guy. Anybody following sports cars and/or Formula
One since the '50s would know that.
>America was not yet Amerika in 1978.
Wow, misspelled the word appearing twice in one sentence half the
times. Abrasive AND ignorant.
Oh, you're trying to make some sort of political statement? Well, at
the risk of repeating myself, abrasive AND ignorant.
C'mon lightweight, give me your best shot. I'll never see it, though,
as you've just been demoted to the "never read because they're
ignorant buffoons" list.
Buh, bye.
--
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com
Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997
email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.
"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Oh, you're trying to make some sort of political statement? Well, at
>> the risk of repeating myself, abrasive AND ignorant.
>
> So you did just chime in to be ignorant and abrasive and nothing else.
I can't speak for Rod, but I can speak for me. It was my hope you would take
the gentle hint and tone it down, rather than up the ante.
LRod wrote:
>Jack Stein wrote:
>>>Todd wrote:
>>>You mean your little bitty GMC van with what looks like a GVWR of 6800 lbs
and a roughly 6 liter V8?
>> No, my little bitty GMC van was a 1500 and had a small 305 cubic inch
>> engine. I have no clue how many liters 305 CI is.
>
> Oh, that's so hard: 305/61. It's almost exactly 5 liters.
Whelp the guy that thought my 305 was a 6 liter V8 should have done the
math... is that your point?
>You're obviously not a car guy.
Obviously. This is a wood working group.
> Anybody following sports cars and/or Formula
> One since the '50s would know that.
I was a car guy in the 50's and 60's, and I didn't give a crap about
sports cars or Formula One then either. I guess in your mind a "car
guy" is into sports cars and Formula One?. I'd call that rather ignorant.
But, more to the point at hand, my little bitty GMC van WAS considered a
light truck, are you arguing that point, or just being ignorant and
abrasive for the hell of it?
>> America was not yet Amerika in 1978.
>
> Wow, misspelled the word appearing twice in one sentence half the
> times. Abrasive AND ignorant.
Glad you managed to pick up on that... I'd hate to waste abrasive and
ignorant on someone too ignorant to pick up on it...
> Oh, you're trying to make some sort of political statement? Well, at
> the risk of repeating myself, abrasive AND ignorant.
So you did just chime in to be ignorant and abrasive and nothing else.
> C'mon lightweight, give me your best shot. I'll never see it, though,
> as you've just been demoted to the "never read because they're
> ignorant buffoons" list.
That's good, at least I see why you're ignorant, abrasive probably just
come naturally...
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
MikeWhy wrote:
> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>> Oh, you're trying to make some sort of political statement? Well, at
>>> the risk of repeating myself, abrasive AND ignorant.
>>
>> So you did just chime in to be ignorant and abrasive and nothing else.
>
> I can't speak for Rod, but I can speak for me. It was my hope you would
> take the gentle hint and tone it down, rather than up the ante.
If calling someone ignorant and abrasive is a "gentle hint" then I took
the hint and went with it.
Thanks for the insight though...
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
On Feb 10, 11:52=A0am, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
> > Lee Michaels wrote:
> >> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote
> >>> Right now it looks like he's got a cute little air motor. =A0If it
> >>> actually runs on fuel, doesn't overheat at high power, holds
> >>> together
> >>> for a few thousand hours, gives reasonable throttle response,
> >>> passes
> >>> emissions, and if it really achieves the efficiency he claims,
> >>> _then_
> >>> he's got an engine.
>
> >> The air is used in public settings to meet fire codes. He has run
> >> them on fuel for awhile now. The easiest fuel for it to use is
> >> deisel. =A0All of his initial offerings will be in deisel. =A0He can
> >> make
> >> a few changes to use other fuels.
>
> > Does he have a video of it running on something other than air? =A0I
> > didn't see one on his site. =A0I know he _says_ that he has, but where'=
s
> > the meat?
>
> >> Again, he has to build something beyond prototypes. =A0I wish him the
> >> best. It is a real creative feat. =A0But real life has a way of
> >> dashing
> >> dreams.
>
> > I wish him well too, but don't really expect him to deliver. =A0In
> > engineering when someone comes to you with something that looks too
> > good to be true, it generally is.
>
> People including those in Washington do not understand there is a fixed
> amount of energy in the Carbon bond. =A0When the Carbon molecule is
> oxidized it release a known amount of energy that can be calculated.
> (This energy can be found in any Handbook of Engineering, Physics, or
> Chemistry and probably hundreds of sites online) =A0Regardless of what yo=
u
> do, you can only recover 100% of this energy. Hence with cars to get
> higher miles per gallon you have to reduce the size of the car. =A0A
> roller skate should be able to get a couple of hundred miles per gallon.
>
> Like Bigfoot, I have heard of the supper carburetor for years, but it
> still is not real.
This guy must be claiming exhaust temperatures at room temperature?
Regardless of how much of the explosion gets transferred to the drive-
shaft, you're still dealing with thermal absorption at the piston and
cylinder walls, not to mention what blows out the exhaust.
"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> todd wrote:
>
>> "Jack Stein" wrote in message
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>>>> Well, actually in 1978 light trucks were required to average 17 mpg.
>>>> They are now required to average better than 23.
>
>>> My brand new 1978 GMC Van with a small 305 V8 averaged 10 mpg... I guess
>>> GM didn't know about the government requirements?
>
>> What part of the word "average" don't you understand?
>
> What part of "required" don't you understand? There is no way the average
> GMC truck got 17 mpg. My little bitty GMC van only got 10!
You mean your little bitty GMC van with what looks like a GVWR of 6800 lbs
and a roughly 6 liter V8? From what I can tell, CAFE requirements didn't
include light trucks until 1979. In any case, if your van had a GVWR of
over 6000 lbs, it would have been exempt anyway. And of course, the
calculated MPG doesn't necessarily correlate to real-world numbers.
todd
dpb wrote:
> Until the invention and the technology can be brought to an independent
> testing facility and replicate the results and creation of the device
> there's nothing to do but wait and see if it "sprouts legs".
B'sides if we just wait someone will pirate the technology and, with no
development expense to recover, sell it to us cheaper - kinda like that
string trimmer doohickey...
...and in less than two decades the patents will expire anyway, so if
it's any good it can sprout legs then.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
In article <Knmkl.4324$%[email protected]>,
Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well, not totally, the heater uaes the engine heat to warm the car in
> the winter.
With a bit of ingenuity you could use the waste heat to drive a Stirling
engine to power the aircon in summer :-)
On Feb 23, 10:52=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
[snipped a whole bunch of weak-assed attempts at being funny/
intellectual.]
>
> Your kidding right?
>
You're kidding, right?
MikeWhy wrote:
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> The idea of "affordable housing for everyone" with threats
>> by the justice department (Janet Reno era) to prosecute banks for failing
>> to loan to these new looser standards led to the creation of the
>> mortgage-backed securities market (my speculation is that the banks,
>> recognizing the risk, came up with a means of spreading the risk around).
>
> That's only half right. Mortgage backed securities were not new with the
> bubble. Pretty much all loans and credit are sold as bonds or credit
> derivatives. The lender, say the bank in this case, doesn't want to or
> cannot by law hold the entire risk. Those loans are bundled and sold to
> investors. What should really irk you is that the investors are almost all
> professionals and institutions, not Joe Blow homeowner throwing darts at
> his investment board, and understood the risks of those investments. The
> normal presumption, especially in credit markets, is that returns are tied
> very closely to risk. Low risk, low yield; higher risk, higher yield.
> Investors demand the higher yield, a higher return on investment, for
> assuming the risk. Buying out the investors' risk and exposure with the
> bailout amounted to rewarding them with the high returns without the risk.
Don't disagree with that at all. Bottom line is that with the bailout,
this just passed donation to DNC patrons (can't come close to really
calling it a stimulus), TARP II, TARP III, TARP reloaded, etc. we are
rewarding failure and penalizing success. This is going to have
consequences and they are not going to be good.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
On Feb 13, 10:51=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:13:38 -0500, Jack Stein cast forth these pearls =
of
> > wisdom...:
>
> >> I think the government should ban cars completely as a waste of
> >> resources. =A0A truck halls people just like a car, but is easier to g=
et
> >> in and out of than a pot hole with wheels on it. In a truck you can ha=
ll
> >> people, 2x4's, 2x6's 2x8's 2x10's 2x12's, full plywood sheets, fire
> >> wood, stoves, refrigerators, people, shingles, dogs, baseball teams,
> >> horse manure, people, brush, logs, scrap metal, table saws, band saws
> >> jointer's, planers, furniture, dog kennels, cat houses, people and a f=
ew
> >> other things I can think of. =A0Why would anyone waste money on a damn=
ed
> >> car that does almost nothing?
>
> > Pssssst.... "hauls" man, "hauls". =A0Not "halls".
>
> Try moving your lips and reading out loud, and the meaning will be much
> clearer than looking everything up at Dictionary dot com....
>
You're a bit of an abrasive fuck, ain't you Jack?
Robatoy wrote:
> I can't see it keeping cool either. The method of displacement might
> be different, but exothermic BTU are just that, exothermic.
> 850 HP of heat, is a lot of heat and in a concentrated package like
> that?
Technically, any heat (or sound) produced by an engine is wasted energy.
An ideal engine would produce no heat or sound, having converted all
the chemical energy into mechanical energy.
Consider my house furnace, for instance...it converts 95% of the fuel
energy into useable heat. The exhause is cool enough that it uses
plastic pipe for the exhaust.
Given that current car engines are something like 35% efficiency, there
is a lot of room for improvement.
Chris
On Feb 9, 8:05=A0pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Lee Michaels" =A0wrote
>
> > I am downloading more about this guy and his technology. It is fascinat=
ing
> > stuff. Where did you learn about him?
>
> > I am going to spend a very pleasurable hour or two perusing this topic.
> > Thanks for the heads up.
>
> Here's hoping his bodyguards are top notch ....
Call me a cynic, but this sounds a little too good to be true. There
seems to be very little "credible" press (is that an oxymoron?) given
the claimed performance. And it seems to have been around for a good
5 years. It'll be interesting to see though.
JP
On Feb 21, 10:44 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Baloney!
That would be bologna, Jack.
> Typing "hall" vs "haul" is certainly a mis-step, but it's the type of
> error common in usenet and insignificant.
If it is so insignificant, why get in a flap about it, Jack? The
member was only making an attempt to help you become a better speller.
You did it twice in the same paragraph, Jack. This wasn't inadvertent,
you really didn't know how spell it. Which, in itself is amazing as
you must have seen multiples of thousands of U-HAUL trucks and
trailers in your life. That didn't register so I doubt anything
anybody writes in here is going to register.
> Of course they could, so pointing out something so silly that had
> nothing to do with the argument presented was classic usenet drivel and
> the resulting banter one of the things that makes usenet fun for those
> choosing to participating in the frivolity.
>
> > everyone could see that you did not know the proper spelling of "haul".
>
> Really? How could "everyone" know that?
Mike said that everyone could 'see' it, not 'know' it, Jack. Stop
messing with the words others spoke/wrote. We already have a couple of
members here who specialize in that.
> > You exposing your panties in a usenet forum does not require that everyone
> > else accomodate you.
>
> If you think spelling "haul" instead of "hall" or protesting spell cops
> in a public forum is exposing one's panties, you have a long road ahead
> of you on usenet...
We now know Jack wears panties. He just denies exposing them.
Soooo... next time, Jack, when somebody makes a light-weight bit of
fun at an obvious fukkup, laugh it off and thank the gentleman for the
assistance.
Be a mensch. Keep it fucking classy, okay?
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:pMmkl.4328$%[email protected]...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>> While it is true that fuel mileage has improved over the last few
>> years, Ford's Corporate Average Fuel Economy for the whole fleet is
>> the same as it was in 1919 with the model "T" - aprox 21MPG US.
>
> Well, you are talking "Ford". ;~)
The only one of the Big Three not standing on the corner with a tin cup.
Andrew Barss wrote:
> Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> : MikeWhy wrote:
>
> :>> What part of "theoretical efficiency" didn't you guys understand?
> :>
> :> Which part would you like to better explain?
>
> Obama Ben Laden and his fellow
> : socialists would have to tax the shit out of something else to power the
> : destruction of the free market.
>
> The free market seems to be doing a dandy job of destroying itself
> all by its little lonesome.
>
> -- Andy Barss
Free market? Yeah, if banks hadn't been forced/incentivized to make home
loans to people who couldn't afford to repay -- that wasn't free market --
that was Barney Frank, Chris Countrywide Dodd, et al who initiated that
debacle.
Free market right now is doing just fine on the oil price front. That
will be fixed pretty quick I'm sure when The One starts meddling with those
carbon credits and other mechanisms to combat an imagined and propagandized
environmental threat.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
"Jay Pique" <[email protected]> wrote in message
Call me a cynic, but this sounds a little too good to be true. There
seems to be very little "credible" press (is that an oxymoron?) given
the claimed performance. And it seems to have been around for a good
5 years. It'll be interesting to see though.
JP
****************************************************************
Sounds very similar in theory to the Wankle, but more sophisticated. That
was a huge success too wasn't it? (zoom, zoom, zoom)
"LD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> The actual claim I saw was 60 percent. IIRC the best diesels achieve
>>> around 50 percent when running on their design condition. Saw no claim
>>> on his site that he was going to achieve 100 percent. I'd be very
>>> surprised if he hits a real-world 60 with a brand new design.
>>
>> Here's the quote from the site in the OP's link...
>>
>>> Fuel Economy
>>>
>>> In a phone interview on May 1, 2006 and subsequent email, Jin K. Kim,
>>> Ph.D, Managing Member, Angel Labs, LLC said that the design of the
>>> engine is such that there is a "long dwell time at top dead center."
>>> This means that there is a much higher chance that all of the fuel is
>>> ignited, resulting in achieving "very close to 100% theoretical
>>> efficiency."
>>> ...
>>> "One more factor is much higher mechanical efficiency due to
>>> radically small number of components. (only 20 parts vs. thousands.)"
>>
>>
>> What else can I say...it's what I said it was--he claims the mechanical
>> efficiency is going to be very high; I simply said I doubt that and that
>> the claim based purely on component count is specious.
>>
>> What else you want?
>>
>> --
>
>
> What part of "theoretical efficiency" didn't you guys understand?
Which part would you like to better explain?
>
"Jay Pique" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:71609808-6d54-4ab5-b72f-4895566efe6f@b16g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 9, 8:05 pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Lee Michaels" wrote
>
> > I am downloading more about this guy and his technology. It is
> > fascinating
> > stuff. Where did you learn about him?
>
> > I am going to spend a very pleasurable hour or two perusing this topic.
> > Thanks for the heads up.
>
> Here's hoping his bodyguards are top notch ....
Call me a cynic, but this sounds a little too good to be true. There
seems to be very little "credible" press (is that an oxymoron?) given
the claimed performance. And it seems to have been around for a good
5 years. It'll be interesting to see though.
I would say that more likely it is a great invention that will be bought by
an oil company and we will never see it again.
"KIMOSABE" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I must be reading more into this than is there.
>
> Does anyone see a reason that he doesn't have this engine mounted in a
> car which can be driven as a demo?
Only just guessing, but there aren't very many good reasons. Maybe, just
maybe, it hasn't progressed beyond the air pump proof of concept stage yet.
Even if it is, a usable drivetrain is more than just a functioning short
block, although I find it hard to believe the 10 engineers on his payroll
can't get an engine controller and fuel injection system to work, if that's
the issue. You just know Bubba would've strapped it onto a gokart frame even
before the exhaust had cooled from its first test run. It does make one
wonder, doesn't it?
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:303388f4-9908-4728-9e81-5688c0b0180d@k19g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 10, 11:52 am, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
> > Lee Michaels wrote:
> >> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote
> >>> Right now it looks like he's got a cute little air motor. If it
> >>> actually runs on fuel, doesn't overheat at high power, holds
> >>> together
> >>> for a few thousand hours, gives reasonable throttle response,
> >>> passes
> >>> emissions, and if it really achieves the efficiency he claims,
> >>> _then_
> >>> he's got an engine.
>
> >> The air is used in public settings to meet fire codes. He has run
> >> them on fuel for awhile now. The easiest fuel for it to use is
> >> deisel. All of his initial offerings will be in deisel. He can
> >> make
> >> a few changes to use other fuels.
