PDA

View Full Version : Drumroll Please: Perpetual Motion Is Here



bborr01
01-04-2012, 04:22 PM
It's about time someone cracked this one. Even has US patents. I have not looked them up.

http://www.hojomotor.com/

Brian

Black_Moons
01-04-2012, 04:33 PM
Annoying website with just some insanely long video sales pitch, no way to fast forward, and multiple popups when I tried to leave. Not worth the time to visit even for the laughs, as they don't even show any pictures of whatever bs they are trying to sell after 2 minutes of waiting for them to finish there 10 cent powerpoint quality presidentation of some dude talking over a text backround (And we needed a video for that? I can read 5x faster then that dude talks, What ever happened to just putting pictures and text on your damn webpage)

kbertoson
01-04-2012, 04:44 PM
My website was shutdown as soon as it was put up as well. My 100 MPG carburetor plans. Those oil companies just did not want me selling my easy to build plans.

goose
01-04-2012, 04:47 PM
I don't know, $50, on the fence about it,......

john11668
01-04-2012, 04:53 PM
It would only cost 40 for the plans.

Wonder what the materials might cost:eek:

bvd1940
01-04-2012, 04:57 PM
My security alerts went off & hada BADDDDDDD rating for the site being dangerous :eek: .

H380
01-04-2012, 04:57 PM
Bravo Sierra

Tony
01-04-2012, 04:59 PM
I bought and built three of those hobomotors and now have 3phase
power for the shop.

The bridgeport runs smooth as silk on that zero point field energy.

The only downside is the racket at night.. those perpetual motion machines
just never stop!

Evan
01-04-2012, 05:16 PM
Two of the patents have nothing to do with "free energy", only magnetic levitation and repulsion. Nothing new about that.

One patent, # 4,151,431, is packed with utter nonsense. The patent examiner must have been on crack to approve it. It wouldn't hold up for a second in court.

Example of some of the claims:


It is my belief (Belief is not knowledge) that the full potential of magnetic forces existing in permanent magnets has not been recognized or utilized because of incomplete information and theory with respect to the atomic motion occurring within a permanent magnet. It is my belief that a presently unnamed atomic particle is associated with the electron movement of a superconducting electromagnet and the lossless current flow of Amperian currents in permanent magnets. The unpaired electron flow is similar in both situations. This small particle is believed to be opposite in charge and to be located at right angles to the moving electron, (believed by you and who else?) and the particle would be very small as to penetrate all known elements (The only way to do that is to not interact with anything, especially electromagnetically. See Neutrino.), in their various states as well as their known compounds, unless they have unpaired electrons which capture these particles as they endeavor to pass therethrough.

Ferro electrons differ from those of most elements (gibberish, all electrons are the same, atoms differ) in that they are unpaired, and being unpaired they spin around the nucleus in such a way that they respond to magnetic fields as well as creating one themselves (the term "Spin" does not refer to an actual type of rotation in particle physics. It is a term of convenience which describes a property of atomic particles. Here he reveals that he has no understanding of particle physics.). If they were paired, their magnetic fields would cancel out. However, being unpaired they create a measurable magnetic field if their spins have been oriented in one direction. The spins are at right angles to their magnetic fields.

In niobium superconductors at a critical state, the magnetic lines of force cease to be at right angles. This change must be due to establishing the required conditions for unpaired electronic spins instead of electron flow in the conductor, and the fact that very powerful electromagnets that can be formed with superconductors illustrates the tremendous advantage of producing the magnetic field by unpaired electron spins rather than conventional electron flow.

Note on the last item, unpaired electron spins always cancel out unless energy is supplied via an imposed electromagnetic field. That requires an energy input.



