Napoleon, Ohio's Doug Pelmear claims that he has created a V8-powered 1987
Ford Mustang that develops 400 horsepower and 500 lb-ft of torque on E85,
can accelerate from 0-60 in about three seconds - on its way to a top speed
of 180 mph - and still returns an astonishing 110 mpg.

http://www.leftlanenews.com/best-mec...n-110-mpg.html


Best Regards
Tom.

What the article didn't mention was it:
- has zero emissions besides water vapor
- never needs a tune up
- will last 500,000 miles
- will sell for $5000
- the inventor never finished high school and built the car in his garage

It has a familiar ring to it, doesn't it?

Bob

Bob Engelhardt fired this volley in news:7M-
:

What the article didn't mention was it:
- has zero emissions besides water vapor
- never needs a tune up
- will last 500,000 miles
- will sell for $5000
- the inventor never finished high school and built the car in his
garage

It has a familiar ring to it, doesn't it?

Bob

Yeah... we've got a part-time preacher here in central Florida who has
"invented" an engine that runs almost entirely on water.

He says that "Once you extract all the hydrogen and oxygen from the
water, it turns into this brown gunky stuff you see in the jar."

He's also figured out some pretty nifty water dissociation gear. It's a
mayonaise jar half-full of water, with pipes going in and pipes going
out, and no electricity is required.

He's "gotten" almost 100 miles to the OUNCE of water with a big V-8.

LLoyd

Quote: "Pelmear has yet to reveal what’s exactly under the hood of his
Mustang ". 'Nuff said.

azotic wrote:
Napoleon, Ohio's Doug Pelmear claims that he has created a V8-powered 1987
Ford Mustang that develops 400 horsepower and 500 lb-ft of torque on E85,
can accelerate from 0-60 in about three seconds - on its way to a top speed
of 180 mph - and still returns an astonishing 110 mpg.

http://www.leftlanenews.com/best-mec...n-110-mpg.html


Best Regards
Tom.

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 07:20:12 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com quickly quoth:

Bob Engelhardt fired this volley in news:7M-
:

What the article didn't mention was it:
- has zero emissions besides water vapor
- never needs a tune up
- will last 500,000 miles
- will sell for $5000
- the inventor never finished high school and built the car in his
garage

It has a familiar ring to it, doesn't it?

Bob

Yeah... we've got a part-time preacher here in central Florida who has
"invented" an engine that runs almost entirely on water.

He says that "Once you extract all the hydrogen and oxygen from the
water, it turns into this brown gunky stuff you see in the jar."

He's also figured out some pretty nifty water dissociation gear. It's a
mayonaise jar half-full of water, with pipes going in and pipes going
out, and no electricity is required.

He's "gotten" almost 100 miles to the OUNCE of water with a big V-8.

And how many acres of pristine swampland do you have to buy to get the
secret, Lloyd?

--
Jewish Zen:
Be here now. Be someplace else later. Is that so complicated, already?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.diversify.com - Uncomplicated Website Design, here and now.

"Bob Engelhardt" wrote in message
...
What the article didn't mention was it:
- has zero emissions besides water vapor
- never needs a tune up
- will last 500,000 miles
- will sell for $5000
- the inventor never finished high school and built the car in his garage

It has a familiar ring to it, doesn't it?

Bob

I was thoroughly convinced that those people who screeched that big oil and
government were holding down even small inventors who could improve mileage
even marginally were a bunch of conspiracy loonies. Friend of mine told me
a story of a friend of his who invented something, sold it to an oil company
for a large amount, and the device/improvement was never seen again.

Now, I think I'm beginning to think a little different. Didn't say I was
convinced, just thinking a little different.

Steve

yeah, it sounds like a complete crock, however, the ansari competition will
sort that out.


"azotic" wrote in message
...
Napoleon, Ohio's Doug Pelmear claims that he has created a V8-powered 1987
Ford Mustang that develops 400 horsepower and 500 lb-ft of torque on E85,
can accelerate from 0-60 in about three seconds - on its way to a top
speed of 180 mph - and still returns an astonishing 110 mpg.

http://www.leftlanenews.com/best-mec...n-110-mpg.html


Best Regards
Tom.

"SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas wrote in message
...

Napoleon, Ohio's Doug Pelmear claims that he has created a V8-powered
1987
Ford Mustang that develops 400 horsepower and 500 lb-ft of torque on
E85, can accelerate from 0-60 in about three seconds - on its way to a
top speed of 180 mph - and still returns an astonishing 110 mpg.

Seems to me that when some genius would do the math of the rpm, tire
rotations, friction, air resistance, and energy produced from E85 that the
numbers simply wouldn't add up.

Steve

I'd be happy just to see a 400 hp Mustang go 0-60 in "about three seconds."
Maybe if you push it over a cliff...

--
Ed Huntress

In article , "SteveB" wrote:

I was thoroughly convinced that those people who screeched that big oil and
government were holding down even small inventors who could improve mileage
even marginally were a bunch of conspiracy loonies. Friend of mine told me
a story of a friend of his who invented something, sold it to an oil company
for a large amount, and the device/improvement was never seen again.

Snort! Of course, it didn't happen to anybody *you* know personally; it never
does. It's always a FOAF (friend of a friend). And if you prod your friend a
little bit, I bet you find out it wasn't *his* friend, but another FOAF one
more step removed.

Now, I think I'm beginning to think a little different. Didn't say I was
convinced, just thinking a little different.

Snort^2! You're not thinking _at_all_.

In article , "SteveB" wrote:

Napoleon, Ohio's Doug Pelmear claims that he has created a V8-powered
1987
Ford Mustang that develops 400 horsepower and 500 lb-ft of torque on E85,
can accelerate from 0-60 in about three seconds - on its way to a top
speed of 180 mph - and still returns an astonishing 110 mpg.

Seems to me that when some genius would do the math of the rpm, tire
rotations, friction, air resistance, and energy produced from E85 that the
numbers simply wouldn't add up.

Just depends on which numbers you look at. When you consider that E85 is
only 15% gasoline, then 110 miles per gallon _of_gasoline_ approaches
believability. Of course, that's 16.5 miles per gallon _of_fuel_...

Bob Engelhardt wrote:
What the article didn't mention was it:
- has zero emissions besides water vapor
- never needs a tune up
- will last 500,000 miles
- will sell for $5000
- the inventor never finished high school and built the car in his garage

It has a familiar ring to it, doesn't it?

Bob
But the builder only tested it from the top of Pikes Peak to the bottom.

Bill K7NOM

Napoleon, Ohio's Doug Pelmear claims that he has created a V8-powered
1987
Ford Mustang that develops 400 horsepower and 500 lb-ft of torque on E85,
can accelerate from 0-60 in about three seconds - on its way to a top
speed of 180 mph - and still returns an astonishing 110 mpg.

Seems to me that when some genius would do the math of the rpm, tire
rotations, friction, air resistance, and energy produced from E85 that the
numbers simply wouldn't add up.

Steve

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas wrote in message
...

Napoleon, Ohio's Doug Pelmear claims that he has created a V8-powered
1987
Ford Mustang that develops 400 horsepower and 500 lb-ft of torque on
E85, can accelerate from 0-60 in about three seconds - on its way to a
top speed of 180 mph - and still returns an astonishing 110 mpg.

