"Swingman" wrote in message
...
"Lee Michaels" wrote

I am downloading more about this guy and his technology. It is
fascinating stuff. Where did you learn about him?

I am going to spend a very pleasurable hour or two perusing this topic.
Thanks for the heads up.

Here's hoping his bodyguards are top notch ....


And or does not get offered 10 million for the patents and then we never
hear anything again.

"Leon" wrote

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
"Lee Michaels" wrote

I am downloading more about this guy and his technology. It is
fascinating stuff. Where did you learn about him?

I am going to spend a very pleasurable hour or two perusing this topic.
Thanks for the heads up.

Here's hoping his bodyguards are top notch ....


And or does not get offered 10 million for the patents and then we never
hear anything again.

That already happened. He offered it to the big three car companies and the
only way they would do it if he signed over control to outside parties.
Which is why he went dark for two years. The military also offered to
bankroll him if he produced the engine just for them. He said no.

His game plan is to start a small manufacturing plant and offer franchises
to retrofit existing vehicles. Once that is developed enough, he would then
license the technology to others. Thereby maintaining control and
ownership.

There is a lot of interest in this technology and NASA has given him an
award. It is getting out there in terms of working pototypes, etc. The
trick, of course, is a working engine for sale. If he pulls that off, it
will get very interesting.

As for the skeptics, read his stuff. He explains how he does it. I have two
primary concerns. The first is that the metals, machining, bearings, etc
will all work together in a fashion that the engine would be viable for a
reasonable service life. The other concern is that some psycho (or spook)
will blow him away.

Lee Michaels wrote:
"Leon" wrote

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
"Lee Michaels" wrote

I am downloading more about this guy and his technology. It is
fascinating stuff. Where did you learn about him?

I am going to spend a very pleasurable hour or two perusing this
topic. Thanks for the heads up.

Here's hoping his bodyguards are top notch ....


And or does not get offered 10 million for the patents and then we
never hear anything again.

That already happened. He offered it to the big three car companies
and the only way they would do it if he signed over control to
outside parties. Which is why he went dark for two years. The
military also offered to bankroll him if he produced the engine just
for them. He said no.

His game plan is to start a small manufacturing plant and offer
franchises to retrofit existing vehicles. Once that is developed
enough, he would then license the technology to others. Thereby
maintaining control and ownership.

There is a lot of interest in this technology and NASA has given him
an award. It is getting out there in terms of working pototypes,
etc.
The trick, of course, is a working engine for sale. If he pulls that
off, it will get very interesting.

As for the skeptics, read his stuff. He explains how he does it. I
have two primary concerns. The first is that the metals, machining,
bearings, etc will all work together in a fashion that the engine
would be viable for a reasonable service life. The other concern is
that some psycho (or spook) will blow him away.

Right now it looks like he's got a cute little air motor. If it
actually runs on fuel, doesn't overheat at high power, holds together
for a few thousand hours, gives reasonable throttle response, passes
emissions, and if it really achieves the efficiency he claims, _then_
he's got an engine.

Incidentally that "award" was second prize in a contest (yeah, they
call it the "first prize" but there's also a "grand prize").

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"J. Clarke" wrote

Right now it looks like he's got a cute little air motor. If it
actually runs on fuel, doesn't overheat at high power, holds together
for a few thousand hours, gives reasonable throttle response, passes
emissions, and if it really achieves the efficiency he claims, _then_
he's got an engine.

The air is used in public settings to meet fire codes. He has run them on
fuel for awhile now. The easiest fuel for it to use is deisel. All of his
initial offerings will be in deisel. He can make a few changes to use other
fuels.

Again, he has to build something beyond prototypes. I wish him the best. It
is a real creative feat. But real life has a way of dashing dreams.

Lee Michaels wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote

Right now it looks like he's got a cute little air motor. If it
actually runs on fuel, doesn't overheat at high power, holds
together
for a few thousand hours, gives reasonable throttle response,
passes
emissions, and if it really achieves the efficiency he claims,
_then_
he's got an engine.

The air is used in public settings to meet fire codes. He has run
them on fuel for awhile now. The easiest fuel for it to use is
deisel. All of his initial offerings will be in deisel. He can
make
a few changes to use other fuels.

Does he have a video of it running on something other than air? I
didn't see one on his site. I know he _says_ that he has, but where's
the meat?

Again, he has to build something beyond prototypes. I wish him the
best. It is a real creative feat. But real life has a way of
dashing
dreams.

I wish him well too, but don't really expect him to deliver. In
engineering when someone comes to you with something that looks too
good to be true, it generally is.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Lee Michaels wrote:
....
Again, he has to build something beyond prototypes. I wish him the best. It
is a real creative feat. But real life has a way of dashing dreams.

Where real life is spelled "thermodynamics"...

--

On Feb 10, 9:00*am, dpb wrote:
Lee Michaels wrote:

...