>
> > Does he have a video of it running on something other than air? I
> > didn't see one on his site. I know he _says_ that he has, but where's
> > the meat?
>
> >> Again, he has to build something beyond prototypes. I wish him the
> >> best. It is a real creative feat. But real life has a way of
> >> dashing
> >> dreams.
>
> > I wish him well too, but don't really expect him to deliver. In
> > engineering when someone comes to you with something that looks too
> > good to be true, it generally is.
>
> People including those in Washington do not understand there is a fixed
> amount of energy in the Carbon bond. When the Carbon molecule is
> oxidized it release a known amount of energy that can be calculated.
> (This energy can be found in any Handbook of Engineering, Physics, or
> Chemistry and probably hundreds of sites online) Regardless of what you
> do, you can only recover 100% of this energy. Hence with cars to get
> higher miles per gallon you have to reduce the size of the car. A
> roller skate should be able to get a couple of hundred miles per gallon.
>
> Like Bigfoot, I have heard of the supper carburetor for years, but it
> still is not real.
This guy must be claiming exhaust temperatures at room temperature?
Regardless of how much of the explosion gets transferred to the drive-
shaft, you're still dealing with thermal absorption at the piston and
cylinder walls, not to mention what blows out the exhaust.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
He's not claiming 100% efficient USE of the fuel. He's claiming a better
burn - less unburned fuel going out the pipe.
"Chris Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Robatoy wrote:
>
>> I can't see it keeping cool either. The method of displacement might
>> be different, but exothermic BTU are just that, exothermic.
>> 850 HP of heat, is a lot of heat and in a concentrated package like
>> that?
>
> Technically, any heat (or sound) produced by an engine is wasted energy.
> An ideal engine would produce no heat or sound, having converted all the
> chemical energy into mechanical energy.
Well, not totally, the heater uaes the engine heat to warm the car in the
winter.
>
> Given that current car engines are something like 35% efficiency, there is
> a lot of room for improvement.
Exactly, typically electricity is 4 times more efficient to power a car.
Oddly it is cheaper and uses less fuel to create electricity to power that
car than it is to use that fuel directly to power the car. Today's car
engines are an inefficient design to convert fuel into immediate energy.
"Keith Nuttle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
> People including those in Washington do not understand there is a fixed
> amount of energy in the Carbon bond. When the Carbon molecule is oxidized
> it release a known amount of energy that can be calculated. (This energy
> can be found in any Handbook of Engineering, Physics, or Chemistry and
> probably hundreds of sites online) Regardless of what you do, you can
> only recover 100% of this energy. Hence with cars to get higher miles per
> gallon you have to reduce the size of the car. A roller skate should be
> able to get a couple of hundred miles per gallon.
>
> Like Bigfoot, I have heard of the supper carburetor for years, but it
> still is not real.
While any given fuel does in deed only has a fixed amount of stored energy
reducing the size of the vehicle is not the only way to increase gas
mileage. Simple engine tweaks can do this, advancing the ignition timing
will do this. I currently have a heavier, taller truck with an engine that
produces approximately 50% more horse power than my previous truck. It gets
at least the same, often better gas mileage than the older model did when it
was the same age.
It is simply a matter of getting more out of the fuel burn than what has
been gotten in the past. Some engines burn fuel more efficiently than
others. Because most gasoline burning engines do not do not get 100% return
on the fuel that they burn they can be improved to do better.
With the common day usage of on board computers and fuel injectors gas
mileage has improved dramatically over the last 30 years. You can look as
fuel injectors as the today's "super carburetor".
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> Sounds very similar in theory to the Wankle, but more sophisticated. That
> was a huge success too wasn't it? (zoom, zoom, zoom)
>
They still make them and they still race well!
This past summer at Lime Rock, I was checking out an RX-8 that won the
2008 24H of Daytona. Man, is that engine physically small!
Chris Friesen wrote:
> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>
>> Some of the "really big" vehicles do pretty well. My '04 Silverado
>> 2500 Duramax diesel (6500 lbs) gets 21 mpg highway at 75mph and 14.5
>> mpg towing a 10,000 lb 5th wheel at 65 mph.
>
> What's the criteria for "pretty well"? A smaller vehicle could get
> twice that mileage on the highway (but of course couldn't pull the 5th
> wheel).
It creams the 14-15 MPG mileage of my 6 cylinder Jeep Wrangler! <G>
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> LD wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> Lee Michaels wrote:
>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>>> Right now it looks like he's got a cute little air motor. If
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> actually runs on fuel, doesn't overheat at high power, holds
>>>>>>> together
>>>>>>> for a few thousand hours, gives reasonable throttle response,
>>>>>>> passes
>>>>>>> emissions, and if it really achieves the efficiency he claims,
>>>>>>> _then_
>>>>>>> he's got an engine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The air is used in public settings to meet fire codes. He has
>>>>>> run
>>>>>> them on fuel for awhile now. The easiest fuel for it to use is
>>>>>> deisel. All of his initial offerings will be in deisel. He can
>>>>>> make
>>>>>> a few changes to use other fuels.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does he have a video of it running on something other than air?
>>>>> I
>>>>> didn't see one on his site. I know he _says_ that he has, but
>>>>> where's the meat?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, he has to build something beyond prototypes. I wish him
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> best. It is a real creative feat. But real life has a way of
>>>>>> dashing
>>>>>> dreams.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wish him well too, but don't really expect him to deliver. In
>>>>> engineering when someone comes to you with something that looks
>>>>> too
>>>>> good to be true, it generally is.
>>>>>
>>>> People including those in Washington do not understand there is a
>>>> fixed amount of energy in the Carbon bond. When the Carbon
>>>> molecule
>>>> is oxidized it release a known amount of energy that can be
>>>> calculated. (This energy can be found in any Handbook of
>>>> Engineering,
>>>> Physics, or Chemistry and probably hundreds of sites online)
>>>> Regardless of what you do, you can only recover 100% of this
>>>> energy.
>>>
>>> The trouble is that current cars (or base-load power plants for
>>> that
>>> matter) do not come anywhere close to recovering 100 percent of
>>> that
>>> energy. 30 percent is very good for an internal combustion
>>> otto-cycle engine, so there is considerable room for improvement.
>>>
>>>> Hence with cars to get higher miles per gallon you have to reduce
>>>> the
>>>> size of the car.
>>>
>>> Or increase the thermal efficiency.
>>>
>>>> A roller skate should be able to get a couple of
>>>> hundred miles per gallon.
>>>>
>>>> Like Bigfoot, I have heard of the supper carburetor for years, but
>>>> it
>>>> still is not real.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure how relevant that is to the engine in question. He's
>>> claiming that it gets the performance of a really good diesel or
>>> maybe a wee bit more in a much smaller and lighter package--if
>>> that's so then in addition to the thermal efficiency benefit the
>>> car
>>> could be smaller and lighter due to the smaller, lighter engine,
>>> which would again provide a gas mileage benefit.
>>>
>>> The question is whether he can actually deliver that thermal
>>> efficiency in an engine that passes emissions and is reliable and
>>> driveable. If he can the world is going to beat a path to his
>>> door,
>>> but if their engineers thought that he could the car manufacturers
>>> would have engaged in a bidding war to get the rights to his
>>> design.
>>
>> The car manufacturers, particularly in the US, are victims of NIH
>> Syndrome.
>
> You really think that if Ford could reduce the size of their engines
> by a factor of ten while doubling the efficiency in these days of CAFE
> they'd ignore it because of "NIH"?
It's possible. I saw similar idiocy at Xerox and Tektronix.
dpb wrote:
> LRod wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 19:14:08 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
>> <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "KIMOSABE" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:7e79a228-1909-4afa-8e33-6806327da17e@x10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>> Explanatory videos are about halfway down the page.
>>>>
>>>> http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Massive_Yet_Tiny_(MYT)_Engine#How_it_Works
>>>>
>>
>> The piston arrangement is very interesting. I don't quite get how the
>> 1,695 ci figure is arrived at, though. Someone made the comment about
>> thermodynamics, which I'll bet will be a seriously limiting hurdle to
>> overcome.
>
> I saw a calculation of approx. 850 ci based on stroke/diameter and the
> 16 cylinders although I didn't bother to really look at it in enough
> detail to decipher whether there was any sleight of hand being pulled or
> not.
>
>> I'm no engineer, nor do I play one on TV, but the first thing that
>> caught my eye was that extremely complicated gear assembly used to
>> "modulate" the piston cycle. There has to be a lot of mechanical price
>> to pay in that thing (and expense, even if there isn't a mechanical
>> penalty).
>> Color me extremely skeptical.
>
> Yeah, the general lack of sophistication in the analyses and data
> presented wherein the mechanical efficiency is claimed to be near 100%
> because of only a relatively low part count is just simply unsupportable
> w/o a detailed analysis or actual measurements. One would not expect
> such claims to hold up when tested.
>
> Ditto to the conclusion...
>
> --
Well if I recall correctly, burning fuel produces heat not just energy.
so theoretical efficiency of 100% is hooey.
on 2/10/2009 6:24 PM (ET) KIMOSABE wrote the following:
> I must be reading more into this than is there.
>
> Does anyone see a reason that he doesn't have this engine mounted in a
> car which can be driven as a demo?
>
My thoughts exactly. If he can design a complex motor, why can't he
design a motor mount for a standard vehicle and put it to the test?
--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @
Jack Stein wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Jack Stein said:
> A truck halls people just like a car, but is easier to get
>>>>>>> in and out of than a pot hole with wheels on it.
>
>>>>>> Pssssst.... "hauls" man, "hauls". Not "halls".
>
>>>>> Try moving your lips and reading out loud, and the meaning will be
>>>>> much
>>>>> clearer than looking everything up at Dictionary dot com....
>
>>>> You're a bit of an abrasive fuck, ain't you Jack?
>>> I never react well to spelling cops...
>>>
>>> So yes! I notice you ain't so full of sugar plums either...
>>
>> Well - then learn to spell when you're posting in public forums and you
>> won't suffer the heartburn of people correcting you.
>
> Well, learn that public forums are not second grade spelling contests.
> If you had trouble figuring out the meaning of the sentence that gave
> the other guy so much trouble, then there is little hope for you in the
> public forums.
>
>> Oh - by the way, I
>> didn't have to look it up on Dictionary.com - apparently you should have.
>
> Why? I doubt anyone that spent more than a day in the public forums had
> trouble understanding what was meant. I also doubt anyone thinks I, or
> anyone else posting, doesn't know the difference between hall and haul.
>
> I appreciate the sanctimonious attitudes of the spell cops but they are
> seldom to never needed on a public forum. As a matter of fact, the
> spell cops generally rear their ugly little heads when they have nothing
> left other than an ad hominem attack.
>
Wait a minute! My dear departed Mum was a spell and grammar cop. She'd
whack me upside the head when I strayed from her standards. :-)
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The idea of "affordable housing for everyone" with threats
> by the justice department (Janet Reno era) to prosecute banks for failing
> to loan to these new looser standards led to the creation of the
> mortgage-backed securities market (my speculation is that the banks,
> recognizing the risk, came up with a means of spreading the risk around).
That's only half right. Mortgage backed securities were not new with the
bubble. Pretty much all loans and credit are sold as bonds or credit
derivatives. The lender, say the bank in this case, doesn't want to or
cannot by law hold the entire risk. Those loans are bundled and sold to
investors. What should really irk you is that the investors are almost all
professionals and institutions, not Joe Blow homeowner throwing darts at his
investment board, and understood the risks of those investments. The normal
presumption, especially in credit markets, is that returns are tied very
closely to risk. Low risk, low yield; higher risk, higher yield. Investors
demand the higher yield, a higher return on investment, for assuming the
risk. Buying out the investors' risk and exposure with the bailout amounted
to rewarding them with the high returns without the risk.
Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
> Free market? Yeah, if banks hadn't been forced/incentivized to make home
> loans to people who couldn't afford to repay -- that wasn't free market --
> that was Barney Frank, Chris Countrywide Dodd, et al who initiated that
> debacle.
Nobody forced anyone.
A good friend of mine was a pretty big wheel at MLN (Mortgage Lenders
Network), a 2000-2500 employee mortgage company that was one of the
early ones to go bust.
She made a killing for 4-5 years, and it had nothing to do with incentives.
- Drive-by appraisals by captive appraisers
- Interest-only loans with nothing down
- Pick-a-payment, negative am loans
Hey, real estate only goes up, right?
They wrote the loans, split and diluted them into securities, and sold
them. No prodding needed. Did I mention her home is paid for? <G>
On the other hand, my credit union, who never participated in any of
that, and requires 20% of unborrowed down payment for a mortgage, was
easily able to approve me to buy another toy<bksp><bksp><bksp> er..
airplane in early January, when there apparently was NO money flowing
anywhere.
I find it hard to believe so many credit unions never got involved in
sub-prime at all, but others were "forced"? Hardly...
Doug Winterburn wrote:
> Some of the "really big" vehicles do pretty well. My '04 Silverado
> 2500 Duramax diesel (6500 lbs) gets 21 mpg highway at 75mph and 14.5
> mpg towing a 10,000 lb 5th wheel at 65 mph.
What's the criteria for "pretty well"? A smaller vehicle could get
twice that mileage on the highway (but of course couldn't pull the 5th
wheel).
Chris
On Feb 9, 8:41=A0pm, Jay Pique <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 9, 8:05=A0pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Lee Michaels" =A0wrote
>
> > > I am downloading more about this guy and his technology. It is fascin=
ating
> > > stuff. Where did you learn about him?
>
> > > I am going to spend a very pleasurable hour or two perusing this topi=
c.
> > > Thanks for the heads up.
>
> > Here's hoping his bodyguards are top notch ....
>
> Call me a cynic, but this sounds a little too good to be true. =A0There
> seems to be very little "credible" press (is that an oxymoron?) given
> the claimed performance. =A0And it seems to have been around for a good
> 5 years. =A0It'll be interesting to see though.
>
> JP
Interesting to see what the pistons are attached to..and how they're
sealed.
It is one thing to draw 'floating' pistons in a toroidal chamber....
Also it's one thing to produce a lot of power, but you have to attach
the 'engine' to the frame somehow. As it sits there, it ain't
producing nuttin'.
I'm smelling...shenanigans, tomfoolery...IOW, I'm more than cynical.
"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> Well, actually in 1978 light trucks were required to average 17 mpg. They
>> are now required to average better than 23.
>
> My brand new 1978 GMC Van with a small 305 V8 averaged 10 mpg... I guess
> GM didn't know about the government requirements?
>
> --
> Jack
> Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
> http://jbstein.com
What part of the word "average" don't you understand? Did the GM dealer
show up at your house with a gun and make you buy a van with a V8 engine?
If you want to blame someone for GM selling a van in 1978 that got 10mpg,
you can go find the nearest mirror.
todd
On Feb 11, 11:10=A0am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> PDQ wrote:
> > J. Clarke wrote:
>
> > <SNIP>
>
> >>> The car manufacturers, particularly in the US, are victims of NIH
> >>> Syndrome.
>
> >> You really think that if Ford could reduce the size of their
> >> engines
> >> by a factor of ten while doubling the efficiency in these days of
> >> CAFE they'd ignore it because of "NIH"?
>
> >> --
> > I hate to burst your bubble, but, ---
>
> > When CAFE was adopted there was a big hole in it for trucks - they
> > were excepted.
>
> They had to be. =A0If you base CAFE on vehicles that have to carry tons
> of cargo then you defeat the purpose.
>
> > The big 3 thought, and rightly so, that they could carry on as
> > before
> > as long as the cars they produced were on a truck platform.
>
> If they were carrying on as before then they would still be producting
> vehicles such as my '76 Lincoln and would not be producing vehicles
> such as the Ford Focus. =A0Perhaps you do not remember the Falcon, which
> would today be mid-size but in the late '50s was about as small as
> Detroit made. =A0Even the large sedans are smaller now.
>
> > Do you remember SUV, Crossover, AWD, Hummer??
>
> > All of these are produced on a "truck" platform and, as a result,
> > did
> > not get counted in CAFE.
>
> What of it? =A0All the manufacturers were making SUVs long before CAFE
> and AWD was an Audi innovation first introduced in a small sedan.