Seems to me that when some genius would do the math of the rpm, tire
rotations, friction, air resistance, and energy produced from E85 that
the numbers simply wouldn't add up.

Steve

I'd be happy just to see a 400 hp Mustang go 0-60 in "about three
seconds." Maybe if you push it over a cliff...



9.8 meters per second per second

=)



--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:33:26 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , "SteveB" wrote:

I was thoroughly convinced that those people who screeched that big oil and
government were holding down even small inventors who could improve mileage
even marginally were a bunch of conspiracy loonies. Friend of mine told me
a story of a friend of his who invented something, sold it to an oil company
for a large amount, and the device/improvement was never seen again.

Snort! Of course, it didn't happen to anybody *you* know personally; it never
does. It's always a FOAF (friend of a friend). And if you prod your friend a
little bit, I bet you find out it wasn't *his* friend, but another FOAF one
more step removed.

Now, I think I'm beginning to think a little different. Didn't say I was
convinced, just thinking a little different.

Snort^2! You're not thinking _at_all_.


Its a conspriacy! Edelbrock and Isky are in on it!!!


The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crisis maintain their neutrality",
John F. Kennedy.

"SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas fired this volley in
:

Thank you. Now the next logical question: What quantity of gas would
that be.

(I'd figure it out for myself, but my grand daughter ate my slide
rule.)

Zero gas. Just "let 'er run" (as it were).

9.8m/s^2 is a "magic number"

G
LLoyd

Naw, Ed,
You don't unnerstand. That is the same dude that puts steam engines into PU trucks. He should have
told you about the steamer in his car.

Bob Swinney
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message ...

"SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas wrote in message
...

Napoleon, Ohio's Doug Pelmear claims that he has created a V8-powered
1987
Ford Mustang that develops 400 horsepower and 500 lb-ft of torque on
E85, can accelerate from 0-60 in about three seconds - on its way to a
top speed of 180 mph - and still returns an astonishing 110 mpg.

Seems to me that when some genius would do the math of the rpm, tire
rotations, friction, air resistance, and energy produced from E85 that the
numbers simply wouldn't add up.

Steve

I'd be happy just to see a 400 hp Mustang go 0-60 in "about three seconds."
Maybe if you push it over a cliff...

--
Ed Huntress


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

"SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas wrote in message
...

"Jon" wrote in message
news:lvsck.1078$bn3.803@trnddc07...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas wrote in message
...

Napoleon, Ohio's Doug Pelmear claims that he has created a V8-powered
1987
Ford Mustang that develops 400 horsepower and 500 lb-ft of torque on
E85, can accelerate from 0-60 in about three seconds - on its way to
a top speed of 180 mph - and still returns an astonishing 110 mpg.

Seems to me that when some genius would do the math of the rpm, tire
rotations, friction, air resistance, and energy produced from E85 that
the numbers simply wouldn't add up.

Steve

I'd be happy just to see a 400 hp Mustang go 0-60 in "about three
seconds." Maybe if you push it over a cliff...



9.8 meters per second per second

=)



--
Ed Huntress

Thank you. Now the next logical question: What quantity of gas would
that be.

(I'd figure it out for myself, but my grand daughter ate my slide rule.)

Steve

I was going to take a stab at it, but I decided against it when I hung up on
the fact that the drag area (c.d. times area) of a North American P-51
Mustang is 3.80^2 ft. I don't have the time.

It may be useful for you to know, should you choose to take this assignment,
that the highest reported thermal efficiency of a working heat engine is
61%, and that's a combined-cycle electrical generating engine that wouldn't
fit in your house. Normal for a gas-engine car is around 28%. It was lower
in the mid-'80s.

The c.d. for a 1985 Mustang fastback was 0.44; 0.46 for the coupe. Curb
weight was 3,300 lb. If you can find the frontal area somewhere, you're in
business. You can use standard rules-of-thumb for rolling resistance and
driveline friction; they don't depart much from a narrow range of values for
a car of approximately that weight.

--
Ed Huntress

"Jon" wrote in message
news:lvsck.1078$bn3.803@trnddc07...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas wrote in message
...

Napoleon, Ohio's Doug Pelmear claims that he has created a V8-powered
1987
Ford Mustang that develops 400 horsepower and 500 lb-ft of torque on
E85, can accelerate from 0-60 in about three seconds - on its way to a
top speed of 180 mph - and still returns an astonishing 110 mpg.

Seems to me that when some genius would do the math of the rpm, tire
rotations, friction, air resistance, and energy produced from E85 that
the numbers simply wouldn't add up.

Steve

I'd be happy just to see a 400 hp Mustang go 0-60 in "about three
seconds." Maybe if you push it over a cliff...



9.8 meters per second per second

=)



--
Ed Huntress

Thank you. Now the next logical question: What quantity of gas would that
be.

(I'd figure it out for myself, but my grand daughter ate my slide rule.)

Steve

"Bill Janssen" wrote in message
.. .
Bob Engelhardt wrote:
What the article didn't mention was it:
- has zero emissions besides water vapor
- never needs a tune up
- will last 500,000 miles
- will sell for $5000
- the inventor never finished high school and built the car in his garage

It has a familiar ring to it, doesn't it?

Bob
But the builder only tested it from the top of Pikes Peak to the bottom.

Bill K7NOM

I used to have a heavy old Chrysler that would do the same thing. Got so
bad you finally had to kick it back in gear you were going so fast. It was
scary. Too bad mileage was not an issue then, or I would be a legend by
now.

Steve

azotic wrote:
Napoleon, Ohio's Doug Pelmear claims that he has created a V8-powered 1987
Ford Mustang that develops 400 horsepower and 500 lb-ft of torque on E85,
can accelerate from 0-60 in about three seconds - on its way to a top speed
of 180 mph - and still returns an astonishing 110 mpg.
Yeah, I heard of this some time ago. Some MIT'ers threw everything off
an old
stick-shift car they could remove, then would accelerate at WOT to about
60 MPH, throw it in neutral and shut off the engine. It would coast a
mile or more on a level road. I believe they were reporting 168 MPH.
You can't do this in traffic, of course, which is the real rub.

Jon

Ed Huntress wrote:
"SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas wrote in message
...

Napoleon, Ohio's Doug Pelmear claims that he has created a V8-powered
1987
Ford Mustang that develops 400 horsepower and 500 lb-ft of torque on
E85, can accelerate from 0-60 in about three seconds - on its way to a
top speed of 180 mph - and still returns an astonishing 110 mpg.

Seems to me that when some genius would do the math of the rpm, tire
rotations, friction, air resistance, and energy produced from E85 that the
numbers simply wouldn't add up.

Steve


I'd be happy just to see a 400 hp Mustang go 0-60 in "about three seconds."
Maybe if you push it over a cliff...
No, that's a really simple calculation, and the earth isn't heavy
enough. Need a "G"
unit to be bigger.

Jon

Jon Elson wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
"SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas wrote in message
...

Napoleon, Ohio's Doug Pelmear claims that he has created a V8-powered
1987
Ford Mustang that develops 400 horsepower and 500 lb-ft of torque on
E85, can accelerate from 0-60 in about three seconds - on its way to a
top speed of 180 mph - and still returns an astonishing 110 mpg.

Seems to me that when some genius would do the math of the rpm, tire
rotations, friction, air resistance, and energy produced from E85 that the
numbers simply wouldn't add up.