Again, he has to build something beyond prototypes. *I wish him the best. It
is a real creative feat. *But real life has a way of dashing dreams.

Where real life is spelled "thermodynamics"...

--

I can't see it keeping cool either. The method of displacement might
be different, but exothermic BTU are just that, exothermic.
850 HP of heat, is a lot of heat and in a concentrated package like
that?
Then there is the whole question of making it a sealed package.
I'm not optimistic.

"Lee Michaels" wrote in message
...



That already happened. He offered it to the big three car companies and
the only way they would do it if he signed over control to outside
parties. Which is why he went dark for two years. The military also
offered to bankroll him if he produced the engine just for them. He said
no.

His game plan is to start a small manufacturing plant and offer franchises
to retrofit existing vehicles. Once that is developed enough, he would
then license the technology to others. Thereby maintaining control and
ownership.

There is a lot of interest in this technology and NASA has given him an
award. It is getting out there in terms of working pototypes, etc. The
trick, of course, is a working engine for sale. If he pulls that off, it
will get very interesting.

As for the skeptics, read his stuff. He explains how he does it. I have
two primary concerns. The first is that the metals, machining, bearings,
etc will all work together in a fashion that the engine would be viable
for a reasonable service life. The other concern is that some psycho (or
spook) will blow him away.


It would probably be a good idea for him to talk with the SawStop people,
they successfully made it happen with similar skepticism and pit falls.
I am not so sure that I would be too concerned about connectivity initially.
The car sized engine would be tiny, IIRC the inventor held up a coffee can
sized object suggesting that a car engine could be that size. With mass
production cost would come down and something that small would probably be
similar in cost to a starter motor. So you have to replace the motor 3 or 4
times during the life of a car, not totally unlike replacing 3 or 4 sets of
tires and or 2 or 3 batteries.

Robatoy wrote:
On Feb 10, 9:00 am, dpb wrote:
Lee Michaels wrote:

...

Again, he has to build something beyond prototypes. I wish him the best. It
is a real creative feat. But real life has a way of dashing dreams.
Where real life is spelled "thermodynamics"...

....
I can't see it keeping cool either. ...

I'm speaking in more general sense of thermodynamics as in the three
laws not just heat transfer.

I have the feeling the overall efficiencies claimed will not bear up to
detailed scrutiny in practice.

Reminds me of, oh, cold fusion, say...the lone researcher w/ no
replication outside of own laboratory.

But, then again, if he's really got something he'll become _very_ famous.

--

J. Clarke wrote:
Lee Michaels wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote
Right now it looks like he's got a cute little air motor. If it
actually runs on fuel, doesn't overheat at high power, holds
together
for a few thousand hours, gives reasonable throttle response,
passes
emissions, and if it really achieves the efficiency he claims,
_then_
he's got an engine.

The air is used in public settings to meet fire codes. He has run
them on fuel for awhile now. The easiest fuel for it to use is
deisel. All of his initial offerings will be in deisel. He can
make
a few changes to use other fuels.

Does he have a video of it running on something other than air? I
didn't see one on his site. I know he _says_ that he has, but where's
the meat?

Again, he has to build something beyond prototypes. I wish him the
best. It is a real creative feat. But real life has a way of
dashing
dreams.

I wish him well too, but don't really expect him to deliver. In
engineering when someone comes to you with something that looks too
good to be true, it generally is.

People including those in Washington do not understand there is a fixed
amount of energy in the Carbon bond. When the Carbon molecule is
oxidized it release a known amount of energy that can be calculated.
(This energy can be found in any Handbook of Engineering, Physics, or
Chemistry and probably hundreds of sites online) Regardless of what you
do, you can only recover 100% of this energy. Hence with cars to get
higher miles per gallon you have to reduce the size of the car. A
roller skate should be able to get a couple of hundred miles per gallon.

Like Bigfoot, I have heard of the supper carburetor for years, but it
still is not real.

"Keith Nuttle" wrote in message
...

People including those in Washington do not understand there is a fixed
amount of energy in the Carbon bond. When the Carbon molecule is oxidized
it release a known amount of energy that can be calculated. (This energy
can be found in any Handbook of Engineering, Physics, or Chemistry and
probably hundreds of sites online) Regardless of what you do, you can
only recover 100% of this energy. Hence with cars to get higher miles per
gallon you have to reduce the size of the car. A roller skate should be
able to get a couple of hundred miles per gallon.

Like Bigfoot, I have heard of the supper carburetor for years, but it
still is not real.