>
> As for Hummer, the Hummer was _never_ produced by a big three auto
> maker until GM bought the product line in 1998 and started rebadging
> other vehicles as Hummers, all of which are smaller and lighter and
> more fuel efficient than the original, non-big-three produced Hummer.
> If you don't like the Hummer you need to blame the Army for writing
> the specification.
>
> Do you also remember mini-vans?
>
> As the car manufacturers downsized their sedans and dropped station
> wagons from the product line, people needing such vehicles had no
> choice but to go to SUV or mini-vans and for some reason people don't
> like mini-vans. =A0And CAFE is what killed the station wagon. =A0Or do yo=
u
> really think that high gas mileage station wagons that do what station
> wagons are supposed to do can be built without a breakthrough in
> engine technology?
>
> > Think about which vehicles have been touted the most and which ones
> > sold as "safest".
>
> Volvos?
>
> > This has come back to bite us with 10 or less mpg in a lot of the
> > really big vehicles.
>
> Bite who? =A0If you're being bitten by it then you must have bought one.
>
> > I think the greed of the "bean counters" prevailed and any effort to
> > garner efficiency was castigated.
>
> You're welcome to think whatever you want to but you clearly aren't
> familiar with the product lines of any domestic auto manufacturer.
> There are many kinds of car in production that are not SUVs. =A0You are
> acting as if Detroit just stopped producing cars entirely and started
> producing SUVs exclusively.
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html#autosalesA
I could only find Jan 2009 data. Not all 2008. Based on Jan 2009
data over half of the vehicles sold in the US fall into the truck
category. So only about half the vehicles meet the CAFE standards.
Or have to meet them. No, auto companies have not changed one iota in
the last 30 years. Less than half the vehicles sold are cars. Most
are some form of truck. No personal opinion required. Just the
numbers.
>
> --
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
PDQ wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
> <SNIP>
>>> The car manufacturers, particularly in the US, are victims of NIH
>>> Syndrome.
>> You really think that if Ford could reduce the size of their engines
>> by a factor of ten while doubling the efficiency in these days of CAFE
>> they'd ignore it because of "NIH"?
>>
>> --
> I hate to burst your bubble, but, ---
>
> When CAFE was adopted there was a big hole in it for trucks - they were excepted.
>
> The big 3 thought, and rightly so, that they could carry on as before as long as the cars they produced were on a truck platform.
>
> Do you remember SUV, Crossover, AWD, Hummer??
>
> All of these are produced on a "truck" platform and, as a result, did not get counted in CAFE.
>
> Think about which vehicles have been touted the most and which ones sold as "safest".
>
> This has come back to bite us with 10 or less mpg in a lot of the really big vehicles.
>
> I think the greed of the "bean counters" prevailed and any effort to garner efficiency was castigated.
>
> P D Q
Some of the "really big" vehicles do pretty well. My '04 Silverado 2500
Duramax diesel (6500 lbs) gets 21 mpg highway at 75mph and 14.5 mpg
towing a 10,000 lb 5th wheel at 65 mph.
On Feb 12, 3:32=A0pm, Andrew Barss <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> : MikeWhy wrote:
>
> :>> What part of "theoretical efficiency" didn't you guys understand?
> :>
> :> Which part would you like to better explain?
>
> Obama Ben Laden and his fellow
> : socialists would have to tax the shit out of something else to power th=
e
> : destruction of the free market.
>
> The free market seems to be doing a dandy job of destroying itself
> all by its little lonesome.
Free market? Where? We all lost that war a looooong time ago.
JP
On Feb 11, 1:08=A0pm, "PDQ" <[email protected]> wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
> > PDQ wrote:
> >> J. Clarke wrote:
>
> >> <SNIP>
>
> >>>> The car manufacturers, particularly in the US, are victims of NIH
> >>>> Syndrome.
>
> >>> You really think that if Ford could reduce the size of their
> >>> engines
> >>> by a factor of ten while doubling the efficiency in these days of
> >>> CAFE they'd ignore it because of "NIH"?
>
> >>> --
> >> I hate to burst your bubble, but, ---
>
> >> When CAFE was adopted there was a big hole in it for trucks - they
> >> were excepted.
>
> > They had to be. =A0If you base CAFE on vehicles that have to carry tons
> > of cargo then you defeat the purpose.
>
> >> The big 3 thought, and rightly so, that they could carry on as
> >> before
> >> as long as the cars they produced were on a truck platform.
>
> > If they were carrying on as before then they would still be producting
> > vehicles such as my '76 Lincoln and would not be producing vehicles
> > such as the Ford Focus. =A0Perhaps you do not remember the Falcon, whic=
h
> > would today be mid-size but in the late '50s was about as small as
> > Detroit made. =A0Even the large sedans are smaller now.
>
> Remember the Falcon?? =A0I remember the Nash Metropolitan of that era. =
=A0It had a really nice A50 to pull it and it gave even better mileage than=
the Falcon.
>
>
>
> >> Do you remember SUV, Crossover, AWD, Hummer??
>
> >> All of these are produced on a "truck" platform and, as a result,
> >> did
> >> not get counted in CAFE.
>
> > What of it? =A0All the manufacturers were making SUVs long before CAFE
> > and AWD was an Audi innovation first introduced in a small sedan.
>
> What of it? =A0This was when they really started to tout these vehicles a=
nd a truck went from some $1200 (I paid that for one I got new) to what it =
is today - (supply and demand) =A0They sold us a wonderful bill of goods, d=
uded it up with all manner of luxe and created in us a demand for more good=
ies. No where was there a thought for CAFE just bottom line. =A0Any improve=
ment in economy was because we griped about the miniscule mileage (and some=
of us did).
>
>
>
> > As for Hummer, the Hummer was _never_ produced by a big three auto
> > maker until GM bought the product line in 1998 and started rebadging
> > other vehicles as Hummers, all of which are smaller and lighter and
> > more fuel efficient than the original, non-big-three produced Hummer.
> > If you don't like the Hummer you need to blame the Army for writing
> > the specification.
>
> No problem with Army Specs - just the thought of this "Go anywhere - Inti=
midate all" attitude tha6t was transferred to the highways. =A0Even Arnie h=
as caved in and replaced his Hummer.
>
>
>
> > Do you also remember mini-vans?
>
> > As the car manufacturers downsized their sedans and dropped station
> > wagons from the product line, people needing such vehicles had no
> > choice but to go to SUV or mini-vans and for some reason people don't
> > like mini-vans. =A0And CAFE is what killed the station wagon. =A0Or do =
you
> > really think that high gas mileage station wagons that do what station
> > wagons are supposed to do can be built without a breakthrough in
> > engine technology?
>
> >> Think about which vehicles have been touted the most and which ones
> >> sold as "safest".
>
> > Volvos?
>
> They had to think of something to overcome their dismal motor performance=
.
>
> Beyond that, seems you have conveniently forgotten all the hype about wha=
t vehicles could best survive a crash and thus protect your "precious cargo=
e".
>
>
>
> >> This has come back to bite us with 10 or less mpg in a lot of the
> >> really big vehicles.
>
> > Bite who? =A0If you're being bitten by it then you must have bought one=
.
>
> >> I think the greed of the "bean counters" prevailed and any effort to
> >> garner efficiency was castigated.
>
> > You're welcome to think whatever you want to but you clearly aren't
> > familiar with the product lines of any domestic auto manufacturer.
> > There are many kinds of car in production that are not SUVs. =A0You are
> > acting as if Detroit just stopped producing cars entirely and started
> > producing SUVs exclusively.
>
> There sure are - and they all come under CAFE.
>
> This is probably why my Monte Carlo gets about 32 mpg on the highway and =
some 26.7 overall instead of the 12.5 my old Merc got.
>
>
>
> > --
>
> P D Q
Both of my Safari trucks get excellent mileage for the durable/high
payload small vans that they are.
A great combination of mileage and 'real' truckishness.
Which is why the assholes at GMC stopped making them in 2005.
I would rather have a 4-year old GMC Safari than anything new those
idiots now pass off as a working van..(Not including the big
Savannah's etc.) Those Uplanders and Montanas are pure nonsense....
and for what? A few MPG's?
Lee Michaels wrote:
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> "Lee Michaels" wrote
>>>
>>>> I am downloading more about this guy and his technology. It is
>>>> fascinating stuff. Where did you learn about him?
>>>>
>>>> I am going to spend a very pleasurable hour or two perusing this
>>>> topic. Thanks for the heads up.
>>>
>>> Here's hoping his bodyguards are top notch ....
>>
>>
>> And or does not get offered 10 million for the patents and then we
>> never hear anything again.
>>
> That already happened. He offered it to the big three car companies
> and the only way they would do it if he signed over control to
> outside parties. Which is why he went dark for two years. The
> military also offered to bankroll him if he produced the engine just
> for them. He said no.
>
> His game plan is to start a small manufacturing plant and offer
> franchises to retrofit existing vehicles. Once that is developed
> enough, he would then license the technology to others. Thereby
> maintaining control and ownership.
>
> There is a lot of interest in this technology and NASA has given him
> an award. It is getting out there in terms of working pototypes,
> etc.
> The trick, of course, is a working engine for sale. If he pulls that
> off, it will get very interesting.
>
> As for the skeptics, read his stuff. He explains how he does it. I
> have two primary concerns. The first is that the metals, machining,
> bearings, etc will all work together in a fashion that the engine
> would be viable for a reasonable service life. The other concern is
> that some psycho (or spook) will blow him away.
Right now it looks like he's got a cute little air motor. If it
actually runs on fuel, doesn't overheat at high power, holds together
for a few thousand hours, gives reasonable throttle response, passes
emissions, and if it really achieves the efficiency he claims, _then_
he's got an engine.
Incidentally that "award" was second prize in a contest (yeah, they
call it the "first prize" but there's also a "grand prize").
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Lee Michaels wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> Right now it looks like he's got a cute little air motor. If it
>> actually runs on fuel, doesn't overheat at high power, holds
>> together
>> for a few thousand hours, gives reasonable throttle response,
>> passes
>> emissions, and if it really achieves the efficiency he claims,
>> _then_
>> he's got an engine.
>>
> The air is used in public settings to meet fire codes. He has run
> them on fuel for awhile now. The easiest fuel for it to use is
> deisel. All of his initial offerings will be in deisel. He can
> make
> a few changes to use other fuels.
Does he have a video of it running on something other than air? I
didn't see one on his site. I know he _says_ that he has, but where's
the meat?
> Again, he has to build something beyond prototypes. I wish him the
> best. It is a real creative feat. But real life has a way of
> dashing
> dreams.
I wish him well too, but don't really expect him to deliver. In
engineering when someone comes to you with something that looks too
good to be true, it generally is.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> "Jay Pique" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Call me a cynic, but this sounds a little too good to be true. There
> seems to be very little "credible" press (is that an oxymoron?) given
> the claimed performance. And it seems to have been around for a good
> 5 years. It'll be interesting to see though.
>=20
> JP
>=20
> ****************************************************************
>=20
> Sounds very similar in theory to the Wankle, but more sophisticated.=20
> That was a huge success too wasn't it? (zoom, zoom, zoom)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Check out the Mazda RX8: http://www.mazda.ca/root.asp?lang=3Deng
Up to 232 hp from 1.3 L rotary. Goes like stink :)
P D Q
PDQ wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> "Jay Pique" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Call me a cynic, but this sounds a little too good to be true.
>> There
>> seems to be very little "credible" press (is that an oxymoron?)
>> given
>> the claimed performance. And it seems to have been around for a
>> good
>> 5 years. It'll be interesting to see though.
>>
>> JP
>>
>> ****************************************************************
>>
>> Sounds very similar in theory to the Wankle, but more
>> sophisticated.
>> That was a huge success too wasn't it? (zoom, zoom, zoom)
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Check out the Mazda RX8: http://www.mazda.ca/root.asp?lang=eng
>
> Up to 232 hp from 1.3 L rotary. Goes like stink :)
Yeah, we all know that Mazda keeps a token Wankel in the lineup. But
don't be too surprised if in the current economic downturn that proves
to be a luxury that they can no longer afford.
If it was such an outstanding success then _every_ Mazda would have
one.
Friend of mine, an engineer, had an RX-7. Somebody stole it and he
used the insurance money to buy a used Porsche. Says how much he was
impressed with it.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Robatoy wrote:
> On Feb 10, 9:00 am, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Lee Michaels wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Again, he has to build something beyond prototypes. I wish him the best. It
>>> is a real creative feat. But real life has a way of dashing dreams.
>> Where real life is spelled "thermodynamics"...
>>
...
> I can't see it keeping cool either. ...
I'm speaking in more general sense of thermodynamics as in the three
laws not just heat transfer.
I have the feeling the overall efficiencies claimed will not bear up to
detailed scrutiny in practice.
Reminds me of, oh, cold fusion, say...the lone researcher w/ no
replication outside of own laboratory.
But, then again, if he's really got something he'll become _very_ famous.
--
LRod wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 19:14:08 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
> <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> "KIMOSABE" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:7e79a228-1909-4afa-8e33-6806327da17e@x10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>>> Explanatory videos are about halfway down the page.
>>>
>>> http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Massive_Yet_Tiny_(MYT)_Engine#How_it_Works
>
> The piston arrangement is very interesting. I don't quite get how the
> 1,695 ci figure is arrived at, though. Someone made the comment about
> thermodynamics, which I'll bet will be a seriously limiting hurdle to
> overcome.
I saw a calculation of approx. 850 ci based on stroke/diameter and the
16 cylinders although I didn't bother to really look at it in enough
detail to decipher whether there was any sleight of hand being pulled or
not.
> I'm no engineer, nor do I play one on TV, but the first thing that
> caught my eye was that extremely complicated gear assembly used to
> "modulate" the piston cycle. There has to be a lot of mechanical price
> to pay in that thing (and expense, even if there isn't a mechanical
> penalty).
>
> Color me extremely skeptical.
Yeah, the general lack of sophistication in the analyses and data
presented wherein the mechanical efficiency is claimed to be near 100%
because of only a relatively low part count is just simply unsupportable
w/o a detailed analysis or actual measurements. One would not expect
such claims to hold up when tested.
Ditto to the conclusion...
--
Keith Nuttle wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> Lee Michaels wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> Right now it looks like he's got a cute little air motor. If it
>>>> actually runs on fuel, doesn't overheat at high power, holds
>>>> together
>>>> for a few thousand hours, gives reasonable throttle response,
>>>> passes
>>>> emissions, and if it really achieves the efficiency he claims,
>>>> _then_
>>>> he's got an engine.
>>>>
>>> The air is used in public settings to meet fire codes. He has run
>>> them on fuel for awhile now. The easiest fuel for it to use is
>>> deisel. All of his initial offerings will be in deisel. He can
>>> make
>>> a few changes to use other fuels.
>>
>> Does he have a video of it running on something other than air? I
>> didn't see one on his site. I know he _says_ that he has, but
>> where's the meat?
>>
>>> Again, he has to build something beyond prototypes. I wish him
>>> the
>>> best. It is a real creative feat. But real life has a way of
>>> dashing
>>> dreams.
>>
>> I wish him well too, but don't really expect him to deliver. In
>> engineering when someone comes to you with something that looks too
>> good to be true, it generally is.
>>
> People including those in Washington do not understand there is a
> fixed amount of energy in the Carbon bond. When the Carbon molecule
> is oxidized it release a known amount of energy that can be
> calculated. (This energy can be found in any Handbook of
> Engineering,
> Physics, or Chemistry and probably hundreds of sites online)
> Regardless of what you do, you can only recover 100% of this energy.
The trouble is that current cars (or base-load power plants for that
matter) do not come anywhere close to recovering 100 percent of that
energy. 30 percent is very good for an internal combustion otto-cycle
engine, so there is considerable room for improvement.
> Hence with cars to get higher miles per gallon you have to reduce
> the
> size of the car.
Or increase the thermal efficiency.
> A roller skate should be able to get a couple of
> hundred miles per gallon.
>
> Like Bigfoot, I have heard of the supper carburetor for years, but
> it
> still is not real.
I'm not sure how relevant that is to the engine in question. He's
claiming that it gets the performance of a really good diesel or maybe
a wee bit more in a much smaller and lighter package--if that's so
then in addition to the thermal efficiency benefit the car could be
smaller and lighter due to the smaller, lighter engine, which would
again provide a gas mileage benefit.