Steve


I'd be happy just to see a 400 hp Mustang go 0-60 in "about three seconds."
Maybe if you push it over a cliff...
No, that's a really simple calculation, and the earth isn't heavy
enough. Need a "G"
unit to be bigger.


Did you factor in the ACME rockets?


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Its a conspriacy!

Yep the same people prevented the production of the Ford Nucleon to protect
big oil profits.
G
Best Regards
Tom.

On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 03:20:43 -0700, "azotic" wrote:

Napoleon, Ohio's Doug Pelmear claims that he has created a V8-powered 1987
Ford Mustang that develops 400 horsepower and 500 lb-ft of torque on E85,
can accelerate from 0-60 in about three seconds - on its way to a top speed
of 180 mph - and still returns an astonishing 110 mpg.

http://www.leftlanenews.com/best-mec...n-110-mpg.html


Best Regards
Tom.







He can CLAIM anything. Let's see him PROVE it.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Oddly, I am in an email exchange with Aaron Brilbeck, the reporter for
WNWO NBC24 who did this story. Keep in mind, I am just some dude who
isn't an engineer or has a degree of any so please point out any
terrible errors in my analysis. I just responded to him tonight so we
will see what happens.

Here is the exchange so far:

Dear Mr. Brilbeck,

Your "110 MPG car" story is not very well researched. I would hope
in the future that you would be less gullible, actually take the 10-15
minutes to learn the facts, and maybe ask a few hard questions like
reporters are sometimes known to do.
The laws of thermodynamics and aerodynamics unfortunately limit
such a cumbersome vehicle from reaching the claimed efficiency.
Gasoline only has so much energy in it and much of it is lost to heat
in combustion. Even if there was no heat loss and all the fuel was
used for energy the Mustang in question the claimed gas mileage could
not be attained.
Another major red flag should be the high horsepower and economy
which are traditionally do not go together. Suddenly this man from
nowhere has a design that does what no other research facility in the
world can do? A romantic story but dubious and worthy of skepticism.
The "grandfather's idea" is an oldie but a goody and always sucks
people in. These types of statements should be setting off the alarms
in your head.
Most likely this car is not using exclusively gasoline and is
getting extra energy from another fuel or just as often, the person is
deluded and/or lying.

Best regards, Jim Anderson
__________________________

Hi, Jim--

Thanks for the great advice in asking harder questions. In my 20+
years of experience, which have garnered several national awards for
exposing curruption at different levels of government, I have never
thought about asking "Hard questions" (A goodle search will varify my
background--you know, research)

Seriously, though, we were somewhat limited at what types of "Hard
questions" we could ask. We are not able to look under the hood of
the car, so we're forced to rely on tests done by an independent
company that varified the claims of the gentleman who made the car.
You did say, "The laws of thermodynamics and aerodynamics
unfortunately limit such a cumbersome vehicle from reaching the
claimed efficiency.". That would be true--with a standard, off the
assembly line engine. The maker of this car did tell me, his engine
is his own design, similar in size to a Ford 302 cid engine. Most
shade tree mechanics know, engines, by nature, are not very
efficient. The owner of the car says, he's made his more efficient by
adding certain electrical modifications--he won't say what--patent
pending. The E-85 stickers on the car lead me to believe he's using
E-85 fuel. Whether he's supplimenting the fuel with something else--
or modifying the fuel-air mixture in some way--I don't know. But
these are questions that were asked. We also asked about the type of
transmission. Usually, a 302cid or 351w (And often a 351c) will use a
c-6 transmission--but again, he wouldn't answer these questions (See,
I did do my research). Unfortunately, I can't force anyone to answer
any questions--nor can I force them to show me what's under the hood
of their car. All I can do as a reporter, I am skeptical by nature.
But all I can do is rely on credible information provided to me--and
report those findings.

And, occasionally, ask "Hard questions".


Thanks---

Aaron Brilbeck
_____________________________________

Thanks for your quick response,

You are actually sitting on a great follow up story but let me explain
a few things first:

First, I would like to apologize, when I fired off my email, I had
just awaken and was quite cranky (ignore the automotive pun). I had
first read an article from another source attributed to your station
but had been hacked up to look more exciting. I just looked at your
original text as well as the video, it was a fairer treatment and
disclosed that he wouldn't open the hood. I understand you get the
lead, go check out a story, report what you see and move on to the
next story.

Here is the problem:

In regards to Pelmears claims, we are not talking about a better
mousetrap here. A more apt comparison would be a mousetrap that
teleports the rodents to another location.... seriously, I can prove
it.

The actual efficiencies of gas motors is 25-30%.
"Thermal Efficiency Ratio=Ratio of heat converted into motive power:
25-30%"
http://www.isuzu.co.jp/world/technol...asoline02.html
(This page is simple and to the point). Isuzu is not the top of the
heap as far as motor efficiency but respectable. This Isuzu internal
data is consistent with the science of the field. Diesel engines get
35-42% efficiency and we are seeing cars like the New Beetle Diesel
getting 40+ MPG. The Beetle is probably getting 40% or better
efficiency, is quite lightweight and highly engineered.

Pelmear claims that he gets 38% efficiency. An extra 8% over
current technology is a quantum leap, especially for a 400 horsepower
gasoline ICE (internal combustion engine). This gas type, piston and
rod design is called an "Otto engine". These efficiencies must fall
within the "Carnot cycle", which is governed by the second law of
thermodynamics. This is a well understood physical law of the universe
and not in scientific dispute. BTUs rule the day, there is no free
energy: diesel contains around 140,000 Btu per gallon, and gasoline
115,000 Btu, denatured ethanol contains only 78,000 Btu per
gallon....E85 is a sad 82000 Btu. The advent of fuel injection allows
for nearly a complete burn, so don't believe that gas travels unused
out of the tailpipe.

The Pelmear claim on it's face is unworkable. In comparison, a 30%
efficient car like a Toyota Yaris that is much lighter, with advanced
aerodynamics, drivetrain improvements, reduced friction and energy
efficient accessories cannot even approach his claims of MPG or
acceleration using Gasoline against his E85 (which has 27% less
energy). There is no way around this problem. If you want more
detailed proof of the claim being total nonsense just ask.

Liars, lunatics and fools really come out of the woodwork when
something big happens like high gas prices. Eventually the dust
settles, daylight shines down on them and they run back into their
holes. He claims the motor was being tested at Ford when cutbacks
retired ALL the engineers on the project...hmm. He was supposed to
demonstrate his car at the Milan Dragway in Milan, Michigan but no
reports of an appearance of this have surfaced. Rocket Ventures touted
this appearance. Check out his site: http://www.hp2g.com/homeofhp2g.html

The technology con is as old as the hills and always manages to dupe
some very smart folks. Am I a lone weirdo hassling you? Nope. Google
Pelmear's claims and you will see that he is on fantasy Island, at
least by people in the science community. The people that believe big
oil will kill you if design a highly efficient car think Pelmear is a
genius and are worried he will be dead soon.