While any given fuel does in deed only has a fixed amount of stored energy
reducing the size of the vehicle is not the only way to increase gas
mileage. Simple engine tweaks can do this, advancing the ignition timing
will do this. I currently have a heavier, taller truck with an engine that
produces approximately 50% more horse power than my previous truck. It gets
at least the same, often better gas mileage than the older model did when it
was the same age.
It is simply a matter of getting more out of the fuel burn than what has
been gotten in the past. Some engines burn fuel more efficiently than
others. Because most gasoline burning engines do not do not get 100% return
on the fuel that they burn they can be improved to do better.
With the common day usage of on board computers and fuel injectors gas
mileage has improved dramatically over the last 30 years. You can look as
fuel injectors as the today's "super carburetor".

Robatoy wrote:

I can't see it keeping cool either. The method of displacement might
be different, but exothermic BTU are just that, exothermic.
850 HP of heat, is a lot of heat and in a concentrated package like
that?

Technically, any heat (or sound) produced by an engine is wasted energy.
An ideal engine would produce no heat or sound, having converted all
the chemical energy into mechanical energy.

Consider my house furnace, for instance...it converts 95% of the fuel
energy into useable heat. The exhause is cool enough that it uses
plastic pipe for the exhaust.

Given that current car engines are something like 35% efficiency, there
is a lot of room for improvement.

Chris

On Feb 10, 11:52*am, Keith Nuttle wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Lee Michaels wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote
Right now it looks like he's got a cute little air motor. *If it
actually runs on fuel, doesn't overheat at high power, holds
together
for a few thousand hours, gives reasonable throttle response,
passes
emissions, and if it really achieves the efficiency he claims,
_then_
he's got an engine.

The air is used in public settings to meet fire codes. He has run
them on fuel for awhile now. The easiest fuel for it to use is
deisel. *All of his initial offerings will be in deisel. *He can
make
a few changes to use other fuels.

Does he have a video of it running on something other than air? *I
didn't see one on his site. *I know he _says_ that he has, but where's
the meat?

Again, he has to build something beyond prototypes. *I wish him the
best. It is a real creative feat. *But real life has a way of
dashing
dreams.

I wish him well too, but don't really expect him to deliver. *In
engineering when someone comes to you with something that looks too
good to be true, it generally is.

People including those in Washington do not understand there is a fixed
amount of energy in the Carbon bond. *When the Carbon molecule is
oxidized it release a known amount of energy that can be calculated.
(This energy can be found in any Handbook of Engineering, Physics, or
Chemistry and probably hundreds of sites online) *Regardless of what you
do, you can only recover 100% of this energy. Hence with cars to get
higher miles per gallon you have to reduce the size of the car. *A
roller skate should be able to get a couple of hundred miles per gallon.

Like Bigfoot, I have heard of the supper carburetor for years, but it
still is not real.

This guy must be claiming exhaust temperatures at room temperature?
Regardless of how much of the explosion gets transferred to the drive-
shaft, you're still dealing with thermal absorption at the piston and
cylinder walls, not to mention what blows out the exhaust.

Keith Nuttle wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Lee Michaels wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote
Right now it looks like he's got a cute little air motor. If it
actually runs on fuel, doesn't overheat at high power, holds
together
for a few thousand hours, gives reasonable throttle response,
passes
emissions, and if it really achieves the efficiency he claims,
_then_
he's got an engine.

The air is used in public settings to meet fire codes. He has run
them on fuel for awhile now. The easiest fuel for it to use is
deisel. All of his initial offerings will be in deisel. He can
make
a few changes to use other fuels.

Does he have a video of it running on something other than air? I
didn't see one on his site. I know he _says_ that he has, but
where's the meat?

Again, he has to build something beyond prototypes. I wish him
the
best. It is a real creative feat. But real life has a way of
dashing
dreams.

I wish him well too, but don't really expect him to deliver. In
engineering when someone comes to you with something that looks too
good to be true, it generally is.

People including those in Washington do not understand there is a
fixed amount of energy in the Carbon bond. When the Carbon molecule
is oxidized it release a known amount of energy that can be
calculated. (This energy can be found in any Handbook of
Engineering,
Physics, or Chemistry and probably hundreds of sites online)
Regardless of what you do, you can only recover 100% of this energy.

The trouble is that current cars (or base-load power plants for that
matter) do not come anywhere close to recovering 100 percent of that
energy. 30 percent is very good for an internal combustion otto-cycle
engine, so there is considerable room for improvement.

Hence with cars to get higher miles per gallon you have to reduce
the
size of the car.

Or increase the thermal efficiency.

A roller skate should be able to get a couple of
hundred miles per gallon.

Like Bigfoot, I have heard of the supper carburetor for years, but
it
still is not real.

I'm not sure how relevant that is to the engine in question. He's
claiming that it gets the performance of a really good diesel or maybe
a wee bit more in a much smaller and lighter package--if that's so
then in addition to the thermal efficiency benefit the car could be
smaller and lighter due to the smaller, lighter engine, which would
again provide a gas mileage benefit.