In a superconducting metal, wherein the electrical resistance becomes greater in the metal than the proton resistance (nonsense), the flow turns to electron spins and the positive particles flow parallel in the metal in the manner occurring in a permanent magnet where a powerful flow of magnetic positive particles or magnetic flux causes the unpaired electrons to spin at right angles.(more nonsense) Under cryogenic superconduction conditions the freezing of the crystals in place (crystals are already "locked" in place in a metal) makes it possible for the spins to continue, and in a permanent magnet the grain orientation of the magnetized material results in the spins permitting them to continue and for the flux to flow parallel to the metal.

lazlo
01-04-2012, 05:28 PM
I bought and built three of those hobomotors and now have 3 phase power for the shop.

LOL!

But are your hobomotors phase perfect? 'Cause Zero-point Energy isn't symmetric :D

Frank Ford
01-04-2012, 05:47 PM
The thing that interests me is how many obvious scams have presentations that just as obvously look like scams. . .

platypus2020
01-04-2012, 06:42 PM
I'm going to use some of money I made doing my Nigerian money transfer, to buy this free energy program,. WOW!!, free money, now free energy, boy I'm extremely lucky, 2012 is starting out good. :D

C - ROSS
01-04-2012, 06:57 PM
Need to buy it right now, it won't be here tomorrow.

Ross

lazlo
01-04-2012, 06:59 PM
The thing that interests me is how many obvious scams have presentations that just as obvously look like scams. . .

'Cause the guys who are really good at scams work on Wall Street :D

Evan
01-04-2012, 07:04 PM
And they look just like stock brokers...

sasquatch
01-04-2012, 07:17 PM
And,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, also lawyers!!:(

Arcane
01-04-2012, 07:38 PM
http://instantdrumroll.com/

Juergenwt
01-04-2012, 08:09 PM
May be the same people that bought the heater invented by a little Chinese man and built by bearded Amish men in a barn could use the hojo motor to power it. There must be lot's of them out there.

justanengineer
01-04-2012, 09:11 PM
Those guys dont have to worry about the power companies, they have to worry about Richard Heene, whom everybody knows invented perpetual motion right after his kid came out of the attic. :D

Rich Carlstedt
01-05-2012, 12:24 AM
This is really the perfect power source.
I was thinking about buying one and having it spin a propeller.
Since the propeller would never stop, all I have to do is aim it at my wind generator and have free electricty 24/7.. without interruption.
Now I can do all this for nothing, as I am applying for a free grant from the US Government Energy department.
After the Solindra deal , they are looking for real investments for a change.

The extra power will feed my Flux Capacitor, while the Delorean is in the shop

Iraiam
01-05-2012, 01:33 AM
It's about time someone cracked this one. Even has US patents. I have not looked them up.

http://www.hojomotor.com/

Brian


dU = sQ - sW

EVguru
01-05-2012, 04:30 AM
Even has US patents.

I nearly choked on my mug of tea reading that!:eek:

What's the most important thing you need to obtain a pattent in the US (and in most contries come to that)?

The fee.

Actually having something, practical, useful, or even possible, is not really required.

big job
01-05-2012, 05:41 AM
Ill never forget my father telling me big news of a guy in 1923 drove a
vehicle up the white house steps with a gallon of water and one pill
in the gas tank. The claim was the pill was seven common things can be
found any roadside. I had the newpaper clipping but cant find it. But
they never found the guy or his car till this day??????

flylo
01-05-2012, 07:29 AM
Bian now we know what you've been doing in your retirement, HOJO Motors! I think that's a great idea but you should offer a discount to your friends here on the forum. How about $19.95? You can send it today, don't worry "checks in the mail".

A.K. Boomer
01-05-2012, 09:05 AM
Some of you guys are pretty quick to judge ------- you have to admit it does have a catchy name, that's half of it right there ------- heck - with enough financial backing this thing could probably even give a good run for the presidency,,,

I could just hear it now ------- all the free energy boasts and this and that and then it finally says "im a HoJo motor - and im a Mormon......... :p

bborr01
01-05-2012, 09:17 AM
The thing that that surprised me was that the ad was a banner ad on my yahoo page. It looks to me like even yahoo will advertise anything as long as you pay them.

Brian

Evan
01-05-2012, 09:24 AM
Actually having something, practical, useful, or even possible, is not really required.