The real story here is why has Rocket Ventures has invested public
money into this fraud? How much? I don't know for sure. I read from a
blog post that Rocket Ventures gave him 1.5 million in "pre-seed"
money, 2/3 comes from the good citizens of Ohio and 1/3
private. According to http://ozarksfirst.com/content/fulltext/?cid=30111
"Rocket Ventures, a subsidiary of the Regional Growth Partnership of
Toledo, tested the car and says Pelmear's claims seem to be true."
Can you get them to disclose? Does the Freedom of Information Act
apply?

They are adding credibilty to Pelmear if this news article is
accurate. Investing in a total lack of proven science is
irresponsible. High risk venture capital is responsibly spent on a
novel application of known science. They should have at least
consulted some experts and protected Pelmear with nondisclosure
agreements. Verifying the scientific basis of a claim is standard
practice in technology ventures. A preliminary check would have
revealed this to be a fraud. This is not the due diligence generally
required in the spending of taxpayer money.

Here are some questions you could ask Pelmear:
What proof is there that the car actually works as described? If it
has been tested, then by whom? What testing method was used? Can he
name an engineer from Ford that can verify his story that Ford even
looked at the car? Does he use regenerative braking technology of any
kind? Is he familiar with the Carnot Theorum? Their are skeptics that
say if the 38% efficiency claim is taken at face value, the friction
coefficient and aerodynamic load would keep the car from exceeding 40
MPG particularly rolling on those wide heavy Cobra racing rims, how do
you respond to this? Was he at the June 14th Milan track for the
demonstration as he advertised? if no, why not? If he can engineer a
20 year old, 3000 lb vehicle to get 100 mpg @ 400hp and also manage
0-60 in 3 seconds, he will have achieved a scientific breakthrough
that will easily make him the richest man in the world, not to mention
winning the Nobel prize. Is he ready for the kind of power? The US
military alone will spend over 15 billion on fuel this year. They
could switch over to his engine and save at least 10 billion on gas (a
hummer gets about 4 mpg with armor, 10 mpg without). How does he feel
about changing the world as we know it? (The poor guy is either too
stupid to know how outrageous the claim is or he thinks that about
other people)

A person making a legitimate claim would be happy to answer most
of these questions and not be offended. The con man will get
defensive.

I appreciate your interest in reading this if you made it this
far. I can see from google that you do serious reporting. If you want
to nail a science story without having wade through tons of data go to
the forums at any one of these:
http://www.theskepticsguide.org
http://www.skeptic.com
http://www.randi.org/ (aka JREF, James Randi Educational Foundation)
Register, simply say you are a reporter doing research and would
like some input. Tell them you would like sources if possible to
verify their info, any questions they would ask a claimant and the
tricks & pitfalls regarding the subject. The guys that hang out these
forums are serious skeptics that includes scientists, doctors,
professors, all well versed in pseudoscientific claims, you will be
surprised at their credentials. Phoney medical claims, bunk products,
psychics, faith healers and others can be difficult to nail down, they
will give you the inside details on all the cons and how to trip them
up in interviews. Or send me an email.

This is a really interesting blurb off the internet that will give you
some idea of the birth of the Prius and engineering involved:

"Toyota realised that this is the big problem with using gasoline, so
had to switch from Otto-cycle to an 'Atkinson'-like cycle in their
Prius to allow a more diesel-engine-like 13:1 expansion ratio. This
enables a peak thermal efficiency of 36%, and is the key reason for
the Priuses improved economy.

However, the Prius engineers realised that such an engine would be
almost undriveable (lack of low end torque and ramping issues etc), so
had to resort to some kind of assist feature. This is why they
eventually adopted a hybrid electric approach. Many people think that
the hybrid-electric component of the Prius was designed to allow
regenerative braking - it was NOT, and this only contributes about 2%
to the improved economy of the Prius. The hybrid electric system was
deployed so that Toyota could use a 13:1 expansion ratio engine with
high efficiency (ie 36%)."

Best regards, Jim Anderson

In article , Jon Elson wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:

I'd be happy just to see a 400 hp Mustang go 0-60 in "about three seconds."
Maybe if you push it over a cliff...
No, that's a really simple calculation, and the earth isn't heavy
enough. Need a "G"
unit to be bigger.

Try again.

9.8m/s^2 * 3s = 29.4m/s = 105.8 kph = 66.1 mph. That's neglecting air
resistance, of course, but for something as dense as a car, it's not going to
make much of a difference at such slow speeds.

On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 11:17:31 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas wrote in message
...

Napoleon, Ohio's Doug Pelmear claims that he has created a V8-powered
1987
Ford Mustang that develops 400 horsepower and 500 lb-ft of torque on
E85, can accelerate from 0-60 in about three seconds - on its way to a
top speed of 180 mph - and still returns an astonishing 110 mpg.

Seems to me that when some genius would do the math of the rpm, tire
rotations, friction, air resistance, and energy produced from E85 that the
numbers simply wouldn't add up.

Steve

I'd be happy just to see a 400 hp Mustang go 0-60 in "about three seconds."
Maybe if you push it over a cliff...

Yeah, the problem with Stangs has always been keeping their hoofs
connected securely to the ground. I used to be able to put Mom's
1964-1/2 convertible into 4-wheel drifts on 20mph corners. It was a
fun car to drive if you like hearing squealing tires. OTOH, I could
slide a passenger from side to side in my 1970 Javelin rear seat
before they could even react to the ess curve. That thing stuck to the
ground like glue and only squealed when I lit 'em up. /really fond
memories

--
Jewish Zen:
Be here now. Be someplace else later. Is that so complicated, already?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.diversify.com - Uncomplicated Website Design, here and now.

On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 00:23:10 -0700 (PDT), with neither quill nor qualm,
texasjim1093 quickly quoth:

Oddly, I am in an email exchange with Aaron Brilbeck, the reporter for
WNWO NBC24 who did this story. Keep in mind, I am just some dude who
isn't an engineer or has a degree of any so please point out any
terrible errors in my analysis. I just responded to him tonight so we
will see what happens.
Best regards, Jim Anderson
__________________________

Hi, Jim--

Thanks for the great advice in asking harder questions. In my 20+
years of experience, which have garnered several national awards for
exposing curruption at different levels of government, I have never
thought about asking "Hard questions" (A goodle search will varify my
background--you know, research)

"Goodle?" "Varify?" Wow, I'm very impressed by this reporter so far.


Seriously, though, we were somewhat limited at what types of "Hard
questions" we could ask. We are not able to look under the hood of
the car, so we're forced to rely on tests done by an independent
company that varified the claims of the gentleman who made the car.
You did say, "The laws of thermodynamics and aerodynamics
unfortunately limit such a cumbersome vehicle from reaching the
claimed efficiency.". That would be true--with a standard, off the
assembly line engine. The maker of this car did tell me, his engine
is his own design, similar in size to a Ford 302 cid engine. Most
shade tree mechanics know, engines, by nature, are not very
efficient. The owner of the car says, he's made his more efficient by
adding certain electrical modifications--he won't say what--patent

Ah, so it's a hybrid. That explains a _potential_ increase in mpg
while totally reversing the possibility that the engine puts out 400
horsies.


Pelmear claims that he gets 38% efficiency. An extra 8% over
current technology is a quantum leap, especially for a 400 horsepower
gasoline ICE (internal combustion engine). This gas type, piston and

An 8% increase in efficiency does not make a 20mpg vehicle into a
110mpg vehicle, Mr. Reporter, Sir. g

Sign me -- Still Skeptical in GP

P.S: Jim, thanks for posting the banter you're having with the
reporter.