The question is whether he can actually deliver that thermal
efficiency in an engine that passes emissions and is reliable and
driveable. If he can the world is going to beat a path to his door,
but if their engineers thought that he could the car manufacturers
would have engaged in a bidding war to get the rights to his design.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
J. Clarke wrote:
> PDQ wrote:
>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> "Jay Pique" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> Call me a cynic, but this sounds a little too good to be true.
>>> There
>>> seems to be very little "credible" press (is that an oxymoron?)
>>> given
>>> the claimed performance. And it seems to have been around for a
>>> good
>>> 5 years. It'll be interesting to see though.
>>>=20
>>> JP
>>>=20
>>> ****************************************************************
>>>=20
>>> Sounds very similar in theory to the Wankle, but more
>>> sophisticated.
>>> That was a huge success too wasn't it? (zoom, zoom, zoom)
>>=20
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>=20
>> Check out the Mazda RX8: http://www.mazda.ca/root.asp?lang=3Deng
>>=20
>> Up to 232 hp from 1.3 L rotary. Goes like stink :)
>=20
> Yeah, we all know that Mazda keeps a token Wankel in the lineup. But
> don't be too surprised if in the current economic downturn that proves
> to be a luxury that they can no longer afford.
>=20
> If it was such an outstanding success then _every_ Mazda would have
> one.
>=20
> Friend of mine, an engineer, had an RX-7. Somebody stole it and he
> used the insurance money to buy a used Porsche. Says how much he was
> impressed with it.
>=20
> --
Ectually, ------ Porsche is the ultimate in understated snobery.=20
Even used it is head and shoulders above a mere rice burner.
P D Q
dpb wrote:
...
> Reminds me of, oh, cold fusion, say...the lone researcher w/ no
> replication outside of own laboratory.
...
In a somewhat more general amplification...
There are many very clever and talented mechanical tinkerers who create
wondrous mechanical gizmos of all kinds. However, often they lack
sufficient abilities in analysis or precision in measurement or aren't
careful enough in the measurement phases of experimentation to realize
the results aren't what they would hope for. Or, in some cases, they're
so convinced of the basic idea they make flawed conclusions by bending
the interpretation to fit their conclusions. And, of course, there have
been those who simply downright cheated in knowingly creating false data.
Until the invention and the technology can be brought to an independent
testing facility and replicate the results and creation of the device
there's nothing to do but wait and see if it "sprouts legs".
--
[email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:50:33 -0600, "Leon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Keith Nuttle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>> People including those in Washington do not understand there is a
>>> fixed amount of energy in the Carbon bond. When the Carbon
>>> molecule is oxidized it release a known amount of energy that can
>>> be calculated. (This energy can be found in any Handbook of
>>> Engineering, Physics, or Chemistry and probably hundreds of sites
>>> online) Regardless of what you do, you can only recover 100% of
>>> this energy. Hence with cars to get higher miles per gallon you
>>> have to reduce the size of the car. A roller skate should be able
>>> to get a couple of hundred miles per gallon.
>>>
>>> Like Bigfoot, I have heard of the supper carburetor for years, but
>>> it still is not real.
>>
>> While any given fuel does in deed only has a fixed amount of stored
>> energy reducing the size of the vehicle is not the only way to
>> increase gas mileage. Simple engine tweaks can do this, advancing
>> the ignition timing will do this. I currently have a heavier,
>> taller truck with an engine that produces approximately 50% more
>> horse power than my previous truck. It gets at least the same,
>> often better gas mileage than the older model did when it was the
>> same age.
>> It is simply a matter of getting more out of the fuel burn than
>> what
>> has been gotten in the past. Some engines burn fuel more
>> efficiently than others. Because most gasoline burning engines do
>> not do not get 100% return on the fuel that they burn they can be
>> improved to do better.
>> With the common day usage of on board computers and fuel injectors
>> gas mileage has improved dramatically over the last 30 years. You
>> can look as fuel injectors as the today's "super carburetor".
>>
> While it is true that fuel mileage has improved over the last few
> years, Ford's Corporate Average Fuel Economy for the whole fleet is
> the same as it was in 1919 with the model "T" - aprox 21MPG US.
And of course the Model T is capable of highway speeds and passes all
Federally mandated safety and emissions regulations.
Hint, Congress took gas mileage out of the auto manufacturers hands
years ago. They build to the regulations. If you don't like the
regulations, take it up with Congress.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
KIMOSABE wrote:
> I must be reading more into this than is there.
>
> Does anyone see a reason that he doesn't have this engine mounted in
> a
> car which can be driven as a demo?
That's a very good question. Given what he says about the dimensions
it would certainly fit in most of them. Given what he says about the
power it could certainly propel most of them.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
sandpounder wrote:
...
> Well if I recall correctly, burning fuel produces heat not just energy.
> so theoretical efficiency of 100% is hooey.
Well, heat _is_ energy, but that's not the point... :)
While undoubtedly it's inflated, the claim isn't that the overall
process is nearly 100% efficient, only that the mechanical losses are
low so the output is nearly the theoretical limit. As noted, a couple
of times, this is probably also not going to work out to be so, either...
--
dpb wrote:
> sandpounder wrote:
> ...
>
>> Well if I recall correctly, burning fuel produces heat not just
>> energy. so theoretical efficiency of 100% is hooey.
>
> Well, heat _is_ energy, but that's not the point... :)
>
> While undoubtedly it's inflated, the claim isn't that the overall
> process is nearly 100% efficient, only that the mechanical losses
> are
> low so the output is nearly the theoretical limit. As noted, a
> couple
> of times, this is probably also not going to work out to be so,
> either...
The actual claim I saw was 60 percent. IIRC the best diesels achieve
around 50 percent when running on their design condition. Saw no
claim on his site that he was going to achieve 100 percent. I'd be
very surprised if he hits a real-world 60 with a brand new design.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
J. Clarke wrote:
...
> The actual claim I saw was 60 percent. IIRC the best diesels achieve
> around 50 percent when running on their design condition. Saw no
> claim on his site that he was going to achieve 100 percent. I'd be
> very surprised if he hits a real-world 60 with a brand new design.
Here's the quote from the site in the OP's link...
> Fuel Economy
>
> In a phone interview on May 1, 2006 and subsequent email, Jin K. Kim,
> Ph.D, Managing Member, Angel Labs, LLC said that the design of the
> engine is such that there is a "long dwell time at top dead center."
> This means that there is a much higher chance that all of the fuel is
> ignited, resulting in achieving "very close to 100% theoretical efficiency."
> ...
> "One more factor is much higher mechanical efficiency due to
> radically small number of components. (only 20 parts vs. thousands.)"
What else can I say...it's what I said it was--he claims the mechanical
efficiency is going to be very high; I simply said I doubt that and that
the claim based purely on component count is specious.
What else you want?
--
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 10:16:52 -0500, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> Don't disagree with that at all. Bottom line is that with the bailout,
>> this just passed donation to DNC patrons (can't come close to really
>> calling it a stimulus), TARP II, TARP III, TARP reloaded, etc. we are
>> rewarding failure and penalizing success. This is going to have
>> consequences and they are not going to be good.
>
>Well if you hate America, but would love AmeriKa, then the consequences
>will be wonderful.
>
>Amerika seems to have voted for socialism, so socialism it tis. Go Marx,
>go Stalin, Go Mao, Go Hitler, Go Obama... If you don't like it, I think
>you need to move to another planet... I doubt anyone has the balls to
>fight another Hitler...
Perhaps, but another Hitler we will have.
dpb wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
> ...
>
>> The actual claim I saw was 60 percent. IIRC the best diesels
>> achieve
>> around 50 percent when running on their design condition. Saw no
>> claim on his site that he was going to achieve 100 percent. I'd be
>> very surprised if he hits a real-world 60 with a brand new design.
>
> Here's the quote from the site in the OP's link...
>
>> Fuel Economy
>>
>> In a phone interview on May 1, 2006 and subsequent email, Jin K.
>> Kim,
>> Ph.D, Managing Member, Angel Labs, LLC said that the design of the
>> engine is such that there is a "long dwell time at top dead
>> center."
>> This means that there is a much higher chance that all of the fuel
>> is
>> ignited, resulting in achieving "very close to 100% theoretical
>> efficiency." ...
>> "One more factor is much higher mechanical efficiency due to
>> radically small number of components. (only 20 parts vs.
>> thousands.)"
>
>
> What else can I say...it's what I said it was--he claims the
> mechanical efficiency is going to be very high; I simply said I
> doubt
> that and that the claim based purely on component count is specious.
>
> What else you want?
I interpreted that to mean that he thought he was going to come close
to the theoretical ideal efficiency, not that the theoretical
efficiency was going to be 100 percent. Note the the person giving
the interview was identified as "Jin K. Kim" and his title "Managing
member". The guy who designed the thing is named Morgado. "Managing
member" sounds like a bean counter from the venture capitalist, in
which case he is parroting his own misunderstanding of something that
he has been told.
I think you're reading far, far too much into that statement.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
LD wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> Lee Michaels wrote:
>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>> Right now it looks like he's got a cute little air motor. If
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> actually runs on fuel, doesn't overheat at high power, holds
>>>>>> together
>>>>>> for a few thousand hours, gives reasonable throttle response,
>>>>>> passes
>>>>>> emissions, and if it really achieves the efficiency he claims,
>>>>>> _then_
>>>>>> he's got an engine.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The air is used in public settings to meet fire codes. He has
>>>>> run
>>>>> them on fuel for awhile now. The easiest fuel for it to use is
>>>>> deisel. All of his initial offerings will be in deisel. He can
>>>>> make
>>>>> a few changes to use other fuels.
>>>>
>>>> Does he have a video of it running on something other than air?
>>>> I
>>>> didn't see one on his site. I know he _says_ that he has, but
>>>> where's the meat?
>>>>
>>>>> Again, he has to build something beyond prototypes. I wish him
>>>>> the
>>>>> best. It is a real creative feat. But real life has a way of
>>>>> dashing
>>>>> dreams.
>>>>
>>>> I wish him well too, but don't really expect him to deliver. In
>>>> engineering when someone comes to you with something that looks
>>>> too
>>>> good to be true, it generally is.
>>>>
>>> People including those in Washington do not understand there is a
>>> fixed amount of energy in the Carbon bond. When the Carbon
>>> molecule
>>> is oxidized it release a known amount of energy that can be
>>> calculated. (This energy can be found in any Handbook of
>>> Engineering,
>>> Physics, or Chemistry and probably hundreds of sites online)
>>> Regardless of what you do, you can only recover 100% of this
>>> energy.
>>
>> The trouble is that current cars (or base-load power plants for
>> that
>> matter) do not come anywhere close to recovering 100 percent of
>> that
>> energy. 30 percent is very good for an internal combustion
>> otto-cycle engine, so there is considerable room for improvement.
>>
>>> Hence with cars to get higher miles per gallon you have to reduce
>>> the
>>> size of the car.
>>
>> Or increase the thermal efficiency.
>>
>>> A roller skate should be able to get a couple of
>>> hundred miles per gallon.
>>>
>>> Like Bigfoot, I have heard of the supper carburetor for years, but
>>> it
>>> still is not real.
>>
>> I'm not sure how relevant that is to the engine in question. He's
>> claiming that it gets the performance of a really good diesel or
>> maybe a wee bit more in a much smaller and lighter package--if
>> that's so then in addition to the thermal efficiency benefit the
>> car
>> could be smaller and lighter due to the smaller, lighter engine,
>> which would again provide a gas mileage benefit.
>>
>> The question is whether he can actually deliver that thermal
>> efficiency in an engine that passes emissions and is reliable and
>> driveable. If he can the world is going to beat a path to his
>> door,
>> but if their engineers thought that he could the car manufacturers
>> would have engaged in a bidding war to get the rights to his
>> design.
>
> The car manufacturers, particularly in the US, are victims of NIH
> Syndrome.
You really think that if Ford could reduce the size of their engines
by a factor of ten while doubling the efficiency in these days of CAFE
they'd ignore it because of "NIH"?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
J. Clarke wrote:
>>
<SNIP>
>>=20
>> The car manufacturers, particularly in the US, are victims of NIH
>> Syndrome.
>=20
> You really think that if Ford could reduce the size of their engines
> by a factor of ten while doubling the efficiency in these days of CAFE
> they'd ignore it because of "NIH"?
>=20
> --
I hate to burst your bubble, but, ---
When CAFE was adopted there was a big hole in it for trucks - they were =
excepted.
The big 3 thought, and rightly so, that they could carry on as before as =
long as the cars they produced were on a truck platform. =20
Do you remember SUV, Crossover, AWD, Hummer??
All of these are produced on a "truck" platform and, as a result, did =
not get counted in CAFE.
Think about which vehicles have been touted the most and which ones sold =
as "safest".
This has come back to bite us with 10 or less mpg in a lot of the really =
big vehicles.
I think the greed of the "bean counters" prevailed and any effort to =
garner efficiency was castigated.
P D Q
PDQ wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
> <SNIP>
>>>
>>> The car manufacturers, particularly in the US, are victims of NIH
>>> Syndrome.
>>
>> You really think that if Ford could reduce the size of their
>> engines
>> by a factor of ten while doubling the efficiency in these days of
>> CAFE they'd ignore it because of "NIH"?
>>
>> --
> I hate to burst your bubble, but, ---
>
> When CAFE was adopted there was a big hole in it for trucks - they
> were excepted.
They had to be. If you base CAFE on vehicles that have to carry tons
of cargo then you defeat the purpose.
> The big 3 thought, and rightly so, that they could carry on as
> before
> as long as the cars they produced were on a truck platform.
If they were carrying on as before then they would still be producting
vehicles such as my '76 Lincoln and would not be producing vehicles
such as the Ford Focus. Perhaps you do not remember the Falcon, which
would today be mid-size but in the late '50s was about as small as
Detroit made. Even the large sedans are smaller now.
> Do you remember SUV, Crossover, AWD, Hummer??
>
> All of these are produced on a "truck" platform and, as a result,
> did
> not get counted in CAFE.
What of it? All the manufacturers were making SUVs long before CAFE
and AWD was an Audi innovation first introduced in a small sedan.
As for Hummer, the Hummer was _never_ produced by a big three auto
maker until GM bought the product line in 1998 and started rebadging
other vehicles as Hummers, all of which are smaller and lighter and
more fuel efficient than the original, non-big-three produced Hummer.
If you don't like the Hummer you need to blame the Army for writing
the specification.
Do you also remember mini-vans?
As the car manufacturers downsized their sedans and dropped station
wagons from the product line, people needing such vehicles had no
choice but to go to SUV or mini-vans and for some reason people don't
like mini-vans. And CAFE is what killed the station wagon. Or do you
really think that high gas mileage station wagons that do what station
wagons are supposed to do can be built without a breakthrough in
engine technology?
> Think about which vehicles have been touted the most and which ones
> sold as "safest".
Volvos?
> This has come back to bite us with 10 or less mpg in a lot of the
> really big vehicles.
Bite who? If you're being bitten by it then you must have bought one.
> I think the greed of the "bean counters" prevailed and any effort to
> garner efficiency was castigated.
You're welcome to think whatever you want to but you clearly aren't
familiar with the product lines of any domestic auto manufacturer.
There are many kinds of car in production that are not SUVs. You are
acting as if Detroit just stopped producing cars entirely and started
producing SUVs exclusively.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Doug Winterburn wrote:
> PDQ wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>> <SNIP>
>>>> The car manufacturers, particularly in the US, are victims of NIH
>>>> Syndrome.
>>> You really think that if Ford could reduce the size of their engines
>>> by a factor of ten while doubling the efficiency in these days of
>>> CAFE they'd ignore it because of "NIH"?
>>>=20
>>> --
>> I hate to burst your bubble, but, ---
>>=20
>> When CAFE was adopted there was a big hole in it for trucks - they
>> were excepted.=20
>>=20
>> The big 3 thought, and rightly so, that they could carry on as
>> before as long as the cars they produced were on a truck platform.=20
>>=20
>> Do you remember SUV, Crossover, AWD, Hummer??