That is entirely true with only one exception in the US patent office. There is no requirement that a device being patented actual perform as claimed. In other words, the claims may be entirely wrong as long as they don't infringe on somebody elses wrong claims.

The one exception is a throwback to the original days of the USPTO when they did require the submission of actual working models in order to grant a patent. To cut down on a never ending stream of patents for motors that drive generators that drive motors they still require any submission for perpetual motion to be accompanied by a working model.

The situation is a bit cloudy on the subject of "free energy". My take would be that if the device is mechanical and claims to produce more energy than it consumes then it should be considered a perpetual motion machine. However, even that falls into a bit of a grey area. There is no rule in thermodynamics that prevents using less energy to move energy than the amount of energy moved. It is possible to raise the energy contained in a region at the expense of the energy in another region even thought the total entropy of the system increases.

This can produce the appearance of "free energy". An ordinary example is the heat pump used for home heating.

added: There is a not so small paradox to allowing patents for useless devices. The type of patent granted is called a Utility Patent. That overtly implies that the patent should be for something useful. That was the original intent and demonstrates one of the major flaws in the current application of patent law.

aboard_epsilon
01-05-2012, 09:28 AM
sounds like a K-TEL advert

or some of our double glazing ads

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0-2n8JHc1M



all the best.markj

wierdscience
01-05-2012, 09:34 AM
I've been using one for months and it's great.At first I was a bit put off by the Black hole it generates,but once I realised I could chunk my garbage and yard waste into the event horizon it became clear that not only did it cut my electric bill out completely,it has also saved me countless dollars by not having to haul things to the landfill.

Thanks Hojo!

Evan
01-05-2012, 09:51 AM
The only real problem with keeping a black hole on the property is that if you don't have sufficient backup power for the electrostatic containment field it can drop through the Earth. Then it will go into an internal orbit with the apogee at just around the surface which will occasionally take off people's feet and puncture tires as well as other possibly more serious consequences.

If you do manage to avoid a containment failure you still have to keep it fed constantly. If you go on vacation and forget to arrange for Bubba to drop by and chuck in some trash it might evaporate. If that happens I should be able to see the flash from here.

EVguru
01-05-2012, 10:13 AM
Are you sure it's a black hole?

If it turns out to be a stargate, you could end up with some very angry aliens coming to complain about the fly-tipping.

plunger
01-05-2012, 10:54 AM
I have bought the plans straight away.I dont want to lose out on such a fantastic offer. Anyway we have the consumer protection act that allows you to return things in seven days if you are not happy with it. Dont you have this law in the states.?

Just thinking about the whole black hole thing. Isnt the world sopposed to end this year. ? Hope a black hole doesnt gobble up the world

saltmine
01-05-2012, 11:12 AM
Charles Nelson Pogue invented the "original 200 mpg carburetor".
But, in reality, it didn't deliver 200 mpg....more like 100 mpg.

He applied for patents and to provide a working example, built and installed one on a 1935 Ford, with an 85hp flathead V-8. Pouring one gallon of gasoline into a clear tank mounted above the engine, where the driver and passengers could easily see it, he then drove the car 100 miles, before it consumed the gallon of fuel. The car was thoroughly inspected and checked for hidden gas tanks, none were found. Unfortunately, the oil barons and the automobile manufacturers were not impressed. The Pogue carburetor made the flathead difficult to start. Throttle response was terrible and power was down. On rainy days, the car used quite a bit more fuel than it did when the humidity was low.

With the advent of leaded fuel, the Pogue carburetor mysteriously stopped working. Only recently did scientists and engineers discover the zinc alloy Pogue used to make the carburetor acted as a catalyst on the unleaded gasoline. Tetraethyl lead in the fuel coated the alloy, rendering it useless, as far as catalyzing the hydrocarbon fuels.
Always remember......there is usually a grain of truth in all of these "Urban Legends".

flylo
01-05-2012, 11:34 AM
Wow now I can have a 100HP lathe & power it free. Thanks Brian!:D

Jaakko Fagerlund
01-05-2012, 11:37 AM
I have bought the plans straight away.I dont want to lose out on such a fantastic offer. Anyway we have the consumer protection act that allows you to return things in seven days if you are not happy with it. Dont you have this law in the states.?