--
Jewish Zen:
Be here now. Be someplace else later. Is that so complicated, already?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.diversify.com - Uncomplicated Website Design, here and now.

"texasjim1093" wrote in message
...
Oddly, I am in an email exchange with Aaron Brilbeck, the reporter for
WNWO NBC24 who did this story. Keep in mind, I am just some dude who
isn't an engineer or has a degree of any so please point out any
terrible errors in my analysis. I just responded to him tonight so we
will see what happens.

Here is the exchange so far:

Dear Mr. Brilbeck,

Your "110 MPG car" story is not very well researched. I would hope
in the future that you would be less gullible, actually take the 10-15
minutes to learn the facts, and maybe ask a few hard questions like
reporters are sometimes known to do.
The laws of thermodynamics and aerodynamics unfortunately limit
such a cumbersome vehicle from reaching the claimed efficiency.
Gasoline only has so much energy in it and much of it is lost to heat
in combustion. Even if there was no heat loss and all the fuel was
used for energy the Mustang in question the claimed gas mileage could
not be attained.
Another major red flag should be the high horsepower and economy
which are traditionally do not go together. Suddenly this man from
nowhere has a design that does what no other research facility in the
world can do? A romantic story but dubious and worthy of skepticism.
The "grandfather's idea" is an oldie but a goody and always sucks
people in. These types of statements should be setting off the alarms
in your head.
Most likely this car is not using exclusively gasoline and is
getting extra energy from another fuel or just as often, the person is
deluded and/or lying.

Best regards, Jim Anderson
__________________________

Hi, Jim--

Thanks for the great advice in asking harder questions. In my 20+
years of experience, which have garnered several national awards for
exposing curruption at different levels of government, I have never
thought about asking "Hard questions" (A goodle search will varify my
background--you know, research)

Seriously, though, we were somewhat limited at what types of "Hard
questions" we could ask. We are not able to look under the hood of
the car, so we're forced to rely on tests done by an independent
company that varified the claims of the gentleman who made the car.
You did say, "The laws of thermodynamics and aerodynamics
unfortunately limit such a cumbersome vehicle from reaching the
claimed efficiency.". That would be true--with a standard, off the
assembly line engine. The maker of this car did tell me, his engine
is his own design, similar in size to a Ford 302 cid engine. Most
shade tree mechanics know, engines, by nature, are not very
efficient. The owner of the car says, he's made his more efficient by
adding certain electrical modifications--he won't say what--patent
pending. The E-85 stickers on the car lead me to believe he's using
E-85 fuel. Whether he's supplimenting the fuel with something else--
or modifying the fuel-air mixture in some way--I don't know. But
these are questions that were asked. We also asked about the type of
transmission. Usually, a 302cid or 351w (And often a 351c) will use a
c-6 transmission--but again, he wouldn't answer these questions (See,
I did do my research). Unfortunately, I can't force anyone to answer
any questions--nor can I force them to show me what's under the hood
of their car. All I can do as a reporter, I am skeptical by nature.
But all I can do is rely on credible information provided to me--and
report those findings.

And, occasionally, ask "Hard questions".


Thanks---

Aaron Brilbeck
_____________________________________

Thanks for your quick response,

You are actually sitting on a great follow up story but let me explain
a few things first:

First, I would like to apologize, when I fired off my email, I had
just awaken and was quite cranky (ignore the automotive pun). I had
first read an article from another source attributed to your station
but had been hacked up to look more exciting. I just looked at your
original text as well as the video, it was a fairer treatment and
disclosed that he wouldn't open the hood. I understand you get the
lead, go check out a story, report what you see and move on to the
next story.

Here is the problem:

In regards to Pelmears claims, we are not talking about a better
mousetrap here. A more apt comparison would be a mousetrap that
teleports the rodents to another location.... seriously, I can prove
it.

The actual efficiencies of gas motors is 25-30%.
"Thermal Efficiency Ratio=Ratio of heat converted into motive power:
25-30%"
http://www.isuzu.co.jp/world/technol...asoline02.html
(This page is simple and to the point). Isuzu is not the top of the
heap as far as motor efficiency but respectable. This Isuzu internal
data is consistent with the science of the field. Diesel engines get
35-42% efficiency and we are seeing cars like the New Beetle Diesel
getting 40+ MPG. The Beetle is probably getting 40% or better
efficiency, is quite lightweight and highly engineered.

Pelmear claims that he gets 38% efficiency. An extra 8% over
current technology is a quantum leap, especially for a 400 horsepower
gasoline ICE (internal combustion engine). This gas type, piston and
rod design is called an "Otto engine". These efficiencies must fall
within the "Carnot cycle", which is governed by the second law of
thermodynamics. This is a well understood physical law of the universe
and not in scientific dispute. BTUs rule the day, there is no free
energy: diesel contains around 140,000 Btu per gallon, and gasoline
115,000 Btu, denatured ethanol contains only 78,000 Btu per
gallon....E85 is a sad 82000 Btu. The advent of fuel injection allows
for nearly a complete burn, so don't believe that gas travels unused
out of the tailpipe.

The Pelmear claim on it's face is unworkable. In comparison, a 30%
efficient car like a Toyota Yaris that is much lighter, with advanced
aerodynamics, drivetrain improvements, reduced friction and energy
efficient accessories cannot even approach his claims of MPG or
acceleration using Gasoline against his E85 (which has 27% less
energy). There is no way around this problem. If you want more
detailed proof of the claim being total nonsense just ask.

Liars, lunatics and fools really come out of the woodwork when
something big happens like high gas prices. Eventually the dust
settles, daylight shines down on them and they run back into their
holes. He claims the motor was being tested at Ford when cutbacks
retired ALL the engineers on the project...hmm. He was supposed to
demonstrate his car at the Milan Dragway in Milan, Michigan but no
reports of an appearance of this have surfaced. Rocket Ventures touted
this appearance. Check out his site: http://www.hp2g.com/homeofhp2g.html

The technology con is as old as the hills and always manages to dupe
some very smart folks. Am I a lone weirdo hassling you? Nope. Google
Pelmear's claims and you will see that he is on fantasy Island, at
least by people in the science community. The people that believe big
oil will kill you if design a highly efficient car think Pelmear is a
genius and are worried he will be dead soon.

The real story here is why has Rocket Ventures has invested public
money into this fraud? How much? I don't know for sure. I read from a
blog post that Rocket Ventures gave him 1.5 million in "pre-seed"
money, 2/3 comes from the good citizens of Ohio and 1/3
private. According to
http://ozarksfirst.com/content/fulltext/?cid=30111
"Rocket Ventures, a subsidiary of the Regional Growth Partnership of
Toledo, tested the car and says Pelmear's claims seem to be true."
Can you get them to disclose? Does the Freedom of Information Act
apply?

They are adding credibilty to Pelmear if this news article is
accurate. Investing in a total lack of proven science is
irresponsible. High risk venture capital is responsibly spent on a
novel application of known science. They should have at least
consulted some experts and protected Pelmear with nondisclosure
agreements. Verifying the scientific basis of a claim is standard
practice in technology ventures. A preliminary check would have
revealed this to be a fraud. This is not the due diligence generally
required in the spending of taxpayer money.