The question is whether he can actually deliver that thermal
efficiency in an engine that passes emissions and is reliable and
driveable. If he can the world is going to beat a path to his door,
but if their engineers thought that he could the car manufacturers
would have engaged in a bidding war to get the rights to his design.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

dpb wrote:
....
Reminds me of, oh, cold fusion, say...the lone researcher w/ no
replication outside of own laboratory.
....

In a somewhat more general amplification...

There are many very clever and talented mechanical tinkerers who create
wondrous mechanical gizmos of all kinds. However, often they lack
sufficient abilities in analysis or precision in measurement or aren't
careful enough in the measurement phases of experimentation to realize
the results aren't what they would hope for. Or, in some cases, they're
so convinced of the basic idea they make flawed conclusions by bending
the interpretation to fit their conclusions. And, of course, there have
been those who simply downright cheated in knowingly creating false data.

Until the invention and the technology can be brought to an independent
testing facility and replicate the results and creation of the device
there's nothing to do but wait and see if it "sprouts legs".

--

dpb wrote:

Until the invention and the technology can be brought to an independent
testing facility and replicate the results and creation of the device
there's nothing to do but wait and see if it "sprouts legs".

B'sides if we just wait someone will pirate the technology and, with no
development expense to recover, sell it to us cheaper - kinda like that
string trimmer doohickey...

....and in less than two decades the patents will expire anyway, so if
it's any good it can sprout legs then.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

"Chris Friesen" wrote in message
...
Robatoy wrote:

I can't see it keeping cool either. The method of displacement might
be different, but exothermic BTU are just that, exothermic.
850 HP of heat, is a lot of heat and in a concentrated package like
that?

Technically, any heat (or sound) produced by an engine is wasted energy.
An ideal engine would produce no heat or sound, having converted all the
chemical energy into mechanical energy.

Well, not totally, the heater uaes the engine heat to warm the car in the
winter.


Given that current car engines are something like 35% efficiency, there is
a lot of room for improvement.


Exactly, typically electricity is 4 times more efficient to power a car.
Oddly it is cheaper and uses less fuel to create electricity to power that
car than it is to use that fuel directly to power the car. Today's car
engines are an inefficient design to convert fuel into immediate energy.

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:50:33 -0600, "Leon"
wrote:


"Keith Nuttle" wrote in message
. ..

People including those in Washington do not understand there is a fixed
amount of energy in the Carbon bond. When the Carbon molecule is oxidized
it release a known amount of energy that can be calculated. (This energy
can be found in any Handbook of Engineering, Physics, or Chemistry and
probably hundreds of sites online) Regardless of what you do, you can
only recover 100% of this energy. Hence with cars to get higher miles per
gallon you have to reduce the size of the car. A roller skate should be
able to get a couple of hundred miles per gallon.

Like Bigfoot, I have heard of the supper carburetor for years, but it
still is not real.

While any given fuel does in deed only has a fixed amount of stored energy
reducing the size of the vehicle is not the only way to increase gas
mileage. Simple engine tweaks can do this, advancing the ignition timing
will do this. I currently have a heavier, taller truck with an engine that
produces approximately 50% more horse power than my previous truck. It gets
at least the same, often better gas mileage than the older model did when it
was the same age.
It is simply a matter of getting more out of the fuel burn than what has
been gotten in the past. Some engines burn fuel more efficiently than
others. Because most gasoline burning engines do not do not get 100% return
on the fuel that they burn they can be improved to do better.
With the common day usage of on board computers and fuel injectors gas
mileage has improved dramatically over the last 30 years. You can look as
fuel injectors as the today's "super carburetor".

While it is true that fuel mileage has improved over the last few
years, Ford's Corporate Average Fuel Economy for the whole fleet is
the same as it was in 1919 with the model "T" - aprox 21MPG US.

wrote in message
...

While it is true that fuel mileage has improved over the last few
years, Ford's Corporate Average Fuel Economy for the whole fleet is
the same as it was in 1919 with the model "T" - aprox 21MPG US.

Well, you are talking "Ford". ;~)

Given that comment which is not a fair comparison, considering the amount of
work being done by current fleets to the 1919 fleet. The 1919 model fleet
probably got better gas mileage but could a 1919 vehicle pull 50,000 lbs. or
did they have AC, power steering, or an automatic transmission. Or could
they pass emission tests designed for 2009 model car?

If you want to do a fair comparison, do it with that Model T and say, the
Focus.

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:36:29 -0600, dpb wrote:

dpb wrote:
...


There are many very clever and talented mechanical tinkerers who create
wondrous mechanical gizmos of all kinds. However, often they lack
sufficient abilities in analysis or precision in measurement or aren't
careful enough in the measurement phases of experimentation to realize
the results aren't what they would hope for. Or, in some cases, they're
so convinced of the basic idea they make flawed conclusions by bending
the interpretation to fit their conclusions. And, of course, there have
been those who simply downright cheated in knowingly creating false
data.