Just thinking about the whole black hole thing. Isnt the world sopposed to end this year. ? Hope a black hole doesnt gobble up the world
Only seven days? We have 14 :D But then there is this little fact that the law happens to work only in this country, meaning that if I buy anywhere else than from Finland or a Finnish based company, the law doesn't abide anyone.

H8Allegheny
01-05-2012, 12:55 PM
Charles Nelson Pogue invented the "original 200 mpg carburetor".
But, in reality, it didn't deliver 200 mpg....more like 100 mpg.

He applied for patents and to provide a working example, built and installed one on a 1935 Ford, with an 85hp flathead V-8. Pouring one gallon of gasoline into a clear tank mounted above the engine, where the driver and passengers could easily see it, he then drove the car 100 miles, before it consumed the gallon of fuel. The car was thoroughly inspected and checked for hidden gas tanks, none were found. Unfortunately, the oil barons and the automobile manufacturers were not impressed. The Pogue carburetor made the flathead difficult to start. Throttle response was terrible and power was down. On rainy days, the car used quite a bit more fuel than it did when the humidity was low.

With the advent of leaded fuel, the Pogue carburetor mysteriously stopped working. Only recently did scientists and engineers discover the zinc alloy Pogue used to make the carburetor acted as a catalyst on the unleaded gasoline. Tetraethyl lead in the fuel coated the alloy, rendering it useless, as far as catalyzing the hydrocarbon fuels.
Always remember......there is usually a grain of truth in all of these "Urban Legends".

When I was in college, I went and pulled a copy of Pogue's patent. Nothing I remember about it had anything to do with catalysts. Rather, it was a very convoluted mechanical arrangement. The thing was designed to maximize vaporization of the incoming gasoline.

To that end, there was a bowl of gasoline with air bubbling vigorously from a jet on the bottom of the bowl. The "working" portion of the gizmo sat on top of that bowl. Imagine two, long, relatively flat passageways fastened together face to face and then rolled up into a spiral. Gasoline went through one and heated water from the cooling system went through the other. At the output end, any gasoline remaining in liquid form was returned to the bowl and only gasoline vapors were then passed onto the cylinders for combustion.

At least that's how I remember it.

I'll see if I can dig up the patent and post it.

Edit: turns out there are two patents by CNP. The first from 1927 didn't look anything like I remembered it - in fact the main drawing is illegible. However, there is a second patent from 1935 that is the one that I saw. It is USP# 2026798.

Here is a link to it on Google Patents:

http://www.google.com/patents?id=JsU_AAAAEBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=ininventor:charles+ininventor:pogue&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1OQFT8j3N6Tv0gGl1YG6Ag&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBA

Brian

Kiwi
01-11-2012, 09:13 PM
Of coarse it works you buy it he gets rich whats the problem

Evan
01-11-2012, 09:27 PM
The supposed efficiency of the Pogue carburetor is nothing more than a myth. Current vehicles extract over 99% of the energy contained in the fuel they burn. No carb or other fuel delivery system can do any better than that. Even carbs from 50 years ago were able to provide well over 90% efficiency of turning fuel to heat.

The problem has never been about fuel burning efficiency. It is every single step of the process of turning heat into motion that is where the inefficiencies lie. To begin, a heat engine is limited by the Carnot Limit. For an internal combustion heat engine operating at atmospheric pressure and standard temperature that limits the maximum efficiency to no more that about 64 percent converting heat to motion. That assumes there are no losses, an impossibility.

A.K. Boomer
01-12-2012, 09:45 AM
I have to disagree with u Evan,

When fuel injection first came out on many production vehicles (bosch K jetronic is a good example)
it was touted (and basically proven) to increase fuel economy by over 15%

and the major reason being was better atomization due to "flutter valves" in the injectors that vibrate at certain frequencies to break up the injection pattern into a fine mist --- this works from idle all the way up to full throttle.