Here are some questions you could ask Pelmear:
What proof is there that the car actually works as described? If it
has been tested, then by whom? What testing method was used? Can he
name an engineer from Ford that can verify his story that Ford even
looked at the car? Does he use regenerative braking technology of any
kind? Is he familiar with the Carnot Theorum? Their are skeptics that
say if the 38% efficiency claim is taken at face value, the friction
coefficient and aerodynamic load would keep the car from exceeding 40
MPG particularly rolling on those wide heavy Cobra racing rims, how do
you respond to this? Was he at the June 14th Milan track for the
demonstration as he advertised? if no, why not? If he can engineer a
20 year old, 3000 lb vehicle to get 100 mpg @ 400hp and also manage
0-60 in 3 seconds, he will have achieved a scientific breakthrough
that will easily make him the richest man in the world, not to mention
winning the Nobel prize. Is he ready for the kind of power? The US
military alone will spend over 15 billion on fuel this year. They
could switch over to his engine and save at least 10 billion on gas (a
hummer gets about 4 mpg with armor, 10 mpg without). How does he feel
about changing the world as we know it? (The poor guy is either too
stupid to know how outrageous the claim is or he thinks that about
other people)

A person making a legitimate claim would be happy to answer most
of these questions and not be offended. The con man will get
defensive.

I appreciate your interest in reading this if you made it this
far. I can see from google that you do serious reporting. If you want
to nail a science story without having wade through tons of data go to
the forums at any one of these:
http://www.theskepticsguide.org
http://www.skeptic.com
http://www.randi.org/ (aka JREF, James Randi Educational Foundation)
Register, simply say you are a reporter doing research and would
like some input. Tell them you would like sources if possible to
verify their info, any questions they would ask a claimant and the
tricks & pitfalls regarding the subject. The guys that hang out these
forums are serious skeptics that includes scientists, doctors,
professors, all well versed in pseudoscientific claims, you will be
surprised at their credentials. Phoney medical claims, bunk products,
psychics, faith healers and others can be difficult to nail down, they
will give you the inside details on all the cons and how to trip them
up in interviews. Or send me an email.

This is a really interesting blurb off the internet that will give you
some idea of the birth of the Prius and engineering involved:

"Toyota realised that this is the big problem with using gasoline, so
had to switch from Otto-cycle to an 'Atkinson'-like cycle in their
Prius to allow a more diesel-engine-like 13:1 expansion ratio. This
enables a peak thermal efficiency of 36%, and is the key reason for
the Priuses improved economy.

However, the Prius engineers realised that such an engine would be
almost undriveable (lack of low end torque and ramping issues etc), so
had to resort to some kind of assist feature. This is why they
eventually adopted a hybrid electric approach. Many people think that
the hybrid-electric component of the Prius was designed to allow
regenerative braking - it was NOT, and this only contributes about 2%
to the improved economy of the Prius. The hybrid electric system was
deployed so that Toyota could use a 13:1 expansion ratio engine with
high efficiency (ie 36%)."

Best regards, Jim Anderson

'Looks good, Jim. Unless the reporter understands heat-engine theory and the
Carnot cycle, and has some feel for the total drag that this Mustang has to
overcome, I suspect he'll still be on the fence. But you steered him in the
right direction.

--
Ed Huntress

On Jul 7, 9:04*am, "SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas wrote:
"Bob Engelhardt" wrote in message

...

What the article didn't mention was it:
- has zero emissions besides water vapor
- never needs a tune up
- will last 500,000 miles
- will sell for $5000
- the inventor never finished high school and built the car in his garage

It has a familiar ring to it, doesn't it?

Bob

I was thoroughly convinced that those people who screeched that big oil and
government were holding down even small inventors who could improve mileage
even marginally were a bunch of conspiracy loonies. *Friend of mine told me
a story of a friend of his who invented something, sold it to an oil company
for a large amount, and the device/improvement was never seen again.

Now, I think I'm beginning to think a little different. *Didn't say I was
convinced, just thinking a little different.

Steve

You know, I understand these big corporations have lots of money, and
can buy off just about anyone. However, to change the laws of
physics, seems to me you'd have to buy off God. That seems unlikely
to me :-)

On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 03:20:43 -0700, "azotic" wrote:

Napoleon, Ohio's Doug Pelmear claims that he has created a V8-powered 1987
Ford Mustang that develops 400 horsepower and 500 lb-ft of torque on E85,
can accelerate from 0-60 in about three seconds - on its way to a top speed
of 180 mph - and still returns an astonishing 110 mpg.

http://www.leftlanenews.com/best-mec...n-110-mpg.html


Best Regards
Tom.




the world record best fuel consumption figure is something a little
better than 3,200 miles per gallon. so this guy isnt even in the
race.

of course it is in a car powered by a 20cc model aircraft 4 stroke
engine converted to spark ignition.
there used to be a fuel efficiency competition held annually in
australia with specially built little cars.

the solar challenge is the modern equivalent.

Stealth Pilot

You know, I understand these big corporations have lots of money, and
can buy off just about anyone. However, to change the laws of
physics, seems to me you'd have to buy off God. That seems unlikely
to me :-)

I'm not pointing fingers here per say, but it seems that with every new
media-hyped situation, there is a new contingent of conspiracy-theory armed
citizens who pop up. Sometimes the conspiracy is real and needs to be
exposed and sometimes the nuts need some time with a therapist or in a tight
white jacket... But the process of elimination (of true VS false issues
that is) is good for society as a whole.

Test everything. Question everything. Truth floats to the top.
Questionable items fall apart or sink under the pressure. As a society, we
let too much simply slip by so we don't offend those that we would question.

Now... To bring this on topic, I get into situations here at the shop that
others would avoid. Someone calls me up asking if this or that can be done
and everyone else would say a simple "no" whereas I say, "Let me think about
it" and try to solve the jig saw puzzle. When we are swamped and busy,
that's baaaaad.... When we are slow and looking for business, it's good.
Not only do I solve some, I almost always make a happy potential future
customer in the process. ...And I learn. almost everything I *think* I
know about my business (which is metalworking at it's core I suppose) was
learned either by apprenticeship or by asking annoying or even "stupid"
questions all day long. Now people ask me for answers...

Bottom line... Be a non-malicious hacker in life. Test it all. Push the
limits. See what you can do that you and everyone else thought was
impossible. You might be amazed at what can be accomplished if you do.

There is one thing this "gas crisis" is certainly doing. It's pushing
people to think about how to solve a problem - whether that problem is real
or not.

Personally, I'll take my motorcycle over the 100 MPG Mustang but that's
another post.

Regards,
Joe Agro, Jr.
(800) 871-5022
01.908.542.0244
Automatic / Pneumatic Drills: http://www.AutoDrill.com
Multiple Spindle Drills: http://www.Multi-Drill.com

V8013-R



** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 03:20:43 -0700, "azotic" wrote:

Napoleon, Ohio's Doug Pelmear claims that he has created a V8-powered 1987
Ford Mustang that develops 400 horsepower and 500 lb-ft of torque on E85,
can accelerate from 0-60 in about three seconds - on its way to a top
speed
of 180 mph - and still returns an astonishing 110 mpg.

http://www.leftlanenews.com/best-mec...n-110-mpg.html


Best Regards
Tom.




the world record best fuel consumption figure is something a little
better than 3,200 miles per gallon. so this guy isnt even in the
race.

of course it is in a car powered by a 20cc model aircraft 4 stroke
engine converted to spark ignition.
there used to be a fuel efficiency competition held annually in
australia with specially built little cars.

the solar challenge is the modern equivalent.