Until the invention and the technology can be brought to an independent
testing facility and replicate the results and creation of the device
there's nothing to do but wait and see if it "sprouts legs".

Good points...

But don't forget:
- can it be manufactured? what about manufacturing tolerances? Lab boys
can make a lot of things that cannot be put on an assembly line for mass
production and get the same results time and time again.

- how long of a life of engine? 100,000 miles? or is it a major
overhaul every 20,000 miles?

- will that engine start when air temp is below -10 F? How about running
all afternoon in August way out in Nevada waste lands?

I think I will wait to pass judgment.

Phil Again wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:36:29 -0600, dpb wrote:
....

I think I will wait to pass judgment.

Isn't that what I've said in every response???

--

wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:50:33 -0600, "Leon"
wrote:


"Keith Nuttle" wrote in message
...

People including those in Washington do not understand there is a
fixed amount of energy in the Carbon bond. When the Carbon
molecule is oxidized it release a known amount of energy that can
be calculated. (This energy can be found in any Handbook of
Engineering, Physics, or Chemistry and probably hundreds of sites
online) Regardless of what you do, you can only recover 100% of
this energy. Hence with cars to get higher miles per gallon you
have to reduce the size of the car. A roller skate should be able
to get a couple of hundred miles per gallon.

Like Bigfoot, I have heard of the supper carburetor for years, but
it still is not real.

While any given fuel does in deed only has a fixed amount of stored
energy reducing the size of the vehicle is not the only way to
increase gas mileage. Simple engine tweaks can do this, advancing
the ignition timing will do this. I currently have a heavier,
taller truck with an engine that produces approximately 50% more
horse power than my previous truck. It gets at least the same,
often better gas mileage than the older model did when it was the
same age.
It is simply a matter of getting more out of the fuel burn than
what
has been gotten in the past. Some engines burn fuel more
efficiently than others. Because most gasoline burning engines do
not do not get 100% return on the fuel that they burn they can be
improved to do better.
With the common day usage of on board computers and fuel injectors
gas mileage has improved dramatically over the last 30 years. You
can look as fuel injectors as the today's "super carburetor".

While it is true that fuel mileage has improved over the last few
years, Ford's Corporate Average Fuel Economy for the whole fleet is
the same as it was in 1919 with the model "T" - aprox 21MPG US.

And of course the Model T is capable of highway speeds and passes all
Federally mandated safety and emissions regulations.

Hint, Congress took gas mileage out of the auto manufacturers hands
years ago. They build to the regulations. If you don't like the
regulations, take it up with Congress.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

I must be reading more into this than is there.

Does anyone see a reason that he doesn't have this engine mounted in a
car which can be driven as a demo?

on 2/10/2009 6:24 PM (ET) KIMOSABE wrote the following:
I must be reading more into this than is there.

Does anyone see a reason that he doesn't have this engine mounted in a
car which can be driven as a demo?


My thoughts exactly. If he can design a complex motor, why can't he
design a motor mount for a standard vehicle and put it to the test?


--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

KIMOSABE wrote:
I must be reading more into this than is there.

Does anyone see a reason that he doesn't have this engine mounted in a
car which can be driven as a demo?



Yeah, I think I do...

--

KIMOSABE wrote:
I must be reading more into this than is there.

Does anyone see a reason that he doesn't have this engine mounted in
a
car which can be driven as a demo?

That's a very good question. Given what he says about the dimensions
it would certainly fit in most of them. Given what he says about the
power it could certainly propel most of them.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"KIMOSABE" wrote in message
...
I must be reading more into this than is there.

Does anyone see a reason that he doesn't have this engine mounted in a
car which can be driven as a demo?

Only just guessing, but there aren't very many good reasons. Maybe, just
maybe, it hasn't progressed beyond the air pump proof of concept stage yet.
Even if it is, a usable drivetrain is more than just a functioning short
block, although I find it hard to believe the 10 engineers on his payroll
can't get an engine controller and fuel injection system to work, if that's
the issue. You just know Bubba would've strapped it onto a gokart frame even
before the exhaust had cooled from its first test run. It does make one
wonder, doesn't it?

"willshak" wrote in

My thoughts exactly. If he can design a complex motor, why can't he design
a motor mount for a standard vehicle and put it to the test?


I feel an episode of sarcasm comin' on.

Cuz designing the motor mounts would be too difficult of an engineering
feat??

"Leon" wrote in message
news

wrote in message
...

While it is true that fuel mileage has improved over the last few
years, Ford's Corporate Average Fuel Economy for the whole fleet is
the same as it was in 1919 with the model "T" - aprox 21MPG US.

Well, you are talking "Ford". ;~)

The only one of the Big Three not standing on the corner with a tin cup.