Note; this is not due to electronic ignition --- it was a separate advertised gain and I remember it quite well and the cars at the time showed the results ----- it was simply better fuel control/delivery and atomization and it's done nothing but increase over the years.

The reason why fuel injection is staying right where it's at is not due to limit's in atomization ---- we could go way beyond what we have right now and yes all the way to vaporizing - but we can't - it's because we have to keep the mixture rich - there is engine meltdown protection and Nox ppm control to worry about...
even the best of today's fuel injection is still limited but that does not matter because our hands are tied due to Nox levels anyways -------- if it was not for that one thing (along with burning a hole in your piston) you bet there would be some more room to get yet half again closer to the carnot limit and you bet we would be doing it with yet even better atomization - that's already been proven back in the 70's, but we can't - the two don't go hand in hand, but the judgment scale is ass backwards - they don't care if you pump out close to twice the Nox as long as it slips under their PPM standards ---- so your car produces close to twice the acid rain that it should for its size? no prob. as long as the ppm's are below the maximum standard...

Until that rule book changes we will have a tough time making anymore huge gains ---
Therefore - things like Nox levels should be judged by the overall production of this combustion by-product in comparison for what size car or truck and the amount of work it's capable of doing, that would free us all up to get far better MPG's AND keep the overall Nox levels to a minimum...
and the very fact and the point to all of this - is we would be doing it with better atomization to start with... It's whats needed when you want the two ingredients of both lean and efficient to be side by side...
Lean does not always mean efficient - In the world of proper air to fuel ratio's that will actually burn inside the combustion chamber some of the old boats of the past were actually running lean due to throwing the fuel into the combustion chamber in droplets -------- but that's hardly efficient ;)

EVguru
01-12-2012, 11:12 AM
Fuel injection did not result in an improvement in peak efficiency of 15%.

It may well have resulted in an average improvement of 15%.

Most of the fuel economy improvements on modern engines have come from engine management techniques being able to spread the narrow peak efficiency rather wider.

Krunch
01-12-2012, 11:33 AM
I'm way ahead of them:

1 (http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg822/scaled.php?server=822&filename=magnetwindmill.jpg&res=medium)

2 (http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg31/scaled.php?server=31&filename=magnetcar.jpg&res=medium)

3 (http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg25/scaled.php?server=25&filename=catenergy.png&res=medium)

Evan
01-12-2012, 12:00 PM
When fuel injection first came out on many production vehicles (bosch K jetronic is a good example)
it was touted (and basically proven) to increase fuel economy by over 15%


That is a different matter. Fuel injection is better able to match the amount of fuel required to the demand of particular driving conditions. What I am talking about is the ability to burn the fuel in the cylinder, not how much fuel is required to produce the power needed at any particular moment. Even a cheap low tech carb will still result in better than 90% fuel burning efficiency. If it didn't the motor would either melt down or belch black smoke from grossly wrong mixture.

aboard_epsilon
01-12-2012, 12:13 PM
That is a different matter. Fuel injection is better able to match the amount of fuel required to the demand of particular driving conditions. What I am talking about is the ability to burn the fuel in the cylinder, not how much fuel is required to produce the power needed at any particular moment. Even a cheap low tech carb will still result in better than 90% fuel burning efficiency. If it didn't the motor would either melt down or belch black smoke from grossly wrong mixture.

Evan is right ..

its all the wasted heat going out of the radiator and the exhaust ..

they could salvage that heat ..but the gear needed ..the weight ..and probably the unreliability would set you back to where you were before.

if you could get some simple gizmo that gave you direct heat to electro- mechanical transfer ..then you may be half way there.


all the best.markj

Krunch
01-12-2012, 01:18 PM
Doesn't the Second Law of Thermodynamics sort of rule out perpetual motion as impossible?

Carld
01-12-2012, 01:20 PM
Yeah, I designed a hobomotor so that hobo's could travel the USA for free but the railroad and highway people came and stole my plans and formatted my puter so I have no record of it.