Stealth Pilot

In the US, too -- SAE's Supermileage college competition. There was another
one run back in the '60s, sponsored by someone else who I can't remember, in
which they went over 2,000 mpg.

When you're talking about cars that actually can be driven on the road, the
most interesting one to me is Volkswagen's 2-passenger "1-liter" car, which
has a 299 cc engine and gets 235 miles per US gallon. It has two seats in
tandem and has a top speed of 75 mph. The "1-liter" part refers to getting
100 km per liter of fuel. They've promised to build a production version of
it in 2010, although with a slightly larger engine that probably will get
less dramatic mileage. The prototypes are powered by single-cylinder,
normally-aspirated diesels.

http://www.seriouswheels.com/cars/to...-liter-car.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_1-litre_car

http://www.supercars.net/cars/1935.html

"Don Stauffer in Minnesota" wrote in message
...
On Jul 7, 9:04 am, "SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas wrote:
"Bob Engelhardt" wrote in message

...

What the article didn't mention was it:
- has zero emissions besides water vapor
- never needs a tune up
- will last 500,000 miles
- will sell for $5000
- the inventor never finished high school and built the car in his
garage

It has a familiar ring to it, doesn't it?

Bob

I was thoroughly convinced that those people who screeched that big oil
and
government were holding down even small inventors who could improve
mileage
even marginally were a bunch of conspiracy loonies. Friend of mine told me
a story of a friend of his who invented something, sold it to an oil
company
for a large amount, and the device/improvement was never seen again.

Now, I think I'm beginning to think a little different. Didn't say I was
convinced, just thinking a little different.

Steve

You know, I understand these big corporations have lots of money, and
can buy off just about anyone. However, to change the laws of
physics, seems to me you'd have to buy off God. That seems unlikely
to me :-)

And if you have a product, even if it is something fatal, there's always a
market and someone willing to take the chances to make a buck. Look at
crack cocaine, ferinstance. I think by now, some clandestine
distributorships would have sprung up. Any time money is involved, the rats
come out of the woodwork.

Steve

Steve

I don't know this reporter, but mispelling "verified" suggests that he is
either really very tired, careless, or ???


"texasjim1093" wrote in message
...
Oddly, I am in an email exchange with Aaron Brilbeck, the reporter for
WNWO NBC24 who did this story. Keep in mind, I am just some dude who
isn't an engineer or has a degree of any so please point out any
terrible errors in my analysis. I just responded to him tonight so we
will see what happens.

Here is the exchange so far:

Dear Mr. Brilbeck,

Your "110 MPG car" story is not very well researched. I would hope
in the future that you would be less gullible, actually take the 10-15
minutes to learn the facts, and maybe ask a few hard questions like
reporters are sometimes known to do.
The laws of thermodynamics and aerodynamics unfortunately limit
such a cumbersome vehicle from reaching the claimed efficiency.
Gasoline only has so much energy in it and much of it is lost to heat
in combustion. Even if there was no heat loss and all the fuel was
used for energy the Mustang in question the claimed gas mileage could
not be attained.
Another major red flag should be the high horsepower and economy
which are traditionally do not go together. Suddenly this man from
nowhere has a design that does what no other research facility in the
world can do? A romantic story but dubious and worthy of skepticism.
The "grandfather's idea" is an oldie but a goody and always sucks
people in. These types of statements should be setting off the alarms
in your head.
Most likely this car is not using exclusively gasoline and is
getting extra energy from another fuel or just as often, the person is
deluded and/or lying.

Best regards, Jim Anderson
__________________________

Hi, Jim--

Thanks for the great advice in asking harder questions. In my 20+
years of experience, which have garnered several national awards for
exposing curruption at different levels of government, I have never
thought about asking "Hard questions" (A goodle search will varify my
background--you know, research)

Seriously, though, we were somewhat limited at what types of "Hard
questions" we could ask. We are not able to look under the hood of
the car, so we're forced to rely on tests done by an independent
company that varified the claims of the gentleman who made the car.
You did say, "The laws of thermodynamics and aerodynamics
unfortunately limit such a cumbersome vehicle from reaching the
claimed efficiency.". That would be true--with a standard, off the
assembly line engine. The maker of this car did tell me, his engine
is his own design, similar in size to a Ford 302 cid engine. Most
shade tree mechanics know, engines, by nature, are not very
efficient. The owner of the car says, he's made his more efficient by
adding certain electrical modifications--he won't say what--patent
pending. The E-85 stickers on the car lead me to believe he's using
E-85 fuel. Whether he's supplimenting the fuel with something else--
or modifying the fuel-air mixture in some way--I don't know. But
these are questions that were asked. We also asked about the type of
transmission. Usually, a 302cid or 351w (And often a 351c) will use a
c-6 transmission--but again, he wouldn't answer these questions (See,
I did do my research). Unfortunately, I can't force anyone to answer
any questions--nor can I force them to show me what's under the hood
of their car. All I can do as a reporter, I am skeptical by nature.
But all I can do is rely on credible information provided to me--and
report those findings.

And, occasionally, ask "Hard questions".


Thanks---

Aaron Brilbeck
_____________________________________

Thanks for your quick response,

You are actually sitting on a great follow up story but let me explain
a few things first:

First, I would like to apologize, when I fired off my email, I had
just awaken and was quite cranky (ignore the automotive pun). I had
first read an article from another source attributed to your station
but had been hacked up to look more exciting. I just looked at your
original text as well as the video, it was a fairer treatment and
disclosed that he wouldn't open the hood. I understand you get the
lead, go check out a story, report what you see and move on to the
next story.

Here is the problem:

In regards to Pelmears claims, we are not talking about a better
mousetrap here. A more apt comparison would be a mousetrap that
teleports the rodents to another location.... seriously, I can prove
it.

The actual efficiencies of gas motors is 25-30%.
"Thermal Efficiency Ratio=Ratio of heat converted into motive power:
25-30%"
http://www.isuzu.co.jp/world/technol...asoline02.html
(This page is simple and to the point). Isuzu is not the top of the
heap as far as motor efficiency but respectable. This Isuzu internal
data is consistent with the science of the field. Diesel engines get
35-42% efficiency and we are seeing cars like the New Beetle Diesel
getting 40+ MPG. The Beetle is probably getting 40% or better
efficiency, is quite lightweight and highly engineered.

Pelmear claims that he gets 38% efficiency. An extra 8% over
current technology is a quantum leap, especially for a 400 horsepower
gasoline ICE (internal combustion engine). This gas type, piston and
rod design is called an "Otto engine". These efficiencies must fall
within the "Carnot cycle", which is governed by the second law of
thermodynamics. This is a well understood physical law of the universe
and not in scientific dispute. BTUs rule the day, there is no free
energy: diesel contains around 140,000 Btu per gallon, and gasoline
115,000 Btu, denatured ethanol contains only 78,000 Btu per
gallon....E85 is a sad 82000 Btu. The advent of fuel injection allows
for nearly a complete burn, so don't believe that gas travels unused
out of the tailpipe.