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
On Feb 10, 11:52 am, Keith Nuttle wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Lee Michaels wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote
Right now it looks like he's got a cute little air motor. If it
actually runs on fuel, doesn't overheat at high power, holds
together
for a few thousand hours, gives reasonable throttle response,
passes
emissions, and if it really achieves the efficiency he claims,
_then_
he's got an engine.

The air is used in public settings to meet fire codes. He has run
them on fuel for awhile now. The easiest fuel for it to use is
deisel. All of his initial offerings will be in deisel. He can
make
a few changes to use other fuels.

Does he have a video of it running on something other than air? I
didn't see one on his site. I know he _says_ that he has, but where's
the meat?

Again, he has to build something beyond prototypes. I wish him the
best. It is a real creative feat. But real life has a way of
dashing
dreams.

I wish him well too, but don't really expect him to deliver. In
engineering when someone comes to you with something that looks too
good to be true, it generally is.

People including those in Washington do not understand there is a fixed
amount of energy in the Carbon bond. When the Carbon molecule is
oxidized it release a known amount of energy that can be calculated.
(This energy can be found in any Handbook of Engineering, Physics, or
Chemistry and probably hundreds of sites online) Regardless of what you
do, you can only recover 100% of this energy. Hence with cars to get
higher miles per gallon you have to reduce the size of the car. A
roller skate should be able to get a couple of hundred miles per gallon.

Like Bigfoot, I have heard of the supper carburetor for years, but it
still is not real.

This guy must be claiming exhaust temperatures at room temperature?
Regardless of how much of the explosion gets transferred to the drive-
shaft, you're still dealing with thermal absorption at the piston and
cylinder walls, not to mention what blows out the exhaust.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

He's not claiming 100% efficient USE of the fuel. He's claiming a better
burn - less unburned fuel going out the pipe.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Keith Nuttle wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Lee Michaels wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote
Right now it looks like he's got a cute little air motor. If it
actually runs on fuel, doesn't overheat at high power, holds
together
for a few thousand hours, gives reasonable throttle response,
passes
emissions, and if it really achieves the efficiency he claims,
_then_
he's got an engine.

The air is used in public settings to meet fire codes. He has run
them on fuel for awhile now. The easiest fuel for it to use is
deisel. All of his initial offerings will be in deisel. He can
make
a few changes to use other fuels.

Does he have a video of it running on something other than air? I
didn't see one on his site. I know he _says_ that he has, but
where's the meat?

Again, he has to build something beyond prototypes. I wish him
the
best. It is a real creative feat. But real life has a way of
dashing
dreams.

I wish him well too, but don't really expect him to deliver. In
engineering when someone comes to you with something that looks too
good to be true, it generally is.

People including those in Washington do not understand there is a
fixed amount of energy in the Carbon bond. When the Carbon molecule
is oxidized it release a known amount of energy that can be
calculated. (This energy can be found in any Handbook of
Engineering,
Physics, or Chemistry and probably hundreds of sites online)
Regardless of what you do, you can only recover 100% of this energy.

The trouble is that current cars (or base-load power plants for that
matter) do not come anywhere close to recovering 100 percent of that
energy. 30 percent is very good for an internal combustion otto-cycle
engine, so there is considerable room for improvement.

Hence with cars to get higher miles per gallon you have to reduce
the
size of the car.

Or increase the thermal efficiency.

A roller skate should be able to get a couple of
hundred miles per gallon.

Like Bigfoot, I have heard of the supper carburetor for years, but
it
still is not real.

I'm not sure how relevant that is to the engine in question. He's
claiming that it gets the performance of a really good diesel or maybe
a wee bit more in a much smaller and lighter package--if that's so
then in addition to the thermal efficiency benefit the car could be
smaller and lighter due to the smaller, lighter engine, which would
again provide a gas mileage benefit.

The question is whether he can actually deliver that thermal
efficiency in an engine that passes emissions and is reliable and
driveable. If he can the world is going to beat a path to his door,
but if their engineers thought that he could the car manufacturers
would have engaged in a bidding war to get the rights to his design.

The car manufacturers, particularly in the US, are victims of NIH Syndrome.

LD wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Keith Nuttle wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Lee Michaels wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote
Right now it looks like he's got a cute little air motor. If
it
actually runs on fuel, doesn't overheat at high power, holds
together
for a few thousand hours, gives reasonable throttle response,
passes
emissions, and if it really achieves the efficiency he claims,
_then_
he's got an engine.

The air is used in public settings to meet fire codes. He has
run
them on fuel for awhile now. The easiest fuel for it to use is
deisel. All of his initial offerings will be in deisel. He can
make
a few changes to use other fuels.

Does he have a video of it running on something other than air?
I
didn't see one on his site. I know he _says_ that he has, but
where's the meat?

Again, he has to build something beyond prototypes. I wish him
the
best. It is a real creative feat. But real life has a way of
dashing
dreams.