In the 1960's I designed a carb somewhat like the Fish carb but mine got 1000 mpg on every vehicle we tried it on. While we were gone for the weekend the government people came in and took my whole workshop and every book and piece of paper in the house. They wanted to eliminate all the evidence I guess.

:rolleyes: ;) :D

Bmyers
01-12-2012, 01:21 PM
Doesn't the Second Law of Thermodynamics sort of rule out perpetual motion as impossible?

over unity kooks thinks those laws can be broken.

A.K. Boomer
01-13-2012, 06:27 AM
Evan is right ..

its all the wasted heat going out of the radiator and the exhaust ..

they could salvage that heat ..but the gear needed ..the weight ..and probably the unreliability would set you back to where you were before.

if you could get some simple gizmo that gave you direct heat to electro- mechanical transfer ..then you may be half way there.


all the best.markj


That's really not how it works ---- we have the ability to achieve far more efficiency right now if it weren't for emission standards - and then we have the ability to take it way further yet with keeping the engine itself running hotter -- it has nothing to due with "extra gear" it simply has to due with leaning the mix - better atomization - ceramic coated engine parts and in extreme cases ceramic parts...

The proof is in the pudding -------- the fact is - is that you can run an engine so lean that you cannot keep a Catalytic converter "alive" , Cat's are "living proof" of vast inefficiency's ---------- If you actually believe Evan's statement of;


The supposed efficiency of the Pogue carburetor is nothing more than a myth. Current vehicles extract over 99% of the energy contained in the fuel they burn. No carb or other fuel delivery system can do any better than that.

Need I remind you that his statement was not about "heat energy's" it was about "efficiency" which has to due with actually getting work done - so Evan's statement is "claiming" that there's only 1% waste in the fuel we burn inside the combustion chamber! Even If he backpedals and then claims it's also heat energy's (which he has too or we'd all be getting close to 100 mpg) This is (to put it mildly) a totally ludicrous statement ...

If you really want a reality check Aboard take your car for a 5 mile drive - park it in the garage and feel the radiator - that's "most" of the loses in the IC process and also most of the mechanical friction losses -------- then slide under and put your hand on the cat (please don't) ---------------- Now tell me which ones hotter -------- hint --- the one given Evans supposedly 1% waste "theory" :rolleyes: will put you in the hospital... Why? cuz the damn things glowing red hot that's why... Why? cuz it's consuming all the leftover hydrocarbons that didn't get burned in the combustion process, (way way way over 1% :rolleyes:) why? because we have to keep the mixture fat so we can #1 - meet emission standards and #2 - keep from melting a hole in our pistons, and I might even add #3 - keep the cat alive so it can "consume" all the "leftovers - just like I said in my first post....

Keep it real guys - I still check in from time to time ;)

aboard_epsilon
01-13-2012, 06:52 AM
you run an engine (petrol gasoline) lean and it will be only good for a set rpm ..

wont have any ability to accelerate

Ive read here and there all over the place that engines efficiency is 20-30 percent

sure you can make an engine more efficient ..but it then wont have the ability to do any work

yes cats will kill maybe 5 percent ..and the emissions sillyness another 5 percent

don't want to wiki ..but here it says that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency

add the lot up ...............if you can make one 40 percent efficient ...where has the other 60 percent gone to...mostly heat ..and a bit on transmision..which is also released as heat


and most of the efficiency competitions ..are based on an engine in a lighweight car going along at a set speed ...which is low,,,with zero accelaration taking place ...no hills ..feathering the throtle....in plus 15 degrees centigrade conditions ..usually zero wind ...not real world at all ..allthough something ..maybe a little can be gleamed from these tests
all the best..markj

justanengineer
01-13-2012, 09:11 AM
That's really not how it works ---- we have the ability to achieve far more efficiency right now if it weren't for emission standards - and then we have the ability to take it way further yet with keeping the engine itself running hotter -- it has nothing to due with "extra gear" it simply has to due with leaning the mix - better atomization - ceramic coated engine parts and in extreme cases ceramic parts...