The Pelmear claim on it's face is unworkable. In comparison, a 30%
efficient car like a Toyota Yaris that is much lighter, with advanced
aerodynamics, drivetrain improvements, reduced friction and energy
efficient accessories cannot even approach his claims of MPG or
acceleration using Gasoline against his E85 (which has 27% less
energy). There is no way around this problem. If you want more
detailed proof of the claim being total nonsense just ask.

Liars, lunatics and fools really come out of the woodwork when
something big happens like high gas prices. Eventually the dust
settles, daylight shines down on them and they run back into their
holes. He claims the motor was being tested at Ford when cutbacks
retired ALL the engineers on the project...hmm. He was supposed to
demonstrate his car at the Milan Dragway in Milan, Michigan but no
reports of an appearance of this have surfaced. Rocket Ventures touted
this appearance. Check out his site: http://www.hp2g.com/homeofhp2g.html

The technology con is as old as the hills and always manages to dupe
some very smart folks. Am I a lone weirdo hassling you? Nope. Google
Pelmear's claims and you will see that he is on fantasy Island, at
least by people in the science community. The people that believe big
oil will kill you if design a highly efficient car think Pelmear is a
genius and are worried he will be dead soon.

The real story here is why has Rocket Ventures has invested public
money into this fraud? How much? I don't know for sure. I read from a
blog post that Rocket Ventures gave him 1.5 million in "pre-seed"
money, 2/3 comes from the good citizens of Ohio and 1/3
private. According to
http://ozarksfirst.com/content/fulltext/?cid=30111
"Rocket Ventures, a subsidiary of the Regional Growth Partnership of
Toledo, tested the car and says Pelmear's claims seem to be true."
Can you get them to disclose? Does the Freedom of Information Act
apply?

They are adding credibilty to Pelmear if this news article is
accurate. Investing in a total lack of proven science is
irresponsible. High risk venture capital is responsibly spent on a
novel application of known science. They should have at least
consulted some experts and protected Pelmear with nondisclosure
agreements. Verifying the scientific basis of a claim is standard
practice in technology ventures. A preliminary check would have
revealed this to be a fraud. This is not the due diligence generally
required in the spending of taxpayer money.

Here are some questions you could ask Pelmear:
What proof is there that the car actually works as described? If it
has been tested, then by whom? What testing method was used? Can he
name an engineer from Ford that can verify his story that Ford even
looked at the car? Does he use regenerative braking technology of any
kind? Is he familiar with the Carnot Theorum? Their are skeptics that
say if the 38% efficiency claim is taken at face value, the friction
coefficient and aerodynamic load would keep the car from exceeding 40
MPG particularly rolling on those wide heavy Cobra racing rims, how do
you respond to this? Was he at the June 14th Milan track for the
demonstration as he advertised? if no, why not? If he can engineer a
20 year old, 3000 lb vehicle to get 100 mpg @ 400hp and also manage
0-60 in 3 seconds, he will have achieved a scientific breakthrough
that will easily make him the richest man in the world, not to mention
winning the Nobel prize. Is he ready for the kind of power? The US
military alone will spend over 15 billion on fuel this year. They
could switch over to his engine and save at least 10 billion on gas (a
hummer gets about 4 mpg with armor, 10 mpg without). How does he feel
about changing the world as we know it? (The poor guy is either too
stupid to know how outrageous the claim is or he thinks that about
other people)

A person making a legitimate claim would be happy to answer most
of these questions and not be offended. The con man will get
defensive.

I appreciate your interest in reading this if you made it this
far. I can see from google that you do serious reporting. If you want
to nail a science story without having wade through tons of data go to
the forums at any one of these:
http://www.theskepticsguide.org
http://www.skeptic.com
http://www.randi.org/ (aka JREF, James Randi Educational Foundation)
Register, simply say you are a reporter doing research and would
like some input. Tell them you would like sources if possible to
verify their info, any questions they would ask a claimant and the
tricks & pitfalls regarding the subject. The guys that hang out these
forums are serious skeptics that includes scientists, doctors,
professors, all well versed in pseudoscientific claims, you will be
surprised at their credentials. Phoney medical claims, bunk products,
psychics, faith healers and others can be difficult to nail down, they
will give you the inside details on all the cons and how to trip them
up in interviews. Or send me an email.

This is a really interesting blurb off the internet that will give you
some idea of the birth of the Prius and engineering involved:

"Toyota realised that this is the big problem with using gasoline, so
had to switch from Otto-cycle to an 'Atkinson'-like cycle in their
Prius to allow a more diesel-engine-like 13:1 expansion ratio. This
enables a peak thermal efficiency of 36%, and is the key reason for
the Priuses improved economy.

However, the Prius engineers realised that such an engine would be
almost undriveable (lack of low end torque and ramping issues etc), so
had to resort to some kind of assist feature. This is why they
eventually adopted a hybrid electric approach. Many people think that
the hybrid-electric component of the Prius was designed to allow
regenerative braking - it was NOT, and this only contributes about 2%
to the improved economy of the Prius. The hybrid electric system was
deployed so that Toyota could use a 13:1 expansion ratio engine with
high efficiency (ie 36%)."

Best regards, Jim Anderson


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

"Howard Eisenhauer" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 10:16:35 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

*Snip*

When you're talking about cars that actually can be driven on the road,
the
most interesting one to me is Volkswagen's 2-passenger "1-liter" car,
which
has a 299 cc engine and gets 235 miles per US gallon. It has two seats in
tandem and has a top speed of 75 mph. The "1-liter" part refers to getting
100 km per liter of fuel. They've promised to build a production version
of
it in 2010, although with a slightly larger engine that probably will get
less dramatic mileage. The prototypes are powered by single-cylinder,
normally-aspirated diesels.

http://www.seriouswheels.com/cars/to...-liter-car.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_1-litre_car

http://www.supercars.net/cars/1935.html


Hmmmmm- I wonder where they got the idea?

http://microcarmuseum.com/tour/messerschmitt-tiger.html

H.

Did you ever ride in one of those deathtraps? I hope VW has a better idea
about how to do it. My camp counselor had a Messerschmitt when I was a kid
in day camp, in 1955. Getting a ride in it was a prize. Getting *two* rides
in it was punishment. g

--
Ed Huntress

This is a pure electric, but it's cute and sure looks like
it performs. http://youtube.com/watch?v=GpKkQZw4Qrs



Jon

clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote in message
...

He can CLAIM anything. Let's see him PROVE it.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **


He is waiting for his pattents to be granted.

Big Grin

Best Regards
Tom.

On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 17:21:10 -0700, "azotic" wrote:


clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote in message
.. .

He can CLAIM anything. Let's see him PROVE it.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **


He is waiting for his pattents to be granted.

Big Grin

Best Regards
Tom.


With the way things have been going at the US patent office lately,
he's liable to get a patent on the WHEEL, for cryin' out loud.

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote in message
...
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 17:21:10 -0700, "azotic" wrote:


clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote in message
. ..

He can CLAIM anything. Let's see him PROVE it.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **


He is waiting for his pattents to be granted.

Big Grin

Best Regards
Tom.


With the way things have been going at the US patent office lately,
he's liable to get a patent on the WHEEL, for cryin' out loud.

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

I'm sorry, but some fella named Al Gore currently holds that one.

Steve