leatherface24

iTrader: (10)

damn right

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

So these energy companies would rather engage in a criminal conspiracy than be the first adopters of a new, massively efficient technology that would revolutionize the industry? Sorry, not buying it.

If this guy's "invention" is for real, there is zero chance that every single car manufacturer in the world is passing it up.

Doppelgänger

iTrader: (12)

It's not criminal if they obtain the technology/patents/copyrights legally and simply never use them.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

Then it's a matter of public record, but you guys are talking about people "disappearing."

Besides, patents expire.

Doppelgänger

iTrader: (12)

I'm not.

icantthink4155

iTrader: (12)

For all of you saying there isnt a conspiracy, your most definitely wrong. There is 100% a conspiracy on this. If handfulls of rednecks can make electric cars in their garage for a few thousand, then the big name automakers could make one a billion times better and more efficient. I believe without a tiny bit of doubt that the oil companies and the government is holding this technology back.

trickyrix

Doppel, didn't mean to imply that you in particular were mildly loony, but I hear too many people rustling their tinfoil hats and lighting their torches when anyone dares to step back and ask "hey, you really think these asshats can pull the wool over everyone's eyes?"

Yes, I'm fully aware that Europeans are light years ahead of us when it comes to economical cars. Could it be that it's because fuel is double or triple what it costs here? Could it be that they have displacement taxes? Could it be that it's just plain expensive as **** to live over there?

If the price of fuel shot up to $7-8 by the end of the year and stayed there for a year, I bet you'd see a mad scramble to get that 90mpg VW Polo over here in short order. As gas creeps up, you're already starting to see more and more practical B-class cars, and even our big-*** trucks are kinda getting with the program.

The fact is, compared to the rest of the first world, our gas is ******* cheap. And our country is pretty big and desolate in some places. And outside of airplanes, our cars are the best option for getting places. Our country is just geared for cars where Europe is not - especially in most major cities. So, add all that up and you can pretty easily come to the conclusion that it's not Big Oil keeping us down, it's 99.5% of the people buying cars. A full-electric car like the Leaf will continue to be a small niche player unless the range and fueling infrastructure can magically be made to match that of your average gas-powered sedan.

But my main point was that the 110mpg Mustang is clearly, clearly pure bullshit. Plain and simple. It runs on the same mythology as copper bracelets on your wrists, magnets in your shoes, and a crystal for your aura.

fooger03

iTrader: (2)

the cake is a lie

rleete

iTrader: (21)

And it will be not because of anything the buying public does, it will because it cost too damn much. $40k for an electric? Screw that. For that kind of money I can have a really nice BMW sedan, that out-performs 80% of the other crap on the road. For half that, I can get a nice big truck that gets shitty mileage, and dump 10 grand into gas for the next 5 years. For a quarter that ($5K), I can get a decent used car, put another 5 thou into the tank, and pocket 10 grand for my kid's education.

I'd gladly drive an electric for a daily. I looked into conversions, and the few offerings allowed in the US. They all suck, and are expensive to boot. Even doing all the work for a conversion costs 7-8 grand easy, and you have to have the vehicle, and be able to tear it all apart and rebuild it. Not many people can, and I don't want to put that kid of effort in so some green tree hugger can feel good about buying a korean shitbox.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

The cake is a lie.

The numbers just don't add up.

Let's assume that a Prius gets 40 miles per gallon, and that its fuel intake is 100% undiluted gasoline. (This is less than the EPA rating, but we'll be pessimistic for the sake of trying to help the Mustang.)

And we'll assume that E85 contains only 15% gasoline, despite the fact that this number is often higher- E85 means "up to 85% ethanol".

To use 1/350 the gasoline of a Prius, you'd need to go 14,000 miles per gallon of gasoline. At 0.15 gal of gasoline per gal of E85, you'd have to achieve 2,100 miles per gallon of total fuel.

2,100 > 110.

I think I know why Douglas Pelmear can't raise any funding. It's because he failed elementary school.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

Did not know this. How much can it vary?