>>=20
>> All of these are produced on a "truck" platform and, as a result,
>> did not get counted in CAFE.=20
>>=20
>> Think about which vehicles have been touted the most and which ones
>> sold as "safest".=20
>>=20
>> This has come back to bite us with 10 or less mpg in a lot of the
>> really big vehicles.=20
>>=20
>> I think the greed of the "bean counters" prevailed and any effort to
>> garner efficiency was castigated.=20
>>=20
>> P D Q
>=20
> Some of the "really big" vehicles do pretty well. My '04 Silverado
> 2500 Duramax diesel (6500 lbs) gets 21 mpg highway at 75mph and 14.5
> mpg towing a 10,000 lb 5th wheel at 65 mph.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The economy is better now and the deisel is even better than gas.
I remember a 74 Merc wagon that gave me 12.5 mpg whether or not I was =
towing. Gas was cheap then.
Last fall I took an 08 Silverado 4X4 with the big gas motor (6.5?, 7.5?) =
from Oshawa to Lucan (maybe 150 miles) for a dealer. Started out with a =
full tank and had to add more in St Marys so I could get back. That =
thing sucked fuel faster than I could put it in :) To top that all off, =
the truck acted like a dog - no getup and no go.
Would you believe that truck was not what the dealer ordered so it had =
to go back. Took it back and got another that had the big blown diesel. =
Same 4X4 as the other one but for the motor. This one was a real =
pleasure - great off the line and still had real punch at 80 mph.
To top it all, started with 3/4 tank and still had some left when I got =
home.
That said, we are still paying for the big 3 greed in circumventing the =
thrust of CAFE. And now we are going to have to bail them out???
P D Q
Chris Friesen wrote:
> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>
>> Some of the "really big" vehicles do pretty well. My '04 Silverado
>> 2500 Duramax diesel (6500 lbs) gets 21 mpg highway at 75mph and
>> 14.5
>> mpg towing a 10,000 lb 5th wheel at 65 mph.
>
> What's the criteria for "pretty well"? A smaller vehicle could get
> twice that mileage on the highway (but of course couldn't pull the
> 5th
> wheel).
But how much smaller does it have to be to get twice that mileage on
the highway?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
J. Clarke wrote:
> PDQ wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>=20
>> <SNIP>
>>>>=20
>>>> The car manufacturers, particularly in the US, are victims of NIH
>>>> Syndrome.
>>>=20
>>> You really think that if Ford could reduce the size of their
>>> engines
>>> by a factor of ten while doubling the efficiency in these days of
>>> CAFE they'd ignore it because of "NIH"?
>>>=20
>>> --
>> I hate to burst your bubble, but, ---
>>=20
>> When CAFE was adopted there was a big hole in it for trucks - they
>> were excepted.
>=20
> They had to be. If you base CAFE on vehicles that have to carry tons
> of cargo then you defeat the purpose.
>=20
>> The big 3 thought, and rightly so, that they could carry on as
>> before
>> as long as the cars they produced were on a truck platform.
>=20
> If they were carrying on as before then they would still be producting
> vehicles such as my '76 Lincoln and would not be producing vehicles
> such as the Ford Focus. Perhaps you do not remember the Falcon, which
> would today be mid-size but in the late '50s was about as small as
> Detroit made. Even the large sedans are smaller now.
Remember the Falcon?? I remember the Nash Metropolitan of that era. It =
had a really nice A50 to pull it and it gave even better mileage than =
the Falcon.
>=20
>> Do you remember SUV, Crossover, AWD, Hummer??
>>=20
>> All of these are produced on a "truck" platform and, as a result,
>> did
>> not get counted in CAFE.
>=20
> What of it? All the manufacturers were making SUVs long before CAFE
> and AWD was an Audi innovation first introduced in a small sedan.
What of it? This was when they really started to tout these vehicles =
and a truck went from some $1200 (I paid that for one I got new) to what =
it is today - (supply and demand) They sold us a wonderful bill of =
goods, duded it up with all manner of luxe and created in us a demand =
for more goodies. No where was there a thought for CAFE just bottom =
line. Any improvement in economy was because we griped about the =
miniscule mileage (and some of us did).
>=20
> As for Hummer, the Hummer was _never_ produced by a big three auto
> maker until GM bought the product line in 1998 and started rebadging
> other vehicles as Hummers, all of which are smaller and lighter and
> more fuel efficient than the original, non-big-three produced Hummer.
> If you don't like the Hummer you need to blame the Army for writing
> the specification.
No problem with Army Specs - just the thought of this "Go anywhere - =
Intimidate all" attitude tha6t was transferred to the highways. Even =
Arnie has caved in and replaced his Hummer.
>=20
> Do you also remember mini-vans?
>=20
> As the car manufacturers downsized their sedans and dropped station
> wagons from the product line, people needing such vehicles had no
> choice but to go to SUV or mini-vans and for some reason people don't
> like mini-vans. And CAFE is what killed the station wagon. Or do you
> really think that high gas mileage station wagons that do what station
> wagons are supposed to do can be built without a breakthrough in
> engine technology?
>=20
>> Think about which vehicles have been touted the most and which ones
>> sold as "safest".
>=20
> Volvos?
They had to think of something to overcome their dismal motor =
performance.
Beyond that, seems you have conveniently forgotten all the hype about =
what vehicles could best survive a crash and thus protect your "precious =
cargoe".
>=20
>> This has come back to bite us with 10 or less mpg in a lot of the
>> really big vehicles.
>=20
> Bite who? If you're being bitten by it then you must have bought one.
>=20
>> I think the greed of the "bean counters" prevailed and any effort to
>> garner efficiency was castigated.
>=20
> You're welcome to think whatever you want to but you clearly aren't
> familiar with the product lines of any domestic auto manufacturer.
> There are many kinds of car in production that are not SUVs. You are
> acting as if Detroit just stopped producing cars entirely and started
> producing SUVs exclusively.
There sure are - and they all come under CAFE.
This is probably why my Monte Carlo gets about 32 mpg on the highway and =
some 26.7 overall instead of the 12.5 my old Merc got.
>=20
> --
P D Q
Robatoy wrote:
> On Feb 11, 1:08 pm, "PDQ" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>> PDQ wrote:
>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>=20
>>>> <SNIP>
>>=20
>>>>>> The car manufacturers, particularly in the US, are victims of NIH
>>>>>> Syndrome.
>>=20
>>>>> You really think that if Ford could reduce the size of their
>>>>> engines
>>>>> by a factor of ten while doubling the efficiency in these days of
>>>>> CAFE they'd ignore it because of "NIH"?
>>=20
>>>>> --
>>>> I hate to burst your bubble, but, ---
>>=20
>>>> When CAFE was adopted there was a big hole in it for trucks - they
>>>> were excepted.
>>=20
>>> They had to be. If you base CAFE on vehicles that have to carry tons
>>> of cargo then you defeat the purpose.
>>=20
>>>> The big 3 thought, and rightly so, that they could carry on as
>>>> before
>>>> as long as the cars they produced were on a truck platform.
>>=20
>>> If they were carrying on as before then they would still be
>>> producting vehicles such as my '76 Lincoln and would not be
>>> producing vehicles such as the Ford Focus. Perhaps you do not
>>> remember the Falcon, which would today be mid-size but in the late
>>> '50s was about as small as Detroit made. Even the large sedans are
>>> smaller now.=20
>>=20
>> Remember the Falcon?? I remember the Nash Metropolitan of that era.
>> It had a really nice A50 to pull it and it gave even better mileage
>> than the Falcon. =20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>>> Do you remember SUV, Crossover, AWD, Hummer??
>>=20
>>>> All of these are produced on a "truck" platform and, as a result,
>>>> did
>>>> not get counted in CAFE.
>>=20
>>> What of it? All the manufacturers were making SUVs long before CAFE
>>> and AWD was an Audi innovation first introduced in a small sedan.
>>=20
>> What of it? This was when they really started to tout these vehicles
>> and a truck went from some $1200 (I paid that for one I got new) to
>> what it is today - (supply and demand) They sold us a wonderful bill
>> of goods, duded it up with all manner of luxe and created in us a
>> demand for more goodies. No where was there a thought for CAFE just
>> bottom line. Any improvement in economy was because we griped about
>> the miniscule mileage (and some of us did). =20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>> As for Hummer, the Hummer was _never_ produced by a big three auto
>>> maker until GM bought the product line in 1998 and started rebadging
>>> other vehicles as Hummers, all of which are smaller and lighter and
>>> more fuel efficient than the original, non-big-three produced
>>> Hummer. If you don't like the Hummer you need to blame the Army for
>>> writing the specification.
>>=20
>> No problem with Army Specs - just the thought of this "Go anywhere -
>> Intimidate all" attitude tha6t was transferred to the highways. Even
>> Arnie has caved in and replaced his Hummer. =20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>> Do you also remember mini-vans?
>>=20
>>> As the car manufacturers downsized their sedans and dropped station
>>> wagons from the product line, people needing such vehicles had no
>>> choice but to go to SUV or mini-vans and for some reason people
>>> don't like mini-vans. And CAFE is what killed the station wagon. Or
>>> do you really think that high gas mileage station wagons that do
>>> what station wagons are supposed to do can be built without a
>>> breakthrough in engine technology?
>>=20
>>>> Think about which vehicles have been touted the most and which ones
>>>> sold as "safest".
>>=20
>>> Volvos?
>>=20
>> They had to think of something to overcome their dismal motor
>> performance.=20
>>=20
>> Beyond that, seems you have conveniently forgotten all the hype
>> about what vehicles could best survive a crash and thus protect your
>> "precious cargoe". =20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>>> This has come back to bite us with 10 or less mpg in a lot of the
>>>> really big vehicles.
>>=20
>>> Bite who? If you're being bitten by it then you must have bought
>>> one.=20
>>=20
>>>> I think the greed of the "bean counters" prevailed and any effort
>>>> to garner efficiency was castigated.
>>=20
>>> You're welcome to think whatever you want to but you clearly aren't
>>> familiar with the product lines of any domestic auto manufacturer.
>>> There are many kinds of car in production that are not SUVs. You are
>>> acting as if Detroit just stopped producing cars entirely and
>>> started producing SUVs exclusively.
>>=20
>> There sure are - and they all come under CAFE.
>>=20
>> This is probably why my Monte Carlo gets about 32 mpg on the highway
>> and some 26.7 overall instead of the 12.5 my old Merc got.=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>> --
>>=20
>> P D Q
>=20
> Both of my Safari trucks get excellent mileage for the durable/high
> payload small vans that they are.
> A great combination of mileage and 'real' truckishness.
> Which is why the assholes at GMC stopped making them in 2005.
> I would rather have a 4-year old GMC Safari than anything new those
> idiots now pass off as a working van..(Not including the big
> Savannah's etc.) Those Uplanders and Montanas are pure nonsense....
> and for what? A few MPG's?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Those wannabe's are just for looks and to motor the "Precious Cargoe".
The only stuff that works for farmers and merchants are true trucks. =
Its nice that every now and then a cost concious motor is dropped into =
them.
P D Q
[email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 11, 11:10 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> PDQ wrote:
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> <SNIP>
>>
>>>>> The car manufacturers, particularly in the US, are victims of
>>>>> NIH
>>>>> Syndrome.
>>
>>>> You really think that if Ford could reduce the size of their
>>>> engines
>>>> by a factor of ten while doubling the efficiency in these days of
>>>> CAFE they'd ignore it because of "NIH"?
>>
>>>> --
>>> I hate to burst your bubble, but, ---
>>
>>> When CAFE was adopted there was a big hole in it for trucks - they
>>> were excepted.
>>
>> They had to be. If you base CAFE on vehicles that have to carry
>> tons
>> of cargo then you defeat the purpose.
>>
>>> The big 3 thought, and rightly so, that they could carry on as
>>> before
>>> as long as the cars they produced were on a truck platform.
>>
>> If they were carrying on as before then they would still be
>> producting vehicles such as my '76 Lincoln and would not be
>> producing vehicles such as the Ford Focus. Perhaps you do not
>> remember the Falcon, which would today be mid-size but in the late
>> '50s was about as small as Detroit made. Even the large sedans are
>> smaller now.
>>
>>> Do you remember SUV, Crossover, AWD, Hummer??
>>
>>> All of these are produced on a "truck" platform and, as a result,
>>> did
>>> not get counted in CAFE.
>>
>> What of it? All the manufacturers were making SUVs long before CAFE
>> and AWD was an Audi innovation first introduced in a small sedan.
>>
>> As for Hummer, the Hummer was _never_ produced by a big three auto
>> maker until GM bought the product line in 1998 and started
>> rebadging
>> other vehicles as Hummers, all of which are smaller and lighter and
>> more fuel efficient than the original, non-big-three produced
>> Hummer.
>> If you don't like the Hummer you need to blame the Army for writing
>> the specification.
>>
>> Do you also remember mini-vans?
>>
>> As the car manufacturers downsized their sedans and dropped station
>> wagons from the product line, people needing such vehicles had no
>> choice but to go to SUV or mini-vans and for some reason people
>> don't
>> like mini-vans. And CAFE is what killed the station wagon. Or do
>> you
>> really think that high gas mileage station wagons that do what
>> station wagons are supposed to do can be built without a
>> breakthrough in engine technology?
>>
>>> Think about which vehicles have been touted the most and which
>>> ones
>>> sold as "safest".
>>
>> Volvos?
>>
>>> This has come back to bite us with 10 or less mpg in a lot of the
>>> really big vehicles.
>>
>> Bite who? If you're being bitten by it then you must have bought
>> one.
>>
>>> I think the greed of the "bean counters" prevailed and any effort
>>> to
>>> garner efficiency was castigated.
>>
>> You're welcome to think whatever you want to but you clearly aren't
>> familiar with the product lines of any domestic auto manufacturer.
>> There are many kinds of car in production that are not SUVs. You
>> are
>> acting as if Detroit just stopped producing cars entirely and
>> started
>> producing SUVs exclusively.
>
> http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html#autosalesA
>
> I could only find Jan 2009 data. Not all 2008. Based on Jan 2009
> data over half of the vehicles sold in the US fall into the truck
> category. So only about half the vehicles meet the CAFE standards.
> Or have to meet them. No, auto companies have not changed one iota
> in
> the last 30 years. Less than half the vehicles sold are cars. Most
> are some form of truck. No personal opinion required. Just the
> numbers.
While you were googling all this bullshit did you happen to google the
standards? If you had you would have found that light trucks have
been subject to CAFE since 1978. And the Ford F series pickup has
been the most popular vehicle in America for more than 30 years.
You just don't seem to be able to get past the notion that Americans,
dogs, and elderly Japanese gentlemen love trucks.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
PDQ wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> PDQ wrote:
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>
>>> <SNIP>
>>>>>
>>>>> The car manufacturers, particularly in the US, are victims of
>>>>> NIH
>>>>> Syndrome.
>>>>
>>>> You really think that if Ford could reduce the size of their
>>>> engines
>>>> by a factor of ten while doubling the efficiency in these days of
>>>> CAFE they'd ignore it because of "NIH"?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>> I hate to burst your bubble, but, ---
>>>
>>> When CAFE was adopted there was a big hole in it for trucks - they
>>> were excepted.
>>
>> They had to be. If you base CAFE on vehicles that have to carry
>> tons
>> of cargo then you defeat the purpose.
>>
>>> The big 3 thought, and rightly so, that they could carry on as
>>> before
>>> as long as the cars they produced were on a truck platform.
>>
>> If they were carrying on as before then they would still be
>> producting vehicles such as my '76 Lincoln and would not be
>> producing vehicles such as the Ford Focus. Perhaps you do not
>> remember the Falcon, which would today be mid-size but in the late
>> '50s was about as small as Detroit made. Even the large sedans are
>> smaller now.
>
> Remember the Falcon?? I remember the Nash Metropolitan of that era.
> It had a really nice A50 to pull it and it gave even better mileage
> than the Falcon.
>
>>
>>> Do you remember SUV, Crossover, AWD, Hummer??
>>>
>>> All of these are produced on a "truck" platform and, as a result,
>>> did
>>> not get counted in CAFE.
>>
>> What of it? All the manufacturers were making SUVs long before
>> CAFE
>> and AWD was an Audi innovation first introduced in a small sedan.
