Thursday, January 10, 2008

300 mile per Gallon Vehicle and the Big Oil Conspiracy

Whilst contemplating my latest ideaquest I was seriously pondering starting a lottery. A lottery for renewable energy, mainly for my car. I was going to name it FreedomFromOilLottery.com and on such site I would collect monies that would eventually lead to the invention that would free us from such a massive dependency on Oil. Then I found this.

While I don't want to belittle blue-collar ingenuity, the vapor carb's inventors are trying to solve a nonexistent problem. According to John Heywood, a professor of mechanical engineering at MIT and an authority on internal-combustion engines, incomplete burning of fuel is insignificant in modern cars. Fuel combustion today typically exceeds 97 percent. While it's true cars aren't very efficient--only 20-35 percent of the fuel energy is converted to useful work--that's mostly due to heat loss (through the engine block, out the exhaust pipe) and unavoidable energy loss during burning itself.

The theoretical (and unobtainable) maximum efficiency for a small car like a Honda Civic is around 200 mpg; for your big beaters it's much lower. Claims to the contrary are fraudulent, and I gather Professor Heywood said as much in a report he wrote for the Postal Service, which was investigating high-mileage carb vendors for fraud.


So I'm sitting here thinking the maximum efficiency for a small car like a Honda Civic is around 200mpg? Well hell most people would take half of that. Half is better than all of the hybrids combined just about. Then I found this article:

Eric's Autos: 300 mpg or Conspiracy Theory? - The 2008 Aptera
Eric Peters
Maybe the conspiracy theorists were right after all. That was the first thought to pop into my head as I read about an engineer named Steve Fambro - and his 300 mpg hybrid Aptera two-seater. Yes, you read that right. Three hundred miles per gallon. Really. And even if he's off by half, the mileage of the snarky little gullwing coupe would be at least double that of the best hybrid a major automaker ever delivered - the 70 mpg Honda Insight- and two to three times the best-case mileage of an '08 Toyota Prius. Wow.


I dug further and found this little tidbit from the Shell corporation:

Some folks at Shell Oil Co. wrote “Fuel Economy of the Gasoline Engine” (ISBN 0-470-99132-1); it was published by John Wiley & Sons, New York, in 1977. On page 42 Shell Oil quotes the President of General Motors, he, in 1929, predicted 80 MPG by 1939. Between pages 221 and 223 Shell writes of their achievements: 49.73 MPG around 1939; 149.95 MPG with a 1947 Studebaker in 1949; 244.35 MPG with a 1959 Fiat 600 in 1968; 376.59 MPG with a 1959 Opel in 1973. The Library of Congress (LOC), in September 1990, did not have a copy of this book. It was missing from the files. I bought my copy from Maryland Book Exchange around 1980 after a professor informed me that it was used as an engineering text at the University of West Virginia. VPI published a paper, March 1979, concerning maximum achievable fuel economy. This paper has several charts illustrating achievable and impossible fuel economy. About 1980 I contacted the author concerning conflicts between the paper and documented achieved “impossible” mpg. The author said, “I will get back to you.” I am still waiting for his response.


So then I start to get pissed and think that this company who has a great idea but is really thinking too small. Automotive X Prize has a measly 10 million dollar prize for someone to make a 100 mpg vehicle with various and sundry stipulations. So I write them a letter:

From: Muhammad XXXX[mailto:moomtaz@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 4:47 PM
To: 'autoprize@xprize.org'
Subject: Not thinking big enough

Hello all,

I think you have an outstanding concept here. I was just thinking of doing it myself and naming it Freedom from oil lottery or something to that effect. I think that there is one significant problem with your concept and that is that it simply isn’t big enough. I think you need or should shift it from a prize to a lottery. One where Me and every other consumer can say you know what I’m sick and tired of paying $4.00 at the pump because people are buying patents and locking them away in a drawer. That’s BS.

The only way we the consumer can compete is if our purse is bigger than the purse of the oil empire. $10 mil is no doubt a nice chunk of change but it is petty cash to big oil business and for that price they can buy up 50 of your winners a week every week and pass the savings back down to us. I don’t think anyone will really take you serious until you get into the $100 million dollar range. I’m being honest here. There literally needs to be enough money to win and then start manufacturing the next day, and or possibly take over a car company. Seriously. You have to go bigger, much bigger. If you start a lottery how many people would pay a buck just to make the pot ridiculous? The pot needs to be huge. Large enough so that someone who knows the simple alteration of getting the results you ask for to say hey this is definitely better than retirement. If the pot gets large enough greed will take over and someone will roll over off of the solution.

Think about it, I have my $5 dollars a month standing by and I’m sure the entire state of California isn’t too far behind me. I know that Oprah’s audience will chip in a buck or two.

Sincerely,

Muhammad XXXX

P.S. That Virgin Millionaire just put up $25 Million for anyone coming up with a solution to reducing greenhouse gasses. His $25 and your $10 that’s $35 and now you are talking enough money to make people listen.

Oh yeah and you might need to think about sponsoring it in a neutral country, fearing that our government will claim the winning solution as some national defense secret or some nonsense.


Because really the only way to get past this is to be able to pay more than the Big Oil Companies and possibly the US government and World Banks. Realistically you need to be in the neighborhood of $400 million. Honestly before greedy people will begin to renege on promises they made to colleagues and friends.

I went on to say that to be really in the ball park you need to say that the vehicle is a SUV or something that everybody is currently driving.

So then I go back to my first love. Hydrogen. It is clean and readily available all over the planet. However common scientific knowledge dictates by repeatedly drilling it into our heads that getting more out of something than what you put into it is scientifically impossible. This however is a lie. The only two circumstances that the Science establishment says that you get more out than what you put in is in terms of Fusion which our sun is a ready example, but the problem is that you can't control it, or presumably Cold Fusion which is a figment of all of our collective imaginations.

Well I would have to look around me to find out that is a lie. My family started with 2 people now there are 6. Cells replicate multiplying themselves numerous amounts of times. 1 kernel of corn goes on to produce hundreds of kernels of corn and if replanted will reproduce several times over. These are biological examples however properties in one science can spread to other sciences. In Physics this must be true as well. If Energy is Neither created nor destroyed then it stands to reason that it can be recycled indefinitely. There is a perpetual machine out there. It has to exist, I would suppose that it is only limited by piss poor management.

Free energy is available on every coast around the world with a decent tide flow. Completely capable of producing millions of kilowatts of electricity. If I had a beach house I would have a small building with a bank of batteries and a Ocean Generator. Free Power.

Over and over Physicists talk about heat loss, heat loss and the inability to control heat loss however the heat isn't used. If it was used then I suppose that it could be put to work.

The only thing that I could really establish is that if Conspiracy Theorists question the establishment then the entire establishment must be questioned. The Laws of science are no different. Everything must be verified to assess the veracity of the truth. If we accept Science as given by the establishment then we have surrendered the creative spirit that makes us human, and are thus doomed to become subservient mindless gnomes PHD's and all.

Be sure to check out the Quasiturbine. Been watching it for a while now.

1 comment:

  1. More fuel for the fire. And, though I'm a little skeptical of running a car off water, you'll probably want to see saltwater burn, which boggles the mind.

    ReplyDelete