The AI-generated cat pictures thread
06-03-2013, 08:21 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,023
Total Cats: 6,591
Yeah you got it. That's the guy on m.net who's spent/spending lots of time on a fun hobby, trying to get his miata(s) high mpg. Has a miata with a G10 (3cyl metro enigne) and another with a SOHC B3. Interesting builds to read thru IMHO. I'd love to have my own high mpg beater project someday.
But this horseshit about the "Mr. Fusion Ultrasonic Gasoline Vaporizer" really rustles my jimmies, and for the same reason as the whole HHO crowd.
These folks stand up on a soapbox and say "Look at this amazing miracle which I have created / discovered. Aren't I awesome? Were it not for the government and oil companies suppressing this technology, we could all be getting 200 miles per gallon! You should respect and admire me for fighting to make this amazing invention available to all!"
Except that it's total crap.
And it's not even new crap. Folks have been recycling the same old claims about the mythical 200 MPG carburetor since at least the 1930s, regurgitating the same old hyperbole through the same old smoke-and-mirrors routines, with periodic updates to the story to incorporate modern technology and political context.
I love this excerpt:
Originally Posted by Tom Valentine, Complete Retard
Brown glowed with anger as he recalled one of the all-time low points of the Fish carburetor suppression story: “Back in 1955, ‘Fireball’ Roberts drove a Fish-carburetor equipped Buick in the Daytona 500 race, and he beat 3 Chrysler supercharged 300G’s by a mile and a half.
“They disqualified Roberts for reasons never given. Now, in my book, that the height of suppression. Fireball’s victory and his need to make fewer pit stops because of the Fish carburetor threatened to make Fish a major factor in the aftermarket.”
Brown’s point is simple: “If there is no need for an octane rating, which is apparently deliberately engineered, there is no need to refine the fuel. If there’s no need to refine the fuel, then there’s no need for Exxon, Standard, Shell and the like. We can simply pump the crude out of the ground, as some Kansas farmers do, let the sand and water sink to the bottom of tanks, and use it directly as fuel.”
“They disqualified Roberts for reasons never given. Now, in my book, that the height of suppression. Fireball’s victory and his need to make fewer pit stops because of the Fish carburetor threatened to make Fish a major factor in the aftermarket.”
Brown’s point is simple: “If there is no need for an octane rating, which is apparently deliberately engineered, there is no need to refine the fuel. If there’s no need to refine the fuel, then there’s no need for Exxon, Standard, Shell and the like. We can simply pump the crude out of the ground, as some Kansas farmers do, let the sand and water sink to the bottom of tanks, and use it directly as fuel.”
I mean, everyone here knows who Fireball was. That man was the most notorious cheater in the history of motorsport, and if he wasn't being disqualified for something, it probably meant he hadn't gotten a good night's sleep the day prior.
So from that, we jump to claims that if it weren't for the need for octane ratings, we could run raw, undistilled crude oil in our engines, and all of the major oil companies would immediately go out of business.
I don't even know where to begin...
Either these folks are indeed complete imbeciles who have no understanding of the law of conservation of energy or the fundamental concepts of thermodynamics (survey-level) and no grasp whatsoever of how to compare the relative magnitudes of different phenomenon, or else they're egomanical ******** who assume (correctly) that the majority of the public lack the aforementioned skills.
THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY!
Automakers have a VERY STRONG INCENTIVE to build fuel-efficient vehicles. Several of them, in fact. Beyond CAFE and CARB regulations, the first automaker to build a cheap, non-hybrid car that gets 100 MPG is going to make an absolute fortune in the marketplace. And unless their sizeable legal department is comprised entirely of incompetent fools, they'll also be able to patent and license whatever miracle technology enabled this. Prior art? **** prior art. A good IP attorney can patent the process of taking a **** into a hole in the ground.
So explain to me how your miracle invention thrown together with $50 worth of random crap you had lying around in the shed has somehow eluded all of the world's greatest mechanical and electrical engineers who have been engaged in an arms race for the past 40 years to produce technologies which improve the performance and economy of internal-combustion engines?
Show me the dyno charts! Show me the chromatography analysis! Show me something concrete which proves that your little plastic bottle with some washers in it is producing so much pure oxygen and hydrogen that it's contributing meaningfully to the running of the engine, and without consuming more energy (from the alternator) than it produces as useful output!
The great thing, of course, is that this **** is totally unprovable. Which, conveniently, makes it undisprovable as well. There's no hard science, no empirical analysis, just a bunch of BS consumer testimony from liberal-arts majors saying "I installed this on my car and noticed an immediate improvement in both power and economy!"
AMUSING ANECDOTE:
While searching for a GWAR image to insert into triple88a's post above, I went to Google Images (as usual) and typed "gwarrior" into the search field, as I remembered having heard this term years ago in the context of a GWAR fan club.
Here is first-page the result of that search:
Now, as I'm sure everyone has deduced by now, I'm fairly tolerant of the whole Pony meme. In fact, I find it utterly hilarious in certain contexts. But am I the only one who finds it *REALLY* strange to see so many Pony images popping up at the top of a search for friggin' GWAR?