>
> What of it? This was when they really started to tout these
> vehicles
> and a truck went from some $1200 (I paid that for one I got new) to
> what it is today - (supply and demand) They sold us a wonderful
> bill
> of goods, duded it up with all manner of luxe and created in us a
> demand for more goodies. No where was there a thought for CAFE just
> bottom line. Any improvement in economy was because we griped about
> the miniscule mileage (and some of us did).
Well, actually in 1978 light trucks were required to average 17 mpg.
They are now required to average better than 23. At one time the
standards were lower for AWD, but that has not been the case for at
least a decade (incidentally, Audi discovered that AWD actually gave
_better_ gas mileage in the original Quattro--had something to do with
some fine point of tire dynamics IIRC).
>> As for Hummer, the Hummer was _never_ produced by a big three auto
>> maker until GM bought the product line in 1998 and started
>> rebadging
>> other vehicles as Hummers, all of which are smaller and lighter and
>> more fuel efficient than the original, non-big-three produced
>> Hummer.
>> If you don't like the Hummer you need to blame the Army for writing
>> the specification.
>
> No problem with Army Specs - just the thought of this "Go anywhere -
> Intimidate all" attitude tha6t was transferred to the highways.
> Even
> Arnie has caved in and replaced his Hummer.
Shame that it wasn't transferred to Iraq. The "insurgents" don't seem
intimidated at all. In any case, since the real Hummer was never
produced by any Big Three automaker it remains irrelevant to any
discussion of their attitudes toward fuel economy. I find 18-wheelers
to be much, much more intimidating than Hummers, but then my normal
daily transporation is such that I lose in a collision with a Pinto.
>> Do you also remember mini-vans?
>>
>> As the car manufacturers downsized their sedans and dropped station
>> wagons from the product line, people needing such vehicles had no
>> choice but to go to SUV or mini-vans and for some reason people
>> don't
>> like mini-vans. And CAFE is what killed the station wagon. Or do
>> you really think that high gas mileage station wagons that do what
>> station wagons are supposed to do can be built without a
>> breakthrough in engine technology?
>>
>>> Think about which vehicles have been touted the most and which
>>> ones
>>> sold as "safest".
>>
>> Volvos?
>
> They had to think of something to overcome their dismal motor
> performance.
Who, Volvo?
> Beyond that, seems you have conveniently forgotten all the hype
> about
> what vehicles could best survive a crash and thus protect your
> "precious cargoe".
I don't remember any such "hype" coming from anybody but Volvo and
Saab and occasionally Mercedes. Ford tried it once and it hurt their
sales.
>>> This has come back to bite us with 10 or less mpg in a lot of the
>>> really big vehicles.
>>
>> Bite who? If you're being bitten by it then you must have bought
>> one.
>>
>>> I think the greed of the "bean counters" prevailed and any effort
>>> to
>>> garner efficiency was castigated.
>>
>> You're welcome to think whatever you want to but you clearly aren't
>> familiar with the product lines of any domestic auto manufacturer.
>> There are many kinds of car in production that are not SUVs. You
>> are
>> acting as if Detroit just stopped producing cars entirely and
>> started
>> producing SUVs exclusively.
>
> There sure are - and they all come under CAFE.
>
> This is probably why my Monte Carlo gets about 32 mpg on the highway
> and some 26.7 overall instead of the 12.5 my old Merc got.
Further, the SUVs come under CAFE as well.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
J. Clarke wrote:
> PDQ wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>> PDQ wrote:
>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>=20
>>>> <SNIP>
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> The car manufacturers, particularly in the US, are victims of
>>>>>> NIH
>>>>>> Syndrome.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> You really think that if Ford could reduce the size of their
>>>>> engines
>>>>> by a factor of ten while doubling the efficiency in these days of
>>>>> CAFE they'd ignore it because of "NIH"?
>>>>>=20
>>>>> --
>>>> I hate to burst your bubble, but, ---
>>>>=20
>>>> When CAFE was adopted there was a big hole in it for trucks - they
>>>> were excepted.
>>>=20
>>> They had to be. If you base CAFE on vehicles that have to carry
>>> tons
>>> of cargo then you defeat the purpose.
>>>=20
>>>> The big 3 thought, and rightly so, that they could carry on as
>>>> before
>>>> as long as the cars they produced were on a truck platform.
>>>=20
>>> If they were carrying on as before then they would still be
>>> producting vehicles such as my '76 Lincoln and would not be
>>> producing vehicles such as the Ford Focus. Perhaps you do not
>>> remember the Falcon, which would today be mid-size but in the late
>>> '50s was about as small as Detroit made. Even the large sedans are
>>> smaller now.
>>=20
>> Remember the Falcon?? I remember the Nash Metropolitan of that era.
>> It had a really nice A50 to pull it and it gave even better mileage
>> than the Falcon.
>>=20
>>>=20
>>>> Do you remember SUV, Crossover, AWD, Hummer??
>>>>=20
>>>> All of these are produced on a "truck" platform and, as a result,
>>>> did
>>>> not get counted in CAFE.
>>>=20
>>> What of it? All the manufacturers were making SUVs long before
>>> CAFE
>>> and AWD was an Audi innovation first introduced in a small sedan.
>>=20
>> What of it? This was when they really started to tout these
>> vehicles
>> and a truck went from some $1200 (I paid that for one I got new) to
>> what it is today - (supply and demand) They sold us a wonderful
>> bill
>> of goods, duded it up with all manner of luxe and created in us a
>> demand for more goodies. No where was there a thought for CAFE just
>> bottom line. Any improvement in economy was because we griped about
>> the miniscule mileage (and some of us did).
>=20
> Well, actually in 1978 light trucks were required to average 17 mpg.
> They are now required to average better than 23. At one time the
> standards were lower for AWD, but that has not been the case for at
> least a decade (incidentally, Audi discovered that AWD actually gave
> _better_ gas mileage in the original Quattro--had something to do with
> some fine point of tire dynamics IIRC).
>=20
>>> As for Hummer, the Hummer was _never_ produced by a big three auto
>>> maker until GM bought the product line in 1998 and started
>>> rebadging
>>> other vehicles as Hummers, all of which are smaller and lighter and
>>> more fuel efficient than the original, non-big-three produced
>>> Hummer.
>>> If you don't like the Hummer you need to blame the Army for writing
>>> the specification.
>>=20
>> No problem with Army Specs - just the thought of this "Go anywhere -
>> Intimidate all" attitude tha6t was transferred to the highways.
>> Even
>> Arnie has caved in and replaced his Hummer.
>=20
> Shame that it wasn't transferred to Iraq. The "insurgents" don't seem
> intimidated at all. In any case, since the real Hummer was never
> produced by any Big Three automaker it remains irrelevant to any
> discussion of their attitudes toward fuel economy. I find 18-wheelers
> to be much, much more intimidating than Hummers, but then my normal
> daily transporation is such that I lose in a collision with a Pinto.
>=20
>>> Do you also remember mini-vans?
>>>=20
>>> As the car manufacturers downsized their sedans and dropped station
>>> wagons from the product line, people needing such vehicles had no
>>> choice but to go to SUV or mini-vans and for some reason people
>>> don't
>>> like mini-vans. And CAFE is what killed the station wagon. Or do
>>> you really think that high gas mileage station wagons that do what
>>> station wagons are supposed to do can be built without a
>>> breakthrough in engine technology?
>>>=20
>>>> Think about which vehicles have been touted the most and which
>>>> ones
>>>> sold as "safest".
>>>=20
>>> Volvos?
>>=20
>> They had to think of something to overcome their dismal motor
>> performance.
>=20
> Who, Volvo?
>=20
>> Beyond that, seems you have conveniently forgotten all the hype
>> about
>> what vehicles could best survive a crash and thus protect your
>> "precious cargoe".
>=20
> I don't remember any such "hype" coming from anybody but Volvo and
> Saab and occasionally Mercedes. Ford tried it once and it hurt their
> sales.
>=20
>>>> This has come back to bite us with 10 or less mpg in a lot of the
>>>> really big vehicles.
>>>=20
>>> Bite who? If you're being bitten by it then you must have bought
>>> one.
>>>=20
>>>> I think the greed of the "bean counters" prevailed and any effort
>>>> to
>>>> garner efficiency was castigated.
>>>=20
>>> You're welcome to think whatever you want to but you clearly aren't
>>> familiar with the product lines of any domestic auto manufacturer.
>>> There are many kinds of car in production that are not SUVs. You
>>> are
>>> acting as if Detroit just stopped producing cars entirely and
>>> started
>>> producing SUVs exclusively.
>>=20
>> There sure are - and they all come under CAFE.
>>=20
>> This is probably why my Monte Carlo gets about 32 mpg on the highway
>> and some 26.7 overall instead of the 12.5 my old Merc got.
>=20
> Further, the SUVs come under CAFE as well.
>=20
>=20
> --
Ainsi soit il.
I shall leave you with this:
CAFE, as originally enacted excluded vehicles based on a truck platform.
This caused the rise of SUV et al as a basic means of people transport.
At some future date subsequent to 1978 the act was amended to include =
the light truck platform.
This is about the time that the big 3 again began to complain about =
their inability to attain the newly mandated efficiency and Congress, in =
its wisdom, gave extentions.
How interesting it is to note that everything comes back to politics and =
big business.
Adieu.
P D Q
Leon wrote:
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Lee Michaels" wrote
>>
>>> I am downloading more about this guy and his technology. It is
>>> fascinating stuff. Where did you learn about him?
>>>
>>> I am going to spend a very pleasurable hour or two perusing this topic.
>>> Thanks for the heads up.
>> Here's hoping his bodyguards are top notch ....
> And or does not get offered 10 million for the patents and then we never
> hear anything again.
Yeah, and we Pittsburghers are worried to death some football
billionaire is going to buy Ben Roethlisberger's contract and stick him
on a bench to nowhere so some loser can play. You guys kill me...
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
Keith Nuttle wrote:
> Like Bigfoot, I have heard of the supper carburetor for years, but it
> still is not real.
You mean the carburetor that runs on plain old water isn't real? I
guess some oil billionaire tycoon bought the rights and buried it, or
did they hire some spook to do him in...
Damn, I HATE when that happens...
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
J. Clarke wrote:
> The question is whether he can actually deliver that thermal
> efficiency in an engine that passes emissions and is reliable and
> driveable.
>If he can the world is going to beat a path to his door,
> but if their engineers thought that he could the car manufacturers
> would have engaged in a bidding war to get the rights to his design.
You mean they wouldn't have him snuffed or buy the rights to the worlds
greatest engine and bury it so they could continue competing with the
rest of the engine makers on a level playing field? How surprising...
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
PDQ wrote:
> Ectually, ------ Porsche is the ultimate in understated snobery.
>
> Even used it is head and shoulders above a mere rice burner.
A well to do friend of mine always drove Beamers, then one day he bought
a Porsche... he HATED it. I told him it had to be better than those
Beamers he always drove. He took me for a ride and no shit, the thing
road worse than my first car, a 49 dodge pick up truck, except the
Porsche had more road noise and a slightly rougher ride...
One day he drove it off the road and bent two rims... $700 a piece for
rims...
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
KIMOSABE wrote:
> I must be reading more into this than is there.
>
> Does anyone see a reason that he doesn't have this engine mounted in a
> car which can be driven as a demo?
Don't fret, Obama ben Laden and his fellow socialists will give GM $50
Billion of our fake money and force them to build a better car, or else...
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
J. Clarke wrote:
> KIMOSABE wrote:
>> I must be reading more into this than is there.
>>
>> Does anyone see a reason that he doesn't have this engine mounted in
>> a
>> car which can be driven as a demo?
>
> That's a very good question. Given what he says about the dimensions
> it would certainly fit in most of them. Given what he says about the
> power it could certainly propel most of them.
Yeah, but it ain't got nothing on the carburator that runs on tap
water... Thats been around more than 50 years and not one auto
manufacture uses it. They buried it so their buddies, the billionaire
oil tycoons, can keep selling gas...
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
Lee Michaels wrote:
> "willshak" wrote in
>> My thoughts exactly. If he can design a complex motor, why can't he design
>> a motor mount for a standard vehicle and put it to the test?
>>
>>
> I feel an episode of sarcasm comin' on.
Good call!
> Cuz designing the motor mounts would be too difficult of an engineering
> feat??
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
LD wrote:
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:pMmkl.4328$%[email protected]...
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>> While it is true that fuel mileage has improved over the last few
>>> years, Ford's Corporate Average Fuel Economy for the whole fleet is
>>> the same as it was in 1919 with the model "T" - aprox 21MPG US.
>>
>> Well, you are talking "Ford". ;~)
>
> The only one of the Big Three not standing on the corner with a tin cup.
Doesn't Ford sell a diesel powered car in Europe that gets 60 mpg? It
was all over the internet so it has to be true, right?
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
MikeWhy wrote:
>> What part of "theoretical efficiency" didn't you guys understand?
>
> Which part would you like to better explain?
Theoretically if I could power my truck with salt water, the worlds
oceans would be my gas station. Obama Ben Laden and his fellow
socialists would have to tax the shit out of something else to power the
destruction of the free market.
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
J. Clarke wrote:
> You really think that if Ford could reduce the size of their engines
> by a factor of ten while doubling the efficiency in these days of CAFE
> they'd ignore it because of "NIH"?
Look what they did to the water carburator! Where have you been...
Actually, I think some billionaire oil tycoon paid a spook to bury the
water carburator guy in the bottom of some huge oil tanker, otherwise we
wouldn't be caring much about engine efficiency would we.
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
PDQ wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
> <SNIP>
>>> The car manufacturers, particularly in the US, are victims of NIH
>>> Syndrome.
>> You really think that if Ford could reduce the size of their engines
>> by a factor of ten while doubling the efficiency in these days of CAFE
>> they'd ignore it because of "NIH"?
>>
>> --
> I hate to burst your bubble, but, ---
>
> When CAFE was adopted there was a big hole in it for trucks - they were excepted.
>
> The big 3 thought, and rightly so, that they could carry on as before as long as the cars they produced were on a truck platform.
>
> Do you remember SUV, Crossover, AWD, Hummer??
>
> All of these are produced on a "truck" platform and, as a result, did not get counted in CAFE.
>
> Think about which vehicles have been touted the most and which ones sold as "safest".
>
> This has come back to bite us with 10 or less mpg in a lot of the really big vehicles.
>
> I think the greed of the "bean counters" prevailed and any effort to garner efficiency was castigated.
My 2001 GMC 4 wheel drive V8 pickup truck got 19 mpg on a trip with 4
LARGE adults and about 10 cases of beer, 5 cases of pop, food clothes
and misc stuff packed in the bed. It gets 13 mpg around town, less in 4
wheel drive... still, not running on water.
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
J. Clarke wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> No, auto companies have not changed one iota in
>> the last 30 years. Less than half the vehicles sold are cars. Most
>> are some form of truck. No personal opinion required. Just the
>> numbers.
>
> While you were googling all this bullshit did you happen to google the
> standards? If you had you would have found that light trucks have
> been subject to CAFE since 1978. And the Ford F series pickup has
> been the most popular vehicle in America for more than 30 years.
>
> You just don't seem to be able to get past the notion that Americans,
> dogs, and elderly Japanese gentlemen love trucks.
I think the government should ban cars completely as a waste of
resources. A truck halls people just like a car, but is easier to get
in and out of than a pot hole with wheels on it. In a truck you can hall
people, 2x4's, 2x6's 2x8's 2x10's 2x12's, full plywood sheets, fire
wood, stoves, refrigerators, people, shingles, dogs, baseball teams,
horse manure, people, brush, logs, scrap metal, table saws, band saws
jointer's, planers, furniture, dog kennels, cat houses, people and a few
other things I can think of. Why would anyone waste money on a damned
car that does almost nothing?
I sure hope no wood workers drive cars around here... sheesh!
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
J. Clarke wrote:
> Well, actually in 1978 light trucks were required to average 17 mpg.
> They are now required to average better than 23.
My brand new 1978 GMC Van with a small 305 V8 averaged 10 mpg... I guess
GM didn't know about the government requirements?
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
MikeWhy wrote:
> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> MikeWhy wrote:
>>
>>>> What part of "theoretical efficiency" didn't you guys understand?
>>>
>>> Which part would you like to better explain?
>>
>> Theoretically if I could power my truck with salt water, the worlds
>> oceans would be my gas station. Obama Ben Laden and his fellow
>> socialists would have to tax the shit out of something else to power
>> the destruction of the free market.