I ask because I'm recalling the discussion about flex-fuel sensors and how they calculate octane. I'm curious how much the octane from one E85 station might vary from the octane from another E85 station.

trickyrix

This might help... LINK

Looks like most E85 only has about 80% max ethanol due to Winter E85 and handling/storage requirements.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

trickyrix's link has all the info, but the short version is that fuel marked "E85" can be anywhere from 15% gasoline to just over 30% gasoline.

On the topic of octane, I'm certainly no expect here, but I have found a few good papers on the subject. Turns out that the difference may be less than we expect. Here is a link to a paper entitled "Changes in Gasoline" sponsored by the Renewable Fuels Foundation, which has one section about E85. It notes that:This suggests to me that the octane spread between actual E85 and lesser blends such as E70 may be much smaller than would otherwise be presupposed.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

On the subject of the Mustang, it occurred to me that there's one way in which at least some of the author's claims might be "true", depending on how you squint and read the fine print.

The EPA rated highway fuel economy of a 1990 Ford Mustang with a 4.9L Windsor V8 and an automatic transmission is 23 MPG.

Now, estimates on this next point vary greatly, but in general, the energy density of E85 seems to be somewhere in the vicinity of 65-75% that of gasoline in terms of recoverable energy per unit volume. So the Mustang's highway mileage should drop to around 15-17 MPG running on E85, assuming all other factors to be equal and an optimal state of tune for E85.

Now, if E85 contains 15% gasoline, then you only need to achieve 16.5 miles per gallon of E85 to be doing 110 miles per gallon of gasoline. Funny how that falls quite neatly into the middle of the predicted range for an unmodified Mustang burning corn-squeezins'.


I'm pretty sure this guy is just a BS-artist who is seeking attention by making claims which, if properly interpreted, just barely pass the "not fraudulent" test by a wide enough margin to steer clear of a conviction, just like the folks who try to sell you "hydrogen generators" that produce a trivial amount of hydrogen by electrolysis of water. Yes, they generate hydrogen. No, they do not generate enough of it to contribute to more than a few thousandths of a percent of the engine's energy requirement.

RattleTrap

I want to believe... but...

I figured it was like Coates, who it seems is more interested in luring investors than creating any real product.
Maybe this guy was trying to get someone to buy him out.
Can't be certain in these matters. Unless you know their motives, trust no-one. Gov't, corporations, individuals... [He says while donning tin-foil hat]

FWIW, my '89 coupe, 5.0/5 sp/3.08 gear, pulled 30mpg on a non-stop interstate tank-drainer at 75-80mph. Low speed and idling really kills it though. [Oh yeah, this one time, in band camp...]

chicksdigmiatas

iTrader: (11)

Well, the thing clearly does not perform like it is said to, or else he would have gladly let someone else test the thing. That alone lets you know the guy is dishonest.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Well, yeah. No matter what your political leaning, you have to admit that if he actually did posses some technology which was capable of enhancing fuel economy by even a very small degree without sacrificing horsepower, every automaker in the world would be lined up at his door with cash and contracts in hand (or breaking into his house at night, or hiring hitmen to kill him, or fabricating evidence that he has sex with underage goats in order to discredit him, or whatever other conspiracy you want to imagine.) The point is that they would not be doing nothing, and that's precisely what the reaction seems to be.


No, if there were really something to this, he'd find a way to make it happen, rather than just crying "woe is me, shall not one company give me fabulous sums of money in exchange for these magic beans?"


I honestly think the guy is just an idiot, plain and simple. And I mean that in a literal sense: "a mentally deficient person, or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way." He claims to have invented a "variable displacement" system, which supposedly reduces fuel consumption by deactivating some of the cylinders while in cruise. Ok, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But if he's trying to sell this system, how can he not realize that anybody who might be in a position to make an investment in an automotive technology of this type would already be aware that GM (Cadillac) was doing this in the early 80s, and that GM, Chrysler, Merc and Honda are still playing with it? There are even several trademarked names for it, such as "Displacement on Demand" and "Variable Cylinder Management."

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

He's also the inventor of a "block girdle" for 302 V8's, which he claims reinforces the block against internal stresses such that it can handle upwards of 900 HP on an otherwise stock block.