On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 04:24:55 GMT, CW wrote:
I was quite ready to discuss the myths and realities of this (the realities
you are obviously unaware of) but you immidiatly took your prick stance. In
that case, go **** yourself.

In other words, just like everyone else claiming to "know about it",
you've got nuthin. Thanks for verifying. By the way, when you top-post
your responses, you screw up the flow of the conversation.

Despite what you've heard, there is only so much hydrocarbon in a gallon
of gasoline, so much energy you can get from oxidizing that hydrocarbon,
and no amount of urban legend is going to change that.

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 11:59:41 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:
In article , David wrote:

Seems over the top and awfully pretentious. What procedure for TRYING
to save a bad battery pack warrants a patent? When I've had bad battery
packs, I've found dead cells. There's no hocus pocus that's gonna bring
those dead cells back to life.

Google on "revive NiCad battery" and you'll discover that (apparently) there
*is* such hocus pocus.

Well, when I worked in a biomedical engineering lab years ago, we had a
battery rejuvinator for NiCd defib batteries. It'd do a milliamp-hour
check first, then do it's cycle pattern, and then do another analysis
afterwards. Some batteries got drastically better, some stayed bad.
So, from this, I deduce that memory effect _is_ real in NiCd, and given
the proper equipment and/or technique, you _can_ get some of them back.

"Hello! Yes, it works well-but not on all batteries. Firstly, you need to be
able to access the individual cells. Using a 10-12 volt source battery(9 is
too weak I've found) you "zap" each dead cell-most are revived and can then be
charged.

Right, that technique has been around forever. I can see how he claims
copyright for his procedure document, but the fact that he claims to
hold patent in the auction, yet his site says "patent pending", shows
that something is fishy. The medical-grade battery rejuvinators use a
charge/discharge cycle pattern rather than a capacitive discharge into
the battery, by the way. Physio-Control was/is the manufacturer, if
you're interested in googling for details.

He also has a new "quick" method that is easier but
doesn't always work. Easily worth the $13 for one battery if you ask me. "

Maybe, but probably the same "discharge a cap into it and hope for the
best" that you'll find for free with any search engine.

Dave Hinz

Unquestionably Confused wrote in
news

Be very careful with this one. I installed one backwards by mistake
and my MPG decreased by 35%. Called J.C. Whitney and they

Yeahbut it should'a worked fine if you moved to New Zealand, right?

Howdy!

In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 16:21:02 -0000, Michael Houghton wrote:

The "memory" effect is overblown, being difficult to actually demonstrate.
DAGS for nicad memory effect...

Come on over, I'll show you a real example. People have been saying for
decades that it doesn't exist, and people have continued to experience
it during all that time. A NiCd battery rejuvination produces
measurable real results; if that's not from memory effect, what do you
think it's from?

Rechargable batteries deteroriate in a variety of ways. Just because your
NiCad battery isn't putting out what you expect doesn't mean you are
suffering from the memory effect. Overcharging can do damage that results
in lower capacity.

The "memory effect" is specifically the result of repeatedly going through
a discharge/charge cycle that is (effectively) always a fixed percentage
of the battery's capacity. Consumer use of NiCad batteries is vanishingly
likely (read not hardly at all) to meet this strict requirement.

Charging too slowly, or allowing the battery to get too hot are other
species of mistreatment that harm capacity.

Now, "rejuvenitation" may well be able to repair some of these forms of
damage, but that doesn't mean that "memory" is involved.

Did you actually follow up on my "Do A Google Search" to see what I was
looking at?

Now, I'm not an electrochemist, but I had no trouble discovering this
information online, nor in corroborating it from multiple sources.

yours,
Michael

--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/wwap/

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:23:13 -0000, Michael Houghton wrote:
Howdy!

Dave Hinz wrote:

Come on over, I'll show you a real example. People have been saying for
decades that it doesn't exist, and people have continued to experience
it during all that time. A NiCd battery rejuvination produces
measurable real results; if that's not from memory effect, what do you
think it's from?

Rechargable batteries deteroriate in a variety of ways. Just because your
NiCad battery isn't putting out what you expect doesn't mean you are
suffering from the memory effect. Overcharging can do damage that results
in lower capacity.

True. But, if Makita's product literature is to be believed, their
chargers are well-behaved in this regard.

The "memory effect" is specifically the result of repeatedly going through
a discharge/charge cycle that is (effectively) always a fixed percentage
of the battery's capacity. Consumer use of NiCad batteries is vanishingly
likely (read not hardly at all) to meet this strict requirement.

Could be.

Now, "rejuvenitation" may well be able to repair some of these forms of
damage, but that doesn't mean that "memory" is involved.

Fair enough.

Did you actually follow up on my "Do A Google Search" to see what I was
looking at?

Well, without knowing which search terms you used, it's hard to know.
But, yes, I'm familiar with the chemistry and terminology involved, as
well as the various failure modes.

Now, I'm not an electrochemist, but I had no trouble discovering this
information online, nor in corroborating it from multiple sources.