I wish him well too, but don't really expect him to deliver. In
engineering when someone comes to you with something that looks
too
good to be true, it generally is.

People including those in Washington do not understand there is a
fixed amount of energy in the Carbon bond. When the Carbon
molecule
is oxidized it release a known amount of energy that can be
calculated. (This energy can be found in any Handbook of
Engineering,
Physics, or Chemistry and probably hundreds of sites online)
Regardless of what you do, you can only recover 100% of this
energy.

The trouble is that current cars (or base-load power plants for
that
matter) do not come anywhere close to recovering 100 percent of
that
energy. 30 percent is very good for an internal combustion
otto-cycle engine, so there is considerable room for improvement.

Hence with cars to get higher miles per gallon you have to reduce
the
size of the car.

Or increase the thermal efficiency.

A roller skate should be able to get a couple of
hundred miles per gallon.

Like Bigfoot, I have heard of the supper carburetor for years, but
it
still is not real.

I'm not sure how relevant that is to the engine in question. He's
claiming that it gets the performance of a really good diesel or
maybe a wee bit more in a much smaller and lighter package--if
that's so then in addition to the thermal efficiency benefit the
car
could be smaller and lighter due to the smaller, lighter engine,
which would again provide a gas mileage benefit.

The question is whether he can actually deliver that thermal
efficiency in an engine that passes emissions and is reliable and
driveable. If he can the world is going to beat a path to his
door,
but if their engineers thought that he could the car manufacturers
would have engaged in a bidding war to get the rights to his
design.

The car manufacturers, particularly in the US, are victims of NIH
Syndrome.

You really think that if Ford could reduce the size of their engines
by a factor of ten while doubling the efficiency in these days of CAFE
they'd ignore it because of "NIH"?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:

SNIP

The car manufacturers, particularly in the US, are victims of NIH
Syndrome.

You really think that if Ford could reduce the size of their engines
by a factor of ten while doubling the efficiency in these days of CAFE
they'd ignore it because of "NIH"?

--
I hate to burst your bubble, but, ---

When CAFE was adopted there was a big hole in it for trucks - they were excepted.

The big 3 thought, and rightly so, that they could carry on as before as long as the cars they produced were on a truck platform.

Do you remember SUV, Crossover, AWD, Hummer??

All of these are produced on a "truck" platform and, as a result, did not get counted in CAFE.

Think about which vehicles have been touted the most and which ones sold as "safest".

This has come back to bite us with 10 or less mpg in a lot of the really big vehicles.

I think the greed of the "bean counters" prevailed and any effort to garner efficiency was castigated.

P D Q

"KIMOSABE" wrote in message
...
I must be reading more into this than is there.

Does anyone see a reason that he doesn't have this engine mounted in a
car which can be driven as a demo?


Too early at this point.

PDQ wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
SNIP
The car manufacturers, particularly in the US, are victims of NIH
Syndrome.
You really think that if Ford could reduce the size of their engines
by a factor of ten while doubling the efficiency in these days of CAFE
they'd ignore it because of "NIH"?

--
I hate to burst your bubble, but, ---

When CAFE was adopted there was a big hole in it for trucks - they were excepted.

The big 3 thought, and rightly so, that they could carry on as before as long as the cars they produced were on a truck platform.

Do you remember SUV, Crossover, AWD, Hummer??

All of these are produced on a "truck" platform and, as a result, did not get counted in CAFE.

Think about which vehicles have been touted the most and which ones sold as "safest".

This has come back to bite us with 10 or less mpg in a lot of the really big vehicles.

I think the greed of the "bean counters" prevailed and any effort to garner efficiency was castigated.

P D Q

Some of the "really big" vehicles do pretty well. My '04 Silverado 2500
Duramax diesel (6500 lbs) gets 21 mpg highway at 75mph and 14.5 mpg
towing a 10,000 lb 5th wheel at 65 mph.

"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
...

Some of the "really big" vehicles do pretty well. My '04 Silverado 2500
Duramax diesel (6500 lbs) gets 21 mpg highway at 75mph and 14.5 mpg
towing a 10,000 lb 5th wheel at 65 mph.

Damn. My '01 F250 PowerStroke (6500+ lbs) would make a whopping 18 if I
kept it at 65 all day.
My pard's '96 Dodge Cummins (now with over 300k and a 3.55 rear end)
gets 23at that speed - damn it.

Dave in Houston

Doug Winterburn wrote:

Some of the "really big" vehicles do pretty well. My '04 Silverado
2500 Duramax diesel (6500 lbs) gets 21 mpg highway at 75mph and 14.5
mpg towing a 10,000 lb 5th wheel at 65 mph.

What's the criteria for "pretty well"? A smaller vehicle could get
twice that mileage on the highway (but of course couldn't pull the 5th
wheel).