The proof is in the pudding -------- the fact is - is that you can run an engine so lean that you cannot keep a Catalytic converter "alive" , Cat's are "living proof" of vast inefficiency's ---------- If you actually believe Evan's statement of;



Need I remind you that his statement was not about "heat energy's" it was about "efficiency" which has to due with actually getting work done - so Evan's statement is "claiming" that there's only 1% waste in the fuel we burn inside the combustion chamber! Even If he backpedals and then claims it's also heat energy's (which he has too or we'd all be getting close to 100 mpg) This is (to put it mildly) a totally ludicrous statement ...

If you really want a reality check Aboard take your car for a 5 mile drive - park it in the garage and feel the radiator - that's "most" of the loses in the IC process and also most of the mechanical friction losses -------- then slide under and put your hand on the cat (please don't) ---------------- Now tell me which ones hotter -------- hint --- the one given Evans supposedly 1% waste "theory" :rolleyes: will put you in the hospital... Why? cuz the damn things glowing red hot that's why... Why? cuz it's consuming all the leftover hydrocarbons that didn't get burned in the combustion process, (way way way over 1% :rolleyes:) why? because we have to keep the mixture fat so we can #1 - meet emission standards and #2 - keep from melting a hole in our pistons, and I might even add #3 - keep the cat alive so it can "consume" all the "leftovers - just like I said in my first post....

Keep it real guys - I still check in from time to time ;)

Sorry Boomer, but keepin it real - most of your ideas listed above were common belief (now disproven) circa 1975. Lean burn engines were commonly believed to be the "best" at ~95% efficiency until modern electronic control systems came along in the mid 80s and we were able to begin running close to stoich, which increased our overall efficiency by a few points. Moving from lean burn to stoich also made necessary reductions in emissions, as all the excess oxygen in the lean mixture creates a significant amount of NOx. Regarding ceramic engine parts and ceramic coatings, they are the future of just about nothing IMHO. On paper they look good, just as on paper I make a lot of money every year, but reality is quite different and you get a a negligable gain for huge cost.

Regarding Evan's statements about efficiency - he is very correct. Work is only a portion of the overall efficiency of combustion. Efficiency is best remembered by "what you get/what you pay." In this case, you get (heat + mechanical energy)/total energy (fuel) input. As he stated, ~99% of the fuel does burn. The reason your catalytic converter is significantly hotter than your radiator (to the touch), isnt because any significant amount of fuel is being combusted internally but rather because 1. it has a higher heat input/smaller surface area and 2. there is a signficant chemical reaction going on inside of the catalyst to lower the emissions and form water. It becomes hot largely as a byproduct of this process. Specific mechanical efficiency OTOH (what you call work), is an area where significant improvements still can be potentially be made by reclaiming some of the lost heat energy and converting it to mechanical energy, but comparing that to the overall efficiency (how the fuel actually burns) is rather like apples and oranges. Related, but not really.

One of your worst assumptions IMHO is that emissions and efficiency are related, but that is a common misconception of many of the armchair engineers so I cannot fault you for it. I used to make the same mistake, then I became informed the old fashioned way...via work.

A.K. Boomer
01-13-2012, 10:40 AM
One of your worst assumptions IMHO is that emissions and efficiency are related, but that is a common misconception of many of the armchair engineers so I cannot fault you for it. I used to make the same mistake, then I became informed the old fashioned way...via work.



I won't give you one of those IMHO ----- What I will do is tell you that you are absolutely incorrect ---------- I used to do emissions testing ------- you would not believe the amount of fuel we purposely "dump" into the combustion process just so a set portion can make it through the engine and keep the cat alive -------------- that is a fact - and it's way way way over 1% We don't want total atomization due to this very fact.

it does not matter if ceramics will ever take off - the point being is what can be achieved in efficiency gains if you used them and there weren't concerned for emissions -------------------- It's way over 1% my friend! Like I said Smokey Yunick proved that 40 years ago...