Well, put it this way...we used to use a charge/discharge cycle device
to increase the capacity of NiCd battery packs. The diminished capacity
appeared similar to the memory effect, and the improved capacity
afterwards appeared similar to a memory effect being mitigated. The
effect may have been something not technically "memory", but the
usability of the battery was effectively the same as if it was.

Dave Balderstone wrote:
In article , David
wrote:


Seems over the top and awfully pretentious. What procedure for TRYING
to save a bad battery pack warrants a patent?


The site says "patent pending"...

There is no patent.

Yep. "Patent pending" means one has been applied for, but not granted.
I applied for a patent on my electric fork, but the ****heels at the
patent office never gave me one.

Bob

No offense, but please cite the name of the manufacturer ("Fish Co."
isn't good enough) and some supporting evidence that the thing existed.

Bob


CW wrote:
The carborator was real and did work. The rumor mill distorted the claims.
It did do what it was claimed by the the manufacturer to do.

"Bob Schmall" wrote in message
...

Gene T wrote:

Has anyone been brave enough to pay for info on how to "revive" cordless
toll batteries that no longer hold a charge?
This guy is selling this "info" On Ebay for $12.95 and has a 99.7%

feedback.

Can this be true?


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...sPageName=WDVW

Gene

If it were true, don't you think the manufacturers would have figured
out how to do it and make money on the process? This smells like the
infamous Fish carburetor of long ago. You know, the one that got 50-60
mpg as a bolt-on.
Bob

Nice to have an calm exchange of viewpoints. Asking for proof isn't
being a prick.

Bob

CW wrote:
I was quite ready to discuss the myths and realities of this (the realities
you are obviously unaware of) but you immidiatly took your prick stance. In
that case, go **** yourself.
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 00:48:03 GMT, CW wrote:

The carborator was real and did work. The rumor mill distorted the

claims.

It did do what it was claimed by the the manufacturer to do.

Please provide a credible cite for this. We'll get into the chemical
limitations once you do that. "I heard a guy say a friend of a friend
said" isn't a cite, by the way.

Howdy!

In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 11:59:41 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:
In article , David wrote:

Seems over the top and awfully pretentious. What procedure for TRYING
to save a bad battery pack warrants a patent? When I've had bad battery
packs, I've found dead cells. There's no hocus pocus that's gonna bring
those dead cells back to life.

Google on "revive NiCad battery" and you'll discover that (apparently) there
*is* such hocus pocus.

Well, when I worked in a biomedical engineering lab years ago, we had a
battery rejuvinator for NiCd defib batteries. It'd do a milliamp-hour
check first, then do it's cycle pattern, and then do another analysis
afterwards. Some batteries got drastically better, some stayed bad.
So, from this, I deduce that memory effect _is_ real in NiCd, and given
the proper equipment and/or technique, you _can_ get some of them back.

If you've gotten grain growth in the Cadmium plate, it may be possible
to run the battery down and recharge it at the optimal rate to reform
the crystal structure. If you've gotten dendrite growth, you can fry
the dendrites that are shorting the battery (zap!), but there is a high
liklihood that the problem will recur.

In addition, there are other ways to damage batteries so that they don't
produce the expected level of output that are permanent. The rejuvenator
you describe sounds like something sophisticated that will actually do
the job when it can be done. Randomly trying to run the battery completely
down (as some might try) is a crap shoot.

The response from the seller sounds a lot like he is trying to sell you
dehydrated water.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/wwap/

Howdy!

In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:23:13 -0000, Michael Houghton wrote:
Howdy!

[snip a whole bunch of stuff where we are in fair agreement or better]

Did you actually follow up on my "Do A Google Search" to see what I was
looking at?

Well, without knowing which search terms you used, it's hard to know.
But, yes, I'm familiar with the chemistry and terminology involved, as
well as the various failure modes.

My bad. I DAGS for "nicad memory effect", and the first two hits were
productive, one being the sci.electronics FAQ.

Now, I'm not an electrochemist, but I had no trouble discovering this
information online, nor in corroborating it from multiple sources.

Well, put it this way...we used to use a charge/discharge cycle device
to increase the capacity of NiCd battery packs. The diminished capacity
appeared similar to the memory effect, and the improved capacity
afterwards appeared similar to a memory effect being mitigated. The
effect may have been something not technically "memory", but the
usability of the battery was effectively the same as if it was.

OK. That makes sense. I'm just twitching at the misuse (widespread) of
the term "memory effect" as it applies to NiCd batteries, since it
also serves to gloss over mistreatment effects by the end user.

yours,
Michael

--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/wwap/

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 17:04:29 -0000, Michael Houghton wrote:
Howdy!

In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:23:13 -0000, Michael Houghton wrote:
Howdy!

[snip a whole bunch of stuff where we are in fair agreement or better]

Oh now, where's the fun in that?

Did you actually follow up on my "Do A Google Search" to see what I was
looking at?

Well, without knowing which search terms you used, it's hard to know.
But, yes, I'm familiar with the chemistry and terminology involved, as
well as the various failure modes.

My bad. I DAGS for "nicad memory effect", and the first two hits were
productive, one being the sci.electronics FAQ.

Cool, I'll check that out.