Chris

PDQ wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

SNIP

The car manufacturers, particularly in the US, are victims of NIH
Syndrome.

You really think that if Ford could reduce the size of their
engines
by a factor of ten while doubling the efficiency in these days of
CAFE they'd ignore it because of "NIH"?

--
I hate to burst your bubble, but, ---

When CAFE was adopted there was a big hole in it for trucks - they
were excepted.

They had to be. If you base CAFE on vehicles that have to carry tons
of cargo then you defeat the purpose.

The big 3 thought, and rightly so, that they could carry on as
before
as long as the cars they produced were on a truck platform.

If they were carrying on as before then they would still be producting
vehicles such as my '76 Lincoln and would not be producing vehicles
such as the Ford Focus. Perhaps you do not remember the Falcon, which
would today be mid-size but in the late '50s was about as small as
Detroit made. Even the large sedans are smaller now.

Do you remember SUV, Crossover, AWD, Hummer??

All of these are produced on a "truck" platform and, as a result,
did
not get counted in CAFE.

What of it? All the manufacturers were making SUVs long before CAFE
and AWD was an Audi innovation first introduced in a small sedan.

As for Hummer, the Hummer was _never_ produced by a big three auto
maker until GM bought the product line in 1998 and started rebadging
other vehicles as Hummers, all of which are smaller and lighter and
more fuel efficient than the original, non-big-three produced Hummer.
If you don't like the Hummer you need to blame the Army for writing
the specification.

Do you also remember mini-vans?

As the car manufacturers downsized their sedans and dropped station
wagons from the product line, people needing such vehicles had no
choice but to go to SUV or mini-vans and for some reason people don't
like mini-vans. And CAFE is what killed the station wagon. Or do you
really think that high gas mileage station wagons that do what station
wagons are supposed to do can be built without a breakthrough in
engine technology?

Think about which vehicles have been touted the most and which ones
sold as "safest".

Volvos?

This has come back to bite us with 10 or less mpg in a lot of the
really big vehicles.

Bite who? If you're being bitten by it then you must have bought one.

I think the greed of the "bean counters" prevailed and any effort to
garner efficiency was castigated.

You're welcome to think whatever you want to but you clearly aren't
familiar with the product lines of any domestic auto manufacturer.
There are many kinds of car in production that are not SUVs. You are
acting as if Detroit just stopped producing cars entirely and started
producing SUVs exclusively.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Chris Friesen wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote:

Some of the "really big" vehicles do pretty well. My '04 Silverado
2500 Duramax diesel (6500 lbs) gets 21 mpg highway at 75mph and
14.5
mpg towing a 10,000 lb 5th wheel at 65 mph.

What's the criteria for "pretty well"? A smaller vehicle could get
twice that mileage on the highway (but of course couldn't pull the
5th
wheel).

But how much smaller does it have to be to get twice that mileage on
the highway?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Doug Winterburn wrote:
PDQ wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
SNIP
The car manufacturers, particularly in the US, are victims of NIH
Syndrome.
You really think that if Ford could reduce the size of their engines
by a factor of ten while doubling the efficiency in these days of
CAFE they'd ignore it because of "NIH"?

--
I hate to burst your bubble, but, ---

When CAFE was adopted there was a big hole in it for trucks - they
were excepted.

The big 3 thought, and rightly so, that they could carry on as
before as long as the cars they produced were on a truck platform.

Do you remember SUV, Crossover, AWD, Hummer??

All of these are produced on a "truck" platform and, as a result,
did not get counted in CAFE.

Think about which vehicles have been touted the most and which ones
sold as "safest".

This has come back to bite us with 10 or less mpg in a lot of the
really big vehicles.

I think the greed of the "bean counters" prevailed and any effort to
garner efficiency was castigated.

P D Q

Some of the "really big" vehicles do pretty well. My '04 Silverado
2500 Duramax diesel (6500 lbs) gets 21 mpg highway at 75mph and 14.5
mpg towing a 10,000 lb 5th wheel at 65 mph.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The economy is better now and the deisel is even better than gas.

I remember a 74 Merc wagon that gave me 12.5 mpg whether or not I was towing. Gas was cheap then.

Last fall I took an 08 Silverado 4X4 with the big gas motor (6.5?, 7.5?) from Oshawa to Lucan (maybe 150 miles) for a dealer. Started out with a full tank and had to add more in St Marys so I could get back. That thing sucked fuel faster than I could put it in To top that all off, the truck acted like a dog - no getup and no go.

Would you believe that truck was not what the dealer ordered so it had to go back. Took it back and got another that had the big blown diesel. Same 4X4 as the other one but for the motor. This one was a real pleasure - great off the line and still had real punch at 80 mph.
To top it all, started with 3/4 tank and still had some left when I got home.

That said, we are still paying for the big 3 greed in circumventing the thrust of CAFE. And now we are going to have to bail them out???

P D Q