>
> That'd be nice. What's the heat content of 1 mol of seawater?
Damned if I know, but theoretically, if it contained enough heat to
drive me from here to Florida and back, I wouldn't need to worry about
big oil hiring a spook to kill off this internal engine breakthrough.
> Some nations taxed salt very heavily. You might be surprised who, which,
> and how much.
All I need to know is the big oil tycoons make less on a gallon of gas
they sell than the government does... well, it makes me feel a lot
better also knowing that every damned penny the government gets from Big
Oil comes out of my pockets.
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
Jack Stein wrote:
> All I need to know is the big oil tycoons make less on a gallon of gas
> than the government does... well, it makes me feel a lot
> better also knowing that every damned penny the government gets from Big
> Oil comes out of my pockets.
Hey, maybe the government is the one hiring the spooks to bury the water
carburator guy and the small engine guy for threatening their money
stealing machine.
Yeah, now were getting somewhere... now that I think about it, they
don't even have to hire any spooks, they already have the CIA.
Oops, sorry Jack, didn't mean to butt into your brilliant conversation...
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
: MikeWhy wrote:
:>> What part of "theoretical efficiency" didn't you guys understand?
:>
:> Which part would you like to better explain?
Obama Ben Laden and his fellow
: socialists would have to tax the shit out of something else to power the
: destruction of the free market.
The free market seems to be doing a dandy job of destroying itself
all by its little lonesome.
-- Andy Barss
Andrew Barss wrote:
> Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> : MikeWhy wrote:
>
> :>> What part of "theoretical efficiency" didn't you guys understand?
> :>
> :> Which part would you like to better explain?
>
> Obama Ben Laden and his fellow
> : socialists would have to tax the shit out of something else to power the
> : destruction of the free market.
>
> The free market seems to be doing a dandy job of destroying itself
> all by its little lonesome.
Which free market is that?
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
Jay Pique wrote:
> On Feb 12, 3:32 pm, Andrew Barss <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>> : MikeWhy wrote:
>>
>> :>> What part of "theoretical efficiency" didn't you guys understand?
>> :>
>> :> Which part would you like to better explain?
>>
>> Obama Ben Laden and his fellow
>> : socialists would have to tax the shit out of something else to power the
>> : destruction of the free market.
>>
>> The free market seems to be doing a dandy job of destroying itself
>> all by its little lonesome.
>
> Free market? Where? We all lost that war a looooong time ago.
Like broiling a frog... A lot of people didn't seem to notice...
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
Mike Marlow wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:13:38 -0500, Jack Stein cast forth these pearls of
> wisdom...:
>
>
>> I think the government should ban cars completely as a waste of
>> resources. A truck halls people just like a car, but is easier to get
>> in and out of than a pot hole with wheels on it. In a truck you can hall
>> people, 2x4's, 2x6's 2x8's 2x10's 2x12's, full plywood sheets, fire
>> wood, stoves, refrigerators, people, shingles, dogs, baseball teams,
>> horse manure, people, brush, logs, scrap metal, table saws, band saws
>> jointer's, planers, furniture, dog kennels, cat houses, people and a few
>> other things I can think of. Why would anyone waste money on a damned
>> car that does almost nothing?
>>
>
> Pssssst.... "hauls" man, "hauls". Not "halls".
Try moving your lips and reading out loud, and the meaning will be much
clearer than looking everything up at Dictionary dot com....
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
Robatoy wrote:
> On Feb 13, 10:51 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:13:38 -0500, Jack Stein cast forth these
>>> pearls of wisdom...:
>>=20
>>>> I think the government should ban cars completely as a waste of
>>>> resources. A truck halls people just like a car, but is easier to
>>>> get in and out of than a pot hole with wheels on it. In a truck
>>>> you can hall people, 2x4's, 2x6's 2x8's 2x10's 2x12's, full
>>>> plywood sheets, fire wood, stoves, refrigerators, people,
>>>> shingles, dogs, baseball teams, horse manure, people, brush, logs,
>>>> scrap metal, table saws, band saws jointer's, planers, furniture,
>>>> dog kennels, cat houses, people and a few other things I can think
>>>> of. Why would anyone waste money on a damned car that does almost
>>>> nothing?=20
>>=20
>>> Pssssst.... "hauls" man, "hauls". Not "halls".
>>=20
>> Try moving your lips and reading out loud, and the meaning will be
>> much clearer than looking everything up at Dictionary dot com....
>>=20
>=20
>=20
> You're a bit of an abrasive fuck, ain't you Jack?
Be nice Rob. Fucks are useful, twits are not. <BEG>
P D Q
Robatoy wrote:
> On Feb 13, 10:51 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:13:38 -0500, Jack Stein cast forth these pearls of
>>> wisdom...:
>>>> I think the government should ban cars completely as a waste of
>>>> resources. A truck halls people just like a car, but is easier to get
>>>> in and out of than a pot hole with wheels on it.
>>> Pssssst.... "hauls" man, "hauls". Not "halls".
>> Try moving your lips and reading out loud, and the meaning will be much
>> clearer than looking everything up at Dictionary dot com....
> You're a bit of an abrasive fuck, ain't you Jack?
I never react well to spelling cops...
So yes! I notice you ain't so full of sugar plums either...
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
todd wrote:
> "Jack Stein" wrote in message
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>> Well, actually in 1978 light trucks were required to average 17 mpg. They
>>> are now required to average better than 23.
>> My brand new 1978 GMC Van with a small 305 V8 averaged 10 mpg... I guess
>> GM didn't know about the government requirements?
> What part of the word "average" don't you understand?
What part of "required" don't you understand? There is no way the
average GMC truck got 17 mpg. My little bitty GMC van only got 10!
Did the GM dealer
> show up at your house with a gun and make you buy a van with a V8 engine?
Nope, I had no problem getting 10 mpg. I loved the van, much better
than any car built by anyone. MPG was a NON ISSUE to me.
> If you want to blame someone for GM selling a van in 1978 that got 10mpg,
> you can go find the nearest mirror.
Why would I blame GM for anything other than selling me a GREAT van.
This thing gave me ZERO trouble for the whole 14 years I owned it. My
very next NEW vehicle was a 2001 GMC pickup and it is the nicest vehicle
I've ever owned. Had a few minor problems at first all under warranty.
It has a big V8, 4 wheel drive and it gets 19 mpg on the road loaded, 13
in the city empty, in the summer...
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Don't disagree with that at all. Bottom line is that with the bailout,
> this just passed donation to DNC patrons (can't come close to really
> calling it a stimulus), TARP II, TARP III, TARP reloaded, etc. we are
> rewarding failure and penalizing success. This is going to have
> consequences and they are not going to be good.
Well if you hate America, but would love AmeriKa, then the consequences
will be wonderful.
Amerika seems to have voted for socialism, so socialism it tis. Go Marx,
go Stalin, Go Mao, Go Hitler, Go Obama... If you don't like it, I think
you need to move to another planet... I doubt anyone has the balls to
fight another Hitler...
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
todd wrote:
> "Jack Stein" wrote in message
>> todd wrote:
>>
>>> "Jack Stein" wrote in message
>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> Well, actually in 1978 light trucks were required to average 17 mpg.
>>>>> They are now required to average better than 23.
>>>> My brand new 1978 GMC Van with a small 305 V8 averaged 10 mpg... I guess
>>>> GM didn't know about the government requirements?
>>> What part of the word "average" don't you understand?
>> What part of "required" don't you understand? There is no way the average
>> GMC truck got 17 mpg. My little bitty GMC van only got 10!
>
> You mean your little bitty GMC van with what looks like a GVWR of 6800 lbs
> and a roughly 6 liter V8?
No, my little bitty GMC van was a 1500 and had a small 305 cubic inch
engine. I have no clue how many liters 305 CI is. America was not yet
Amerika in 1978.
From what I can tell, CAFE requirements didn't include light trucks
until 1979.
Who knows, just that my response was to the requirement for light trucks
to average 17 mpg in 1978. I didn't say my 1979 van got 10 mpg. My
wife's 1979 Caddy got around 10 mpg though, in the real world though,
possibly not the same as in the world of government gobbledygook.
In any case, if your van had a GVWR of over 6000 lbs, it would have been
exempt anyway.
It didn't, and it was definitely considered a light duty truck.
And of course, the
> calculated MPG doesn't necessarily correlate to real-world numbers.
That's possible. "They" could require every vehicle sold to get 1000
mpg but if that is a fake number, or that number converted to a "real
world number" of 10 mpg, then who really cares other than those that do
not live in the "real world"? What I do know is my "real world" light
duty, 1978 GMC van got 10 mpg and from my recollection, no one much
cared, certainly not me.
At any rate, now that we live in a government controlled, socialist
country, I think Big Brother should ban cars altogether as a waste of
resources, considering cars do nothing a truck can do, but a truck does
everything a car does, plus a ton more.
Beyond that, I don't see why any woodworker, other than perhaps pen
turners would not own a truck for all the reasons listed in my previous
post.
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
Mike Marlow wrote:
> Jack Stein said:
A truck halls people just like a car, but is easier to get
>>>>>> in and out of than a pot hole with wheels on it.
>>>>> Pssssst.... "hauls" man, "hauls". Not "halls".
>>>> Try moving your lips and reading out loud, and the meaning will be much
>>>> clearer than looking everything up at Dictionary dot com....
>>> You're a bit of an abrasive fuck, ain't you Jack?
>> I never react well to spelling cops...
>>
>> So yes! I notice you ain't so full of sugar plums either...
>
> Well - then learn to spell when you're posting in public forums and you
> won't suffer the heartburn of people correcting you.
Well, learn that public forums are not second grade spelling contests.
If you had trouble figuring out the meaning of the sentence that gave
the other guy so much trouble, then there is little hope for you in the
public forums.
> Oh - by the way, I
> didn't have to look it up on Dictionary.com - apparently you should have.
Why? I doubt anyone that spent more than a day in the public forums had
trouble understanding what was meant. I also doubt anyone thinks I, or
anyone else posting, doesn't know the difference between hall and haul.
I appreciate the sanctimonious attitudes of the spell cops but they are
seldom to never needed on a public forum. As a matter of fact, the
spell cops generally rear their ugly little heads when they have nothing
left other than an ad hominem attack.
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
Doug Winterburn wrote:
> Jack Stein wrote:
>> I appreciate the sanctimonious attitudes of the spell cops but they are
>> seldom to never needed on a public forum. As a matter of fact, the
>> spell cops generally rear their ugly little heads when they have nothing
>> left other than an ad hominem attack.
> Wait a minute! My dear departed Mum was a spell and grammar cop. She'd
> whack me upside the head when I strayed from her standards. :-)
But did she haunt the public forums? If she did, shame on her. Her
time would have been much better spent preaching correct message format
and editing methods than harassing adults for spelling and typing
mishaps. Besides, when your Mum corrected your spelling or grammar she
was teaching you because she wanted you to be successful, not mounting
an ad hominem attack. Major difference.
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
Mike Marlow wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:48:11 -0500, Jack Stein cast forth these pearls of
> wisdom...:
>
>> Why? I doubt anyone that spent more than a day in the public forums had
>> trouble understanding what was meant. I also doubt anyone thinks I, or
>> anyone else posting, doesn't know the difference between hall and haul.
> I think it's just obvious you don't know how to spell "haul".
Baloney!
>> I appreciate the sanctimonious attitudes of the spell cops but they are
>> seldom to never needed on a public forum. As a matter of fact, the
>> spell cops generally rear their ugly little heads when they have nothing
>> left other than an ad hominem attack.
>
> Jack - you present the classic usenet self-absorbed loser. A poor attempt
> at escaping your own mis-steps.
Typing "hall" vs "haul" is certainly a mis-step, but it's the type of
error common in usenet and insignificant.
> Recall - it was you who threw out the
> first ad hominem attack after a rather light comment on your misuse of the
> word "hall".
You seem confused on the meaning of "first" as well as ad hominem, all
in one sentence.
Recall, you were the first one to respond to this, after 3 other people
responded... makes sense. Did you know I was the first one to complain
about spell cops on usenet, after 4 million others, that is. Did you
know Buzz Aldrin was the FIRST man on the moon... just after Neil Armstrong?
Of course everyone could figure out what you meant - as well,
Of course they could, so pointing out something so silly that had
nothing to do with the argument presented was classic usenet drivel and
the resulting banter one of the things that makes usenet fun for those
choosing to participating in the frivolity.
> everyone could see that you did not know the proper spelling of "haul".
Really? How could "everyone" know that? There are a number of reasons
one might type "hall" when one meant to type "haul" in a usenet message,
and not knowing how to spell the word is at the very bottom of the list.
> You exposing your panties in a usenet forum does not require that everyone
> else accomodate you.
If you think spelling "haul" instead of "hall" or protesting spell cops
in a public forum is exposing one's panties, you have a long road ahead
of you on usenet...
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
Robatoy wrote:
> On Feb 21, 10:44 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Baloney!
>
> That would be bologna, Jack.
No Robot, it would be Baloney! Slang for Bull Shit, had nothing to do
with sausage! Perhaps you need to visit Dictionary.com...
>
>> Typing "hall" vs "haul" is certainly a mis-step, but it's the type of
>> error common in usenet and insignificant.
>
> If it is so insignificant, why get in a flap about it, Jack? \
I have no problem with the error, it's meaningless. My flap is about
disingenuous spell cops. Really, I don't even have a problem with them,
I enjoy them providing me with entertainment. Think how much I enjoyed
you incorrectly correcting my spelling of Baloney?
The
> member was only making an attempt to help you become a better speller.
> You did it twice in the same paragraph, Jack. This wasn't inadvertent,
> you really didn't know how spell it.
Again, Baloney!
Which, in itself is amazing as
> you must have seen multiples of thousands of U-HAUL trucks and
> trailers in your life. That didn't register so I doubt anything
> anybody writes in here is going to register.
Not true. Even those that can't figure out first from second, or
baloney from bologna occasionally say something worth while, and on that
rare occasion, I'm here for ya.
>> Of course they could, so pointing out something so silly that had
>> nothing to do with the argument presented was classic usenet drivel and
>> the resulting banter one of the things that makes usenet fun for those
>> choosing to participating in the frivolity.
>>
>>> everyone could see that you did not know the proper spelling of "haul".
>> Really? How could "everyone" know that?
>
> Mike said that everyone could 'see' it, not 'know' it, Jack. Stop
> messing with the words others spoke/wrote. We already have a couple of
> members here who specialize in that.
Your kidding right?
>>> You exposing your panties in a usenet forum does not require that everyone
>>> else accomodate you.
>> If you think spelling "haul" instead of "hall" or protesting spell cops
>> in a public forum is exposing one's panties, you have a long road ahead
>> of you on usenet...
> We now know Jack wears panties. He just denies exposing them.
Just like you "know" how to spell baloney!
> Soooo... next time, Jack, when somebody makes a light-weight bit of
> fun at an obvious fukkup, laugh it off and thank the gentleman for the
> assistance.
And next time I enjoy making a light weight bit of fun at an ad hominem
spell cop attack, thank me for the entertainment, rather than getting
your panties in a bunch.
> Be a mensch. Keep it fucking classy, okay?
OK, so, let me point out that soooo is not a word, nor is fukkup! So,
everyone now can see that you don't know how to spell.
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Yeah, we all know that Mazda keeps a token Wankel in the lineup. But
> don't be too surprised if in the current economic downturn that proves
> to be a luxury that they can no longer afford.
>
> If it was such an outstanding success then _every_ Mazda would have
> one.
I'd have to say that an engine that was introduced in the early 70's that
continues to be used in every one of the RX models probably deserves to be
called a success. The Corvette is a huge success but not every Chevrolet
has a Corvette engine.
>
> Friend of mine, an engineer, had an RX-7. Somebody stole it and he
> used the insurance money to buy a used Porsche. Says how much he was
> impressed with it.
Do you buy the same car every time you purchase one? I have never bought
the same car twice although I have been very pleased with most of them.
Variety is the spice of life.
B A R R Y wrote:
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>
>> Free market? Yeah, if banks hadn't been forced/incentivized to make
>> home
>> loans to people who couldn't afford to repay -- that wasn't free market
>> -- that was Barney Frank, Chris Countrywide Dodd, et al who initiated
>> that debacle.