Now, I'm not an electrochemist, but I had no trouble discovering this
information online, nor in corroborating it from multiple sources.

Well, put it this way...we used to use a charge/discharge cycle device
to increase the capacity of NiCd battery packs. The diminished capacity
appeared similar to the memory effect, and the improved capacity
afterwards appeared similar to a memory effect being mitigated. The
effect may have been something not technically "memory", but the
usability of the battery was effectively the same as if it was.

OK. That makes sense. I'm just twitching at the misuse (widespread) of
the term "memory effect" as it applies to NiCd batteries, since it
also serves to gloss over mistreatment effects by the end user.

Well, in the case of these defib batteries, it was mistreatment that
caused it, but that's the nature of a defib. They sit for long periods
of time, interrupted by very occasional intense discharge cycles -
usually for the monthly or weekly calibration and recharge time checks.
A defib probably gets discharged in testing 100 times for every time it
gets used on a patient. So, the batteries sit at full charge, with the
charger on 'em, nearly all the time. But, the need to have it usable
outweighs the cost of the deterioration of the battery packs. Medical
devices are a strange world, where "do something that'll hurt the
batteries in the long run, but test it and get rid of them before 'the
long run'" makes some sort of sense.

But, as far as language and terminology, if it acts like "memory", and
smells like "memory", and gets fixed the same way one fixes "memory",
then it's memory-enough-ish for me.

You want something in print, you'll have to dig it up yourself. About a year
ago, there was an interview, on a radio talk show, with the maker of the
carburetor that had so much BS behind it. It was not represented as a "100
hundred mile per gallon" conversion. It wouldn't really improve anything on
a standard passenger car. It was intended for the RV market, where engines
were under a heavy load. The difference was the spraybar. It forced
atomization instead of relying on airflow as in a regular carb. This
improved combustion efficiency. The improvement was not earth shattering but
was there. The host of the show had heard all of these wild claims that were
going around and, wanting to get the real story, tracked this guy down. The
conspiracy theorists said that the oil companies bought this guy out, had
him killed, ect. Not at all true. The reason that he ceased production was
due to the advent of fuel injection. It was more efficient than any
carburetor.

In article , (Michael Houghton) wrote:

The response from the seller sounds a lot like he is trying to sell you
dehydrated water.

Note that the response I posted was not from the seller, but from one of the
*buyers*.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

Hax Planx wrote:


I once picked up a hitchhiker who claimed he knew of a guy who bought a
prototype Chrysler that got 80mpg.

Well seeing as there are many road vehicles in Europe that routinely
hit that figure its not surprising, as to whether a Chrysler could do
it I have my doubts. Other vehicles in the Daimler Chrysler group
could though.

Just to prove what can be done the world record for a vehicle capable
of carrying a human is currently 10703 - yes you read that right, ten
thousand, ten followed by four zeros, miles per gallon.


--

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 17:32:01 GMT, CW wrote:
You want something in print, you'll have to dig it up yourself. About a year
ago, there was an interview, on a radio talk show, with the maker of the
carburetor that had so much BS behind it. It was not represented as a "100
hundred mile per gallon" conversion. It wouldn't really improve anything on
a standard passenger car. It was intended for the RV market, where engines
were under a heavy load. The difference was the spraybar. It forced
atomization instead of relying on airflow as in a regular carb.

Yes, that's what fuel injection does - improves atomization. Changes
the surface area:mass ratio of the fuel. If you have unburned
hydrocarbons, that would show up in the emissions. It doesn't,
therefore there aren't massive quantities of unburned hydrocarbons with
which to improve your mileage.
This

improved combustion efficiency. The improvement was not earth shattering but
was there. The host of the show had heard all of these wild claims that were
going around and, wanting to get the real story, tracked this guy down. The
conspiracy theorists said that the oil companies bought this guy out, had
him killed, ect. Not at all true. The reason that he ceased production was
due to the advent of fuel injection. It was more efficient than any
carburetor.

Right. So what's your point then? 80MPG never happened in anything
resembling a production vehicle.

By the way "I heard an interview on the radio" also isn't what's known
as a "cite".

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 19:20:17 +0100, No Spam wrote:
Hax Planx wrote:


I once picked up a hitchhiker who claimed he knew of a guy who bought a
prototype Chrysler that got 80mpg.

Well seeing as there are many road vehicles in Europe that routinely
hit that figure its not surprising, as to whether a Chrysler could do
it I have my doubts. Other vehicles in the Daimler Chrysler group
could though.

Can you provide examples of 80mpg production vehicles please?

Just to prove what can be done the world record for a vehicle capable
of carrying a human is currently 10703 - yes you read that right, ten
thousand, ten followed by four zeros, miles per gallon.

And is that vehicle roadworthy?

on 6/24/2005 11:20 AM Patrick Conroy said the following:
Unquestionably Confused wrote in
news

Be very careful with this one. I installed one backwards by mistake
and my MPG decreased by 35%. Called J.C. Whitney and they


Yeahbut it should'a worked fine if you moved to New Zealand, right?

Tried that, but the damn car sunk as soon as I left San Diego. Guess
we'll never know.

Dave Hinz writes:


[...]