Don't believe me? Think I've photoshopped that screencap? Try it for yourself. I ain't makin' this **** up. The ponies truly are taking over the entire internet.
Reply
0
0
06-04-2013, 12:46 AM
Show me the dyno charts! Show me the chromatography analysis! Show me something concrete which proves that your little plastic bottle with some washers in it is producing so much pure oxygen and hydrogen that it's contributing meaningfully to the running of the engine, and without consuming more energy (from the alternator) than it produces as useful output!
The great thing, of course, is that this **** is totally unprovable. Which, conveniently, makes it undisprovable as well. There's no hard science, no empirical analysis, just a bunch of BS consumer testimony from liberal-arts majors saying "I installed this on my car and noticed an immediate improvement in both power and economy!".
The great thing, of course, is that this **** is totally unprovable. Which, conveniently, makes it undisprovable as well. There's no hard science, no empirical analysis, just a bunch of BS consumer testimony from liberal-arts majors saying "I installed this on my car and noticed an immediate improvement in both power and economy!".
Hydrogen has higher flame speed than gasoline. Upon ignition the hydrogen ignites which then ignites the gasoline mixture faster. All and all u get overall increase in laminar speed. Because you wont get completely even mixture you'll get more turbulence as the hydrogen ignites. This turbulence supplements the turbolence u get from the squash from the regular combustion chamber. Because of the faster flame speed you can decrease the timing so you get less pressure at the TDC.
A secondary benefit from the hydrogen is that you can run it at higher compression. Hydrogen does not knock so you can run ***** deep compression on pure hydrogen. Obviously on a hydrogen/gasoline mix you still got gasoline to worry about but there's less of it so you can run higher compression.
It all comes down to the rate at which the gasoline mixture is ignited. The faster all of the fuel is ignited, the less timing you have to add to negate the slow ignition problem with gasoline the more fuel you can burn.
Imagine if you could hit the spark at 0tdc and have 100% of the fuel ignited and have that pressure increase on until bdc u'd be golden. Obviously by the current standards that is impossible however the HHO hybrid helps get closer to it.
If you feel like reading check this out. Some pretty cool tests.
http://www.chemie.unibas.ch/~guethe/...re_marissa.pdf
Hydrogen burns lovely and very fast.
I cant seem to find the right keywords however heres some small bubbles.
Last edited by triple88a; 06-04-2013 at 01:03 AM.
Reply
0
0
06-04-2013, 02:47 AM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,023
Total Cats: 6,591
There are two problems:
The first is one of scale. The amount of hydrogen and oxygen which can be produced by a device such as this (small enough to fit into a car and run on 12 volts) is utterly minuscule as compared to the volume of air flowing through the engine. Our engines consume air in terms of cubic feet per minute, and these little gizmos produce gaseous H2 and O2 in terms of cubic inches per hour.
You might be able to produce enough HHO with one to measurably impact the operation of a model airplane engine at idle. But the idea that adding somewhere in the vicinity of 0.1% HHO to the air your engine is inhaling is going to make one bit of difference is just ludicrous.
The second problem is the first law of thermodynamics. Put simply, the amount of energy that can be produced by the recombination (via combustion) of the output products of this generator can, by definition, be no greater than the amount of energy consumed by the generator to produce them. In practice, since the efficiency of the generator at producing HHO (and the efficiency of the alternator at producing electricity) are less than 100%, the device must consume more energy than it produces. Anything else would meet the definition of a perpetual motion machine.
Thus, the efficiency of the engine (in terms of fuel consumed vs. useful power generated) must decrease when such a device is attached to the engine, since less than 100% of the energy consumed by the device is able to be recovered by the engine.
This, incidentally, is one of the big obstacles to the so-called "hydrogen economy." It's actually quite difficult and inefficient to produce hydrogen at a commercial scale through electrolysis. So difficult, in fact, that it's actually cheaper to extract hydrogen from fossil fuels (typically natgas) via steam reformation, which accounts for roughly 95% of all hydrogen production worldwide.
(That's right- hydrogen, in the context of normal commercial production, is a fossil fuel. The reformation process also liberates substantial quantities of CO2- the "carbon" part of "hydrocarbon" which is left over after the "hydro" part is stripped away.)
If the people espousing and selling devices such as this were to be represented in Pony form, they'd be the Flim-Flam Brothers:
(That's right, I went there. We're not going to discuss the amount of time I spent reading wikipedia entries, searching through pony blogs and viewing pony videos in order to find that reference. Let's just agree that it was too much time, and leave it at that. I've been pounding Jack Daniel's all night while playing TF2, and I'm pretty smashed right now.)
Catchy song, though. I'm a big fan of Vaudeville-style showtunes. Reminds me of the big call-and-response number "Ya Got Trouble" from The Music Man:
And as performed more recently by Seth MacFarlane of Family Guy fame:
Reply
0
0