>
> Nobody forced anyone.
>
> A good friend of mine was a pretty big wheel at MLN (Mortgage Lenders
> Network), a 2000-2500 employee mortgage company that was one of the
> early ones to go bust.
>
> She made a killing for 4-5 years, and it had nothing to do with
> incentives.
>
> - Drive-by appraisals by captive appraisers
> - Interest-only loans with nothing down
> - Pick-a-payment, negative am loans
>
> Hey, real estate only goes up, right?
>
> They wrote the loans, split and diluted them into securities, and sold
> them. No prodding needed. Did I mention her home is paid for? <G>
>
> On the other hand, my credit union, who never participated in any of
> that, and requires 20% of unborrowed down payment for a mortgage, was
> easily able to approve me to buy another toy<bksp><bksp><bksp> er..
> airplane in early January, when there apparently was NO money flowing
> anywhere.
>
> I find it hard to believe so many credit unions never got involved in
> sub-prime at all, but others were "forced"? Hardly...
From the middle to end of the bubble I would agree with the analysis that
everyone was jumping in on it. The initial impetus for the whole debacle
does rest upon Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the CRA. The notion of the
government guaranteeing loans led to abuse on both government and private
industry sides. The idea of "affordable housing for everyone" with threats
by the justice department (Janet Reno era) to prosecute banks for failing
to loan to these new looser standards led to the creation of the
mortgage-backed securities market (my speculation is that the banks,
recognizing the risk, came up with a means of spreading the risk around).
Given that the government through FMae and FMac had pretty much promised to
back these risky loans, that opened the floodgates for the rest of the
subprime industry that sprang up around this government-guaranteed lending
approach.
That, plus your assessment later that people got carried away with the
notion that prices of real-estate only go up continued to feed the fire. I
was disabused of that notion early in 1987 after we had bought our first
house and the housing market at that time took a serious dive -- actually,
that's not totally true, I knew about business cycles and expected ups and
downs, just not such a big down that soon after buying. Anyone standing
outside the whole frenzy could easily see that this was not going to end
well and that prices were eventually going to crash, just as they always do
at the end of an unsustainable business cycle. People who should have been
able to afford houses were being priced out of the market, people who
should never have been given loans were getting them for outrageously
priced housing -- who would have thought that this was going to crash? [he
asks, sarcastically].
My concern is that the very people who helped stoke this fire are now the
ones in charge of fixing it -- they are blaming and threatening the banks
for implementing the very standards that these congresscritters were
pushing.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>>
> That already happened. He offered it to the big three car companies and
> the only way they would do it if he signed over control to outside
> parties. Which is why he went dark for two years. The military also
> offered to bankroll him if he produced the engine just for them. He said
> no.
>
> His game plan is to start a small manufacturing plant and offer franchises
> to retrofit existing vehicles. Once that is developed enough, he would
> then license the technology to others. Thereby maintaining control and
> ownership.
>
> There is a lot of interest in this technology and NASA has given him an
> award. It is getting out there in terms of working pototypes, etc. The
> trick, of course, is a working engine for sale. If he pulls that off, it
> will get very interesting.
>
> As for the skeptics, read his stuff. He explains how he does it. I have
> two primary concerns. The first is that the metals, machining, bearings,
> etc will all work together in a fashion that the engine would be viable
> for a reasonable service life. The other concern is that some psycho (or
> spook) will blow him away.
It would probably be a good idea for him to talk with the SawStop people,
they successfully made it happen with similar skepticism and pit falls.
I am not so sure that I would be too concerned about connectivity initially.
The car sized engine would be tiny, IIRC the inventor held up a coffee can
sized object suggesting that a car engine could be that size. With mass
production cost would come down and something that small would probably be
similar in cost to a starter motor. So you have to replace the motor 3 or 4
times during the life of a car, not totally unlike replacing 3 or 4 sets of
tires and or 2 or 3 batteries.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Keith Nuttle wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>> Lee Michaels wrote:
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>> Right now it looks like he's got a cute little air motor. If it
>>>>> actually runs on fuel, doesn't overheat at high power, holds
>>>>> together
>>>>> for a few thousand hours, gives reasonable throttle response,
>>>>> passes
>>>>> emissions, and if it really achieves the efficiency he claims,
>>>>> _then_
>>>>> he's got an engine.
>>>>>
>>>> The air is used in public settings to meet fire codes. He has run
>>>> them on fuel for awhile now. The easiest fuel for it to use is
>>>> deisel. All of his initial offerings will be in deisel. He can
>>>> make
>>>> a few changes to use other fuels.
>>>
>>> Does he have a video of it running on something other than air? I
>>> didn't see one on his site. I know he _says_ that he has, but
>>> where's the meat?
>>>
>>>> Again, he has to build something beyond prototypes. I wish him
>>>> the
>>>> best. It is a real creative feat. But real life has a way of
>>>> dashing
>>>> dreams.
>>>
>>> I wish him well too, but don't really expect him to deliver. In
>>> engineering when someone comes to you with something that looks too
>>> good to be true, it generally is.
>>>
>> People including those in Washington do not understand there is a
>> fixed amount of energy in the Carbon bond. When the Carbon molecule
>> is oxidized it release a known amount of energy that can be
>> calculated. (This energy can be found in any Handbook of
>> Engineering,
>> Physics, or Chemistry and probably hundreds of sites online)
>> Regardless of what you do, you can only recover 100% of this energy.
>
> The trouble is that current cars (or base-load power plants for that
> matter) do not come anywhere close to recovering 100 percent of that
> energy. 30 percent is very good for an internal combustion otto-cycle
> engine, so there is considerable room for improvement.
>
>> Hence with cars to get higher miles per gallon you have to reduce
>> the
>> size of the car.
>
> Or increase the thermal efficiency.
>
>> A roller skate should be able to get a couple of
>> hundred miles per gallon.
>>
>> Like Bigfoot, I have heard of the supper carburetor for years, but
>> it
>> still is not real.
>
> I'm not sure how relevant that is to the engine in question. He's
> claiming that it gets the performance of a really good diesel or maybe
> a wee bit more in a much smaller and lighter package--if that's so
> then in addition to the thermal efficiency benefit the car could be
> smaller and lighter due to the smaller, lighter engine, which would
> again provide a gas mileage benefit.
>
> The question is whether he can actually deliver that thermal
> efficiency in an engine that passes emissions and is reliable and
> driveable. If he can the world is going to beat a path to his door,
> but if their engineers thought that he could the car manufacturers
> would have engaged in a bidding war to get the rights to his design.
The car manufacturers, particularly in the US, are victims of NIH Syndrome.
"KIMOSABE" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I must be reading more into this than is there.
>
> Does anyone see a reason that he doesn't have this engine mounted in a
> car which can be driven as a demo?
Too early at this point.
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Lee Michaels" wrote
>
>> I am downloading more about this guy and his technology. It is
>> fascinating stuff. Where did you learn about him?
>>
>> I am going to spend a very pleasurable hour or two perusing this topic.
>> Thanks for the heads up.
>
> Here's hoping his bodyguards are top notch ....
And or does not get offered 10 million for the patents and then we never
hear anything again.
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 19:14:08 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
<leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"KIMOSABE" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:7e79a228-1909-4afa-8e33-6806327da17e@x10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>> Explanatory videos are about halfway down the page.
>>
>> http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Massive_Yet_Tiny_(MYT)_Engine#How_it_Works
The piston arrangement is very interesting. I don't quite get how the
1,695 ci figure is arrived at, though. Someone made the comment about
thermodynamics, which I'll bet will be a seriously limiting hurdle to
overcome.
I'm no engineer, nor do I play one on TV, but the first thing that
caught my eye was that extremely complicated gear assembly used to
"modulate" the piston cycle. There has to be a lot of mechanical price
to pay in that thing (and expense, even if there isn't a mechanical
penalty).
Color me extremely skeptical.
--
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com
Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997
email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:50:33 -0600, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Keith Nuttle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>> People including those in Washington do not understand there is a fixed
>> amount of energy in the Carbon bond. When the Carbon molecule is oxidized
>> it release a known amount of energy that can be calculated. (This energy
>> can be found in any Handbook of Engineering, Physics, or Chemistry and
>> probably hundreds of sites online) Regardless of what you do, you can
>> only recover 100% of this energy. Hence with cars to get higher miles per
>> gallon you have to reduce the size of the car. A roller skate should be
>> able to get a couple of hundred miles per gallon.
>>
>> Like Bigfoot, I have heard of the supper carburetor for years, but it
>> still is not real.
>
>While any given fuel does in deed only has a fixed amount of stored energy
>reducing the size of the vehicle is not the only way to increase gas
>mileage. Simple engine tweaks can do this, advancing the ignition timing
>will do this. I currently have a heavier, taller truck with an engine that
>produces approximately 50% more horse power than my previous truck. It gets
>at least the same, often better gas mileage than the older model did when it
>was the same age.
>It is simply a matter of getting more out of the fuel burn than what has
>been gotten in the past. Some engines burn fuel more efficiently than
>others. Because most gasoline burning engines do not do not get 100% return
>on the fuel that they burn they can be improved to do better.
>With the common day usage of on board computers and fuel injectors gas
>mileage has improved dramatically over the last 30 years. You can look as
>fuel injectors as the today's "super carburetor".
>
While it is true that fuel mileage has improved over the last few
years, Ford's Corporate Average Fuel Economy for the whole fleet is
the same as it was in 1919 with the model "T" - aprox 21MPG US.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
> While it is true that fuel mileage has improved over the last few
> years, Ford's Corporate Average Fuel Economy for the whole fleet is
> the same as it was in 1919 with the model "T" - aprox 21MPG US.
Well, you are talking "Ford". ;~)
Given that comment which is not a fair comparison, considering the amount of
work being done by current fleets to the 1919 fleet. The 1919 model fleet
probably got better gas mileage but could a 1919 vehicle pull 50,000 lbs. or
did they have AC, power steering, or an automatic transmission. Or could
they pass emission tests designed for 2009 model car?
If you want to do a fair comparison, do it with that Model T and say, the
Focus.
"B A R R Y" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>> > I would say that more likely it is a great invention that will be
>> bought by an oil company and we will never see it again.
>
> Or Toyota or Honda, and you'll see it big time...
>
Damn, an encouraging thought. ;~) Only if they get there first.
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 18:00:59 -0500, B A R R Y wrote:
>> Free market? Yeah, if banks hadn't been forced/incentivized to make
>> home
>> loans to people who couldn't afford to repay -- that wasn't free market
>> -- that was Barney Frank, Chris Countrywide Dodd, et al who initiated
>> that debacle.
>
> Nobody forced anyone.
>
> A good friend of mine was a pretty big wheel at MLN (Mortgage Lenders
> Network), a 2000-2500 employee mortgage company that was one of the
> early ones to go bust.
>
> She made a killing for 4-5 years, and it had nothing to do with
> incentives.
>
> - Drive-by appraisals by captive appraisers - Interest-only loans with
> nothing down - Pick-a-payment, negative am loans
I've been reading a book called "Chain of Blame" that explains what
happened pretty well.
It only mentions deregulation in passing, which will upset the liberals.
It doesn't blame it all on Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, which will upset
the conservatives. All in all, a pretty balanced analysis.
Talks about all the major players and their part in the meltdown. In
essence, like you said, it was a bunch of mortgage brokers and non-bank
lenders doing things that, if not illegal, were certainly unethical.
"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> MikeWhy wrote:
>
>>> What part of "theoretical efficiency" didn't you guys understand?
>>
>> Which part would you like to better explain?
>
> Theoretically if I could power my truck with salt water, the worlds oceans
> would be my gas station. Obama Ben Laden and his fellow socialists would
> have to tax the shit out of something else to power the destruction of the
> free market.
That'd be nice. What's the heat content of 1 mol of seawater?
Some nations taxed salt very heavily. You might be surprised who, which, and
how much.
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 09:48:14 -0500, Jack Stein cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:
> Robatoy wrote:
>> On Feb 13, 10:51 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:13:38 -0500, Jack Stein cast forth these pearls of
>>>> wisdom...:
>>>>> I think the government should ban cars completely as a waste of
>>>>> resources. A truck halls people just like a car, but is easier to get
>>>>> in and out of than a pot hole with wheels on it.
>
>>>> Pssssst.... "hauls" man, "hauls". Not "halls".
>
>>> Try moving your lips and reading out loud, and the meaning will be much
>>> clearer than looking everything up at Dictionary dot com....
>
>> You're a bit of an abrasive fuck, ain't you Jack?
>
> I never react well to spelling cops...
>
> So yes! I notice you ain't so full of sugar plums either...
Well - then learn to spell when you're posting in public forums and you
won't suffer the heartburn of people correcting you. Oh - by the way, I
didn't have to look it up on Dictionary.com - apparently you should have.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Some of the "really big" vehicles do pretty well. My '04 Silverado 2500
> Duramax diesel (6500 lbs) gets 21 mpg highway at 75mph and 14.5 mpg
> towing a 10,000 lb 5th wheel at 65 mph.
Damn. My '01 F250 PowerStroke (6500+ lbs) would make a whopping 18 if I
kept it at 65 all day.
My pard's '96 Dodge Cummins (now with over 300k and a 3.55 rear end)
gets 23at that speed - damn it.
Dave in Houston
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:36:29 -0600, dpb wrote:
> dpb wrote:
> ...
>
>
> There are many very clever and talented mechanical tinkerers who create
> wondrous mechanical gizmos of all kinds. However, often they lack
> sufficient abilities in analysis or precision in measurement or aren't
> careful enough in the measurement phases of experimentation to realize
> the results aren't what they would hope for. Or, in some cases, they're
> so convinced of the basic idea they make flawed conclusions by bending
> the interpretation to fit their conclusions. And, of course, there have
> been those who simply downright cheated in knowingly creating false
> data.
>
> Until the invention and the technology can be brought to an independent
> testing facility and replicate the results and creation of the device
> there's nothing to do but wait and see if it "sprouts legs".
Good points...
But don't forget:
- can it be manufactured? what about manufacturing tolerances? Lab boys
can make a lot of things that cannot be put on an assembly line for mass
production and get the same results time and time again.
- how long of a life of engine? 100,000 miles? or is it a major
overhaul every 20,000 miles?
- will that engine start when air temp is below -10 F? How about running
all afternoon in August way out in Nevada waste lands?
I think I will wait to pass judgment.
"Lee Michaels" wrote
> I am downloading more about this guy and his technology. It is fascinating
> stuff. Where did you learn about him?
>
> I am going to spend a very pleasurable hour or two perusing this topic.
> Thanks for the heads up.
Here's hoping his bodyguards are top notch ....
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"PDQ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
CAFE, as originally enacted excluded vehicles based on a truck platform.
This caused the rise of SUV et al as a basic means of people transport.
At some future date subsequent to 1978 the act was amended to include the
light truck platform.
This is about the time that the big 3 again began to complain about their
inability to attain the newly mandated efficiency and Congress, in its
wisdom, gave extentions.
How interesting it is to note that everything comes back to politics and big
business.
Adieu.
P D Q
=================
Am I being too much of a pedant to point out that it's the buyer, not the
lawmakers or manufacturers, who values the "truckness" of the trucks used in
personal transportation roles? In the way back time machine, I recall my
high school buddies pissing and moaning about the emissions crap burying the
engine; the mandatory catalytic converters; the truck chassis on the Blazers
and Jimmies. As far as I can tell, none of those attitudes have changed in
the intervening 35 years. (In that sense, it's your parent's fault. Your
relevant attitudes were already entrenched before you were even presented
with the choice.)
"PDQ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> "Jay Pique" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Call me a cynic, but this sounds a little too good to be true. There
> seems to be very little "credible" press (is that an oxymoron?) given
> the claimed performance. And it seems to have been around for a good
> 5 years. It'll be interesting to see though.
>
> JP
>
> ****************************************************************
>
> Sounds very similar in theory to the Wankle, but more sophisticated.
> That was a huge success too wasn't it? (zoom, zoom, zoom)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Check out the Mazda RX8: http://www.mazda.ca/root.asp?lang=eng
Up to 232 hp from 1.3 L rotary. Goes like stink :)
P D Q
A big claimed difference between the rotary and this MTY engine is that the
rotary engine has relatively low torque at lower RPM's the MTY claims very
high torque.