Can you provide examples of 80mpg production vehicles please?

VW Lupo 3L TDI, sadly now out of production because it was too
expensive for so small a car and VW thought it better to produce
nonsense products like the Touareg or the 1001PS Bugatti, the
development cost of which could have probably helped to maket the 3L
Lupo to larger volume and lower price...


Just to prove what can be done the world record for a vehicle capable
of carrying a human is currently 10703 - yes you read that right, ten
thousand, ten followed by four zeros, miles per gallon.

And is that vehicle roadworthy?

No...

--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 20:44:53 +0200, Juergen Hannappel wrote:
Dave Hinz writes:


[...]

Can you provide examples of 80mpg production vehicles please?

VW Lupo 3L TDI, sadly now out of production because it was too
expensive for so small a car

OK, next?

Just to prove what can be done the world record for a vehicle capable
of carrying a human is currently 10703 - yes you read that right, ten
thousand, ten followed by four zeros, miles per gallon.

And is that vehicle roadworthy?

No...

OK, next?

Of course one-off prototypes of unworkable or unmarketable cars can be
made for nearly any purpose. Rocket cars go really really really fast,
but they're not roadworthy or marketable either.

In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 19:20:17 +0100, No Spam wrote:
Hax Planx wrote:


I once picked up a hitchhiker who claimed he knew of a guy who bought a
prototype Chrysler that got 80mpg.

Well seeing as there are many road vehicles in Europe that routinely
hit that figure its not surprising, as to whether a Chrysler could do
it I have my doubts. Other vehicles in the Daimler Chrysler group
could though.

Can you provide examples of 80mpg production vehicles please?

Schwinn, Raleigh, Murray, Titan, To name just a few manufacturers. grin

Vespa used to have some scooters that were in that neighborhood. I'm not
familiar with current offerings.

The French-manufactured 2CV typically got 50mpg on a _bad_ day.


80mpg is _not_ unrealistic. With one of my old cars, I routinely got
in excess of 20mpg at highway speeds. NOT impressive in and of itself,
but that was with a car weighing roughly 7300 lbs, and powered with a
7.8L engine. Automatic transmission; _with_ the air-conditioning on.

Scaled down by a factor of 4 -- you're talking about something in the
1500 lb range, with a circa 1.6L engine (assuming you drop the a/c).
Its probably only going to have 2-place seating -- a 'roadster' type,
or maybe a Morris 'mini'.

Dave Hinz wrote:

Can you provide examples of 80mpg production vehicles please?

Just to prove what can be done the world record for a vehicle capable
of carrying a human is currently 10703 - yes you read that right, ten
thousand, ten followed by four zeros, miles per gallon.

And is that vehicle roadworthy?

In terms of absolute government published figures then the answer to
the first point is yes, a few, (four) but this is due to a change five
years ago in the way the tests are performed. Government published
steady state 56mph tests were routinely in the 50-60mpg bracket 25
years ago.

Real world magazine published road tests show that 80mpg + is
achievable across a whole raft of vehicles. Just last year a team of
journalists drove around 800 miles from the top end of the UK to the
bottom and got more than 100 mpg (in a VW)

Anyway, ignoring the journalists and doing this purely on a scientific
basis I've listed below the 159 models that officially, in European
Union Type Approval Tests, achieved more than 70mpg on the extra-urban
cycle - this being carried out in controlled laboratory conditions on
an vehicle that has previously run for around 2.5 miles from a cold
start.

It consists of roughly half steady-speed driving and the remainder
accelerations, decelerations, and some idling. Maximum speed is 75 mph
average speed is 39 mph and the distance covered is 4.3 miles.

In case you have doubts over the size of the vehicles achieving these
figures, some of them are two seaters, some are four, some are capable
of carrying five median sized Americans with enough space left over
for a week of non stop food ;-)

Emissions? Well in general they all meet the latest emissions
requirements for Europe (EU4) which is a similar level to that
required in the US and Japan.

As for the second point, No, but did you expect it to be.?


Sorry for the appalling formatting but if you want the raw data go to

http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/downloads/latest.asp

Engine = cubic capacity in cc divide by 16.384 to get cubic inches
D=Diesel
P = Petrol
P/E = Petrol/Electric
Vauxhall = UK General Motors ;-)

It might look like there are multiple entries but these are usually
for different body styles etc, the raw data which has more columns
shows this better.

Manufacturer Model Engine Fuel MPG
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 70.6
FORD Fusion 2004½ to 2005 Model Year 1399 D 70.6
FORD New Focus 1560 D 70.6
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 70.6
MAZDA Mazda2 (2004 MY) 1399 D 70.6
FORD New Focus 1560 D 70.6
FORD Fusion 2005¼ Model Year Onwards 1560 D 70.6
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 1248 D 70.6
FORD Fiesta Pre-2004½ Model Year 1399 D 70.6
NISSAN Micra 1461 D 70.6
FORD Fusion 2004½ to 2005 Model Year 1399 D 70.6
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 70.6
FORD New Focus 1560 D 70.6
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 1248 D 70.6
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6
MITSUBISHI Colt 1493 D 70.6
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6
FORD Fusion 2005¼ Model Year Onwards 1560 D 70.6
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 1686 D 70.6
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6
FORD Fiesta Pre-2004½ Model Year 1399 D 70.6
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6
NISSAN Micra 1461 D 70.6
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 70.6
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 70.6
MAZDA Mazda2 (2004 MY) 1399 D 70.6
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6
CITROEN C4 1560 D 70.6
FIAT New Punto (2003) 1910 D 70.6
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6
SMART Smart City Coupé Hatchback 698 P 70.6
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6
FORD Fusion 2005¼ Model Year Onwards 1399 D 70.6
SMART Smart City Coupé Hatchback 698 P 70.6
FORD Fusion 2004½ to 2005 Model Year 1399 D 70.6
SMART Smart Cabrio Hatchback 698 P 70.6
SUZUKI Alto 1061 P 70.6
RENAULT Mégane Hatchback / Sport Hatchback 1461 D 70.6
KIA Cerato 1493 D 70.6
CITROEN Xsara Picasso 1560 D 70.6
HYUNDAI Accent 1493 D 70.6
VAUXHALL New Astra, MY2005 1248 D 70.6
SMART Forfour 1493 D 70.6
SUZUKI Swift 1248 D 70.6
SUZUKI Swift 1248 D 70.6
SMART Forfour 1493 D 70.6
RENAULT Modus 1461 D 70.6
RENAULT Mégane Hatchback / Sport Hatchback 1461 D 70.7
RENAULT Mégane Hatchback / Sport Hatchback 1461 D 70.7
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 998 P 72.4
FORD Fusion Pre-2004½ Model Year 1399 D 72.4
FORD Fusion 2004½ to 2005 Model Year 1399 D 72.4
FORD Fusion Plus Pre-2004½ Model Year 1399 D 72.4
FORD Fusion Plus Pre-2004½ Model Year 1399 D 72.4
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 1248 D 72.4
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 998 P 72.4
MERCEDES-BENZ A-Class (W168) Hatchback 1689 D 72.4
FORD Fusion 2005¼ Model Year Onwards 1399 D 72.4
FORD Fusion Pre-2004½ Model Year 1399 D 72.4
FORD Fusion 2004½ to 2005 Model Year 1399 D 72.4
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 998 P 72.4
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 72.4
FORD Fiesta Pre-2004½ Model Year 1399 D 72.4
SMART Forfour 1493 D 72.4
FIAT New Punto (2003) 1248 D 72.4
RENAULT Mégane Hatchback / Sport Hatchback 1461 D 72.4
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1686 D 72.4
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 1248 D 72.4
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1686 D 72.4
SMART Forfour 1493 D 72.4
FORD Fiesta Pre-2004½ Model Year 1399 D 72.4
VAUXHALL Tigra, MY2005 1248 D 72.4
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 72.4
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 1248 D 72.4
PEUGEOT 206 SW 1398 D 74.3
FORD Fiesta Pre-2004½ Model Year 1399 D 74.3
TOYOTA Yaris 1364 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 1248 D 74.3
FORD Fiesta Pre-2004½ Model Year 1399 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Astra (T98), MY2005 1686 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Astra (T98), MY2005 1686 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Astra (T98), MY2005 1686 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 74.3
PEUGEOT 1007 1398 D 74.3
HYUNDAI Getz 1493 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3
FORD Fiesta 2004½ Model Year Onwards 1399 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 1248 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 74.3
CITROEN C3 1398 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3
FIAT New Punto (2003) 1248 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 74.3
SMART Forfour 1493 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3
CITROEN C3 1398 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 74.3
SMART Forfour 1493 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3
FORD Fiesta 2004½ Model Year Onwards 1399 D 74.3
RENAULT Clio 1461 D 74.4
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 1248 D 76.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 76.3
FORD Fiesta Pre-2004½ Model Year 1399 D 76.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 1248 D 76.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 76.3
FIAT New Panda 1248 D 76.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 76.3
FORD Fiesta Pre-2004½ Model Year 1399 D 76.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 1248 D 76.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 1248 D 76.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 76.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 76.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 76.3
CITROEN C3 1398 D 76.3
RENAULT Clio 1461 D 76.4
PEUGEOT 206 1398 D 78.4
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 1248 D 78.4
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 1248 D 78.4
AUDI A2 (Standard, SE & Sport) 1422 D 78.5
AUDI A2 (Standard, SE & Sport) 1422 D 78.5
CITROEN C2 1398 D 78.5
VOLKSWAGEN Lupo 1716 D 78.5
VOLKSWAGEN Lupo 1422 D 78.5
RENAULT Clio 1461 D 78.6
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 80.7
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 80.7
CITROEN C1 1398 D 83.1
HONDA Insight 995 P/ E 94.2

--

CW wrote:
You want something in print, you'll have to dig it up yourself. About a year
ago, there was an interview, on a radio talk show, with the maker of the
carburetor that had so much BS behind it. It was not represented as a "100
hundred mile per gallon" conversion. It wouldn't really improve anything on
a standard passenger car. It was intended for the RV market, where engines
were under a heavy load. The difference was the spraybar. It forced
atomization instead of relying on airflow as in a regular carb. This
improved combustion efficiency. The improvement was not earth shattering but
was there. The host of the show had heard all of these wild claims that were
going around and, wanting to get the real story, tracked this guy down. The
conspiracy theorists said that the oil companies bought this guy out, had
him killed, ect. Not at all true. The reason that he ceased production was
due to the advent of fuel injection. It was more efficient than any
carburetor.



" I was quite ready to discuss the myths and realities of this (the
realities
you are obviously unaware of) but you immidiatly took your prick stance. In
that case, go **** yourself."

What does the above radios show citation have to do with the Fish
carburetor? If you're going to make claims, you'll have to provide proof
yourself. Why should I have to do it for you?

Bob

When the show was an interview with the inventor of the thing (yes, he was
there in the studio), it has a lot to do with it. I'm sure you would rather
the government spend a few million dollars on research and publish a report
for you to read but I doubt that's going to happen. Now, go make a pointy
stick and fall on it.

"Bob Schmall" wrote in message
...
CW wrote:

What does the above radios show citation have to do with the Fish
carburetor?

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 03:12:30 -0000, Robert Bonomi wrote:
In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 19:20:17 +0100, No Spam wrote:
Hax Planx wrote:


I once picked up a hitchhiker who claimed he knew of a guy who bought a
prototype Chrysler that got 80mpg.

Well seeing as there are many road vehicles in Europe that routinely
hit that figure its not surprising,

Can you provide examples of 80mpg production vehicles please?

Schwinn, Raleigh, Murray, Titan, To name just a few manufacturers. grin

Heh. Good point, but I get the feeling the guy was talking about cars.
He went from "many" to one model that isn't produced, pretty quickly.

The French-manufactured 2CV typically got 50mpg on a _bad_ day.

Yeah, but I'm, er, pretty sure it wouldn't pass USA'n crash tests. What
with the seats being basically lawn chairs and all, for starters.

80mpg is _not_ unrealistic. With one of my old cars, I routinely got
in excess of 20mpg at highway speeds. NOT impressive in and of itself,
but that was with a car weighing roughly 7300 lbs, and powered with a
7.8L engine. Automatic transmission; _with_ the air-conditioning on.

Scaled down by a factor of 4 -- you're talking about something in the
1500 lb range, with a circa 1.6L engine (assuming you drop the a/c).

Well, if it was linear, sure. But, aerodynamics play a bigger part than
you'd think at higher speeds. A late 60's/early 70's Saab 96 weighs
something like 1900 pounds, has a 1.7 liter engine, and gets 25MPG.

Its probably only going to have 2-place seating -- a 'roadster' type,
or maybe a Morris 'mini'.

Or, something lightened so far that it's unsafe. I'd rather spend a bit
more on fuel and live. Make it biofuel so we can make it here, rather
than giving money to people who hate us, and we're getting somewhere.

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:40:30 +0100, No Spam wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

And is that vehicle roadworthy?

In terms of absolute government published figures then the answer to
the first point is yes, a few, (four) but this is due to a change five
years ago in the way the tests are performed. Government published
steady state 56mph tests were routinely in the 50-60mpg bracket 25
years ago.

Will that vehicle pass present crash tests, and can I drive it to work
as a normal car? (no to at least one, and I suspect both).

Real world magazine published road tests show that 80mpg + is
achievable across a whole raft of vehicles. Just last year a team of
journalists drove around 800 miles from the top end of the UK to the
bottom and got more than 100 mpg (in a VW)

How fast were they driving? Again, experimental one-off "but nobody
would ever use a car that only goes 3MPH" cars are interesting but not
relevant here.

Union Type Approval Tests, achieved more than 70mpg on the extra-urban
cycle - this being carried out in controlled laboratory conditions on
an vehicle that has previously run for around 2.5 miles from a cold
start.

Great, that gets me 1/20th of the way to work.

It consists of roughly half steady-speed driving and the remainder
accelerations, decelerations, and some idling. Maximum speed is 75 mph
average speed is 39 mph and the distance covered is 4.3 miles.

In case you have doubts over the size of the vehicles achieving these
figures, some of them are two seaters, some are four, some are capable
of carrying five median sized Americans with enough space left over
for a week of non stop food ;-)

Safely?

Emissions? Well in general they all meet the latest emissions
requirements for Europe (EU4) which is a similar level to that
required in the US and Japan.

As for the second point, No, but did you expect it to be.?

Well, if it's going to be relevant when we're talking about a
transportation device, yeah, it's kind of important.

VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 80.7
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 80.7
CITROEN C1 1398 D 83.1
HONDA Insight 995 P/ E 94.2

Would any of those pass USA'n crash tests?

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 16:11:14 GMT, CW wrote:

When the show was an interview with the inventor of the thing (yes, he was
there in the studio), it has a lot to do with it.

Lots of people lie about what they've made. Nothing new there.

I'm sure you would rather
the government spend a few million dollars on research and publish a report
for you to read but I doubt that's going to happen.

I notice you ignored my point about hydrocarbons, and how if there were
unburned ones left by the normal carb, that they'd show up in the
exhaust. Why, oh why, might that be, I wonder?

Now, go make a pointy
stick and fall on it.

You should talk to somebody about your hostility problems.

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 17:32:01 GMT, CW wrote:
You want something in print, you'll have to dig it up yourself. About a year
ago, there was an interview, on a radio talk show, with the maker of the
carburetor that had so much BS behind it. It was not represented as a "100
hundred mile per gallon" conversion. It wouldn't really improve anything on
a standard passenger car. It was intended for the RV market, where engines
were under a heavy load. The difference was the spraybar. It forced
atomization instead of relying on airflow as in a regular carb.

Yes, that's what fuel injection does - improves atomization. Changes
the surface area:mass ratio of the fuel. If you have unburned
hydrocarbons, that would show up in the emissions. It doesn't,
therefore there aren't massive quantities of unburned hydrocarbons with
which to improve your mileage.


Depends also on when and where they were burned.

The Honda Controlled Velocity Combustion Chamber (CVCC) is (was?)
a very smart approach to fuel efficiency. The cylinder was fed a
very lean mixture--too lean for reliable spark ignition while the
spark plug was housed in a sort of antechamber atop the cylinder
which was fed with a rich mixture. The result was reliable ignition
of the rich mixture at the plug producing a flame front that reliably
ignited the lean mixture in the cylinder, which in turn burned up
the fuel almost completely during the power stroke. Overall the
engine burned leaner, and therefor more efficiently and cleaner
(as Mr Hinz notes the two go hand-in-hand).

My Honda FE got 50-52 mpg on the PA turnpike cruisig with traffic
at about 65 mph. That's a car, not a motorcycle.

--

FF
which received

In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 03:12:30 -0000, Robert Bonomi
wrote:
In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 19:20:17 +0100, No Spam wrote:
Hax Planx wrote:


I once picked up a hitchhiker who claimed he knew of a guy who bought a
prototype Chrysler that got 80mpg.

Well seeing as there are many road vehicles in Europe that routinely
hit that figure its not surprising,

Can you provide examples of 80mpg production vehicles please?

Schwinn, Raleigh, Murray, Titan, To name just a few manufacturers. grin

Heh. Good point, but I get the feeling the guy was talking about cars.
He went from "many" to one model that isn't produced, pretty quickly.

Lots of little motor-bikes and scooters over there -- a fair number of
which get mileage numbers in that range. Top speeds of 65 km/h, or less,
(sometimes significantly less) though. Supurbly suited for 'in-town'
errands and such, much less so for inter-city travel.

The French-manufactured 2CV typically got 50mpg on a _bad_ day.

Yeah, but I'm, er, pretty sure it wouldn't pass USA'n crash tests. What
with the seats being basically lawn chairs and all, for starters.

I know of at least 2 that are operating in the U.S. licensed, 'street
legal'.

80mpg is _not_ unrealistic. With one of my old cars, I routinely got
in excess of 20mpg at highway speeds. NOT impressive in and of itself,
but that was with a car weighing roughly 7300 lbs, and powered with a
7.8L engine. Automatic transmission; _with_ the air-conditioning on.

Scaled down by a factor of 4 -- you're talking about something in the
1500 lb range, with a circa 1.6L engine (assuming you drop the a/c).

Well, if it was linear, sure. But, aerodynamics play a bigger part than
you'd think at higher speeds. A late 60's/early 70's Saab 96 weighs
something like 1900 pounds, has a 1.7 liter engine, and gets 25MPG.

Yeah, you have to reduce the frontal cross-section, and thus aero drag,
proportionally, as well. Which is why I continued ....

I'm underwhelmed with those Saab figures -- in that same time-frame, got
23MPG in-town, with a 3200lb Dodge, with a 4.6L V-8 engine in it.

In the late 80s a friend was getting 43-44 mpg on the highway, with a
Nissan Sentra, with a 2.8L (I believe, might have been a 2.2) engine.
With the a/c running. More like 50mpg without the a/c.


Its probably only going to have 2-place seating -- a 'roadster' type,
or maybe a Morris 'mini'.

Or, something lightened so far that it's unsafe. I'd rather spend a bit
more on fuel and live. Make it biofuel so we can make it here, rather
than giving money to people who hate us, and we're getting somewhere.

Have you ever run the numbers on how much biodiesel one can produce from
an acre of farmland in a year?

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , (Michael Houghton) wrote:

The response from the seller sounds a lot like he is trying to sell you
dehydrated water.

Note that the response I posted was not from the seller, but from one of the
*buyers*.


Uh, how confident are you that they are really two different people?

--

FF

Dave Hinz wrote:
...

Right. So what's your point then? 80MPG never happened in anything
resembling a production vehicle.


IIRC the Fiat Spider came close. Google is your friend.

--

FF

Robert Bonomi wrote:
....

Have you ever run the numbers on how much biodiesel one can produce from
an acre of farmland in a year?

Ethanol is better deal to date, but biodiesel is coming on...net
positive energy ratios are improving every year w/ better hybrids and
improved processes...neither will ever be 100%, but are both net
positives.

In article .com, wrote:


Doug Miller wrote:
In article , (Michael
Houghton) wrote:

The response from the seller sounds a lot like he is trying to sell you
dehydrated water.

Note that the response I posted was not from the seller, but from one of the
*buyers*.


Uh, how confident are you that they are really two different people?

I emailed several buyers selected at random... for whatever that's worth.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Robert Bonomi wrote:
...

Have you ever run the numbers on how much biodiesel one can produce from
an acre of farmland in a year?

Ethanol is better deal to date...

Made from corn? I have been wondering if it would not be better to
use sorghum, which grows well over much of the same range as corn,
for producing the sugar used to make ethanol.

--

FF

Somebody wrote:

Have you ever run the numbers on how much biodiesel one can produce from
an acre of farmland in a year?

Why waste time with farmland when you have all the used oil drom those
deep well fryers at the fat farms of the country such as McDonalds,
Burger King, etc, available?

Lew

In article ,
Duane Bozarth wrote:
Robert Bonomi wrote:
...

Have you ever run the numbers on how much biodiesel one can produce from
an acre of farmland in a year?

Ethanol is better deal to date, but biodiesel is coming on...net
positive energy ratios are improving every year w/ better hybrids and
improved processes...neither will ever be 100%, but are both net
positives.

Which relates to the question I posed, how?

How many acres of farmland does it take to produce say, 1,000 barrels of
either ethanol or biodiesel?


I'm not arguing about the efficiency of the conversion from 'raw' biomass to
'useable' fuel, Rather, I'm commenting on the ability, or lack thereof, to
supplant any significant amount of petroleum imports.

In article .net,
Lew Hodgett wrote:
Somebody wrote:

Have you ever run the numbers on how much biodiesel one can produce from
an acre of farmland in a year?

Why waste time with farmland when you have all the used oil drom those
deep well fryers at the fat farms of the country such as McDonalds,
Burger King, etc, available?

I dunno. maybe because the oil in those fryers -- at maybe 5-10 gallons
per site -- typically gets changed far less often than once a week.

Assuming there's 1 such fryer for every 10 people -- I have no real idea,
but I suspect its more like 1 per several hundred, if not thousand -- that
source will produce an average of 1 gallon/week per person. This isn't
exactly a significant dent in usage.

Robert Bonomi wrote:


I dunno. maybe because the oil in those fryers -- at maybe 5-10 gallons
per site -- typically gets changed far less often than once a week.

Assuming there's 1 such fryer for every 10 people -- I have no real idea,
but I suspect its more like 1 per several hundred, if not thousand -- that
source will produce an average of 1 gallon/week per person. This isn't
exactly a significant dent in usage.

I have a customer who does collect used fryer oil as well as a lot of
other waste materials which they render.

They do quite a business these days.


Lew

In article , Robert Bonomi
wrote:

How many acres of farmland does it take to produce say, 1,000 barrels of
either ethanol or biodiesel?

That's a good question, and I've throw it to at one of our senior
reporters at work (farm newspaper) to see if they know the answer.

I'm not arguing about the efficiency of the conversion from 'raw' biomass to
'useable' fuel, Rather, I'm commenting on the ability, or lack thereof, to
supplant any significant amount of petroleum imports.

We ran a story a couple of weeks ago about a research pproject that was
close to producing bio-diesel from the animal parts that can no longer
be rendered due to the BSE scare and the closure of the US border to
our cattle. Interesting stuff. There may be more sources for bio-fuels
that simply growing plant matter and converting/digesting it.

--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: http://www.balderstone.ca
The other site, with ww linkshttp://www.woodenwabbits.com

wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Robert Bonomi wrote:
...

Have you ever run the numbers on how much biodiesel one can produce from
an acre of farmland in a year?

Ethanol is better deal to date...

Made from corn? I have been wondering if it would not be better to
use sorghum, which grows well over much of the same range as corn,
for producing the sugar used to make ethanol.

Primarily corn, yes. Sorghum doesn't have nearly the sugar content of
corn and nowhere nor the yield/acre. Sorghum is essentially a corn
substitute where corn is not economical to grow--dryland regions or
where excessive fertilizer costs are limiting, for example.

Much production is from hybrids bred specifically for ethanol production
and more is going that way every year. I've not seen a specific
percentage recently.

Dave Balderstone wrote:

In article , Robert Bonomi
wrote:

How many acres of farmland does it take to produce say, 1,000 barrels of
either ethanol or biodiesel?

That's a good question, and I've throw it to at one of our senior
reporters at work (farm newspaper) to see if they know the answer.

....

I've not seen it in those terms altho it can be derived...what's more
significant and what is the focus of all reports I've seen is the NEV
(net energy value)--how much energy is available after production
inputs, distribution, etc.
The production on a per bushel basis isn't so useful a measure so it
normally isn't the focus.

Last data I saw was roughly 1.33 for ethanol. I don't recall for
biodiesel, but it's 1. Both are improving w/ time, from both improved
processes and fuel stock enhancements. Reducing inputs w/ more
efficient cultivation practices, reduced water/chemical/fertilizer
inputs is also a factor.