Like I also said the proof is in the pudding --- touch a cat sometime (please don't) ---- It's the hottest part of the entire vehicle --- that's one hot 1% ain't it pilgrim?

You can't fool the laws of thermal dynamics ----- that heat being made in the cats not coming from bugs getting sucked through the airfilter
:rolleyes:

Fact,,, you would not believe the amount of fuel we burn to keep the fuel we burn "clean" ....

A.K. Boomer
01-13-2012, 11:25 AM
One of your worst assumptions IMHO is that emissions and efficiency are related, but that is a common misconception of many of the armchair engineers so I cannot fault you for it. I used to make the same mistake, then I became informed the old fashioned way...via work.



Here's a nice little tidbit of info for u that has to do with emissions and efficiency and how they are directly RELATED ------- modern day airplanes are a great example of what you can achieve when you do not have to worry about noX levels or keeping a cat "alive"

its called "lean of peak" http://www.avweb.com/news/airman/are_you_wasting_avgas_196816-1.html


so what are the rough net gains you ask? oh uhm only about 42% better economy :rolleyes: wow their getting allot done with that 1% aren't they? lol
Read this part about even achieving it with carbureted engines ------- hmmmmmmmmmm - some talk of better atomization there - go figure.........

"We're told by George Braly of General Aviation Modifications (GAMI), whose research has recently illuminated an understanding of lean-of-peak operation, that carbureted engines can also be operated lean of peak if partial carb heat is used to increase the induction temperature. This improves fuel atomization and distribution and reduces so-called dropouts, when fuel vapor condenses in the induction system's twists and turns. "


Learn before u post with such conviction --------- been at it far too long to listen to nonsense and misconceptions, but i do still wish you a good day:)

mike os
01-13-2012, 02:04 PM
I thought all scientific laws had been repealed by the EPA? :D

besides I know this works.. i have one powering my PC right now:p


Surely this kind of crap comes under fraud laws?

Tel
01-13-2012, 05:24 PM
DAMN!!!!! Just as I'm about to make a major breakthrough with mine this bloke comes along! :(

Evan
01-13-2012, 06:20 PM
Boomer, you are making the mistake that a lot of people make. What I wrote is that we are able to burn virtually all the fuel that is introduced into the engine. That is true now and has been so for a long time. What happens after that is another story.

No matter what sort of carb you put on an engine it cannot do better than 100 percent fuel burning. Even when the Pogue carb was the great conspiracy story the plain fact was an ordinary carb could easily achieve 90 plus percent burning efficiency. Since a carb is an open loop device with no feedback from the rest of the system it cannot adjust itself for multi factors that affect total efficiency. All it can do is supply a burnable mixture in approximately the right proportions for fairly clean burning. No matter how it is designed it cannot do better than 100%.

That means the best the Pogue could possibly do is to increase burn efficiency by maybe 10% at the time and that was and still is in practice impossible. Two or three percent improvement in fuel burn efficiency could have been possible but no more than that. That would translate to less than a 1 (one) mpg improvement since the majority of the heat produced is wasted.

Please note that fuel burning efficiency is not related to increase in fuel mileage as a 1 to 1 ratio. Since about 70 percent of the heat is wasted in the very best automotive engines today the mileage increases by a sub factor of only 30% of the extra heat gained or less. In the days of the Pogue carb the overall efficiency was more like 10 to 15 percent heat converted to motion. The Pogue carb could do nothing to change that.

Evan
01-13-2012, 06:27 PM
This is perhaps my favorite "perpetual motion" machine. It was a locomotive designed to run on compressed air. The compressed air was created by a large air compressor that was powered by an electric motor. The electric motor was powered by a large bank of batteries that were charged by axle generators.

I imagine the overall efficiency was perhaps in the range of a few percent meaning 97% loss. I wonder how much money the fellow spent on it?

http://ixian.ca/pics9/air_loco.jpg

The Artful Bodger
01-13-2012, 06:41 PM
This is perhaps my favorite "perpetual motion" machine.

The photo is a fake, not even someone who believes in perpetual motion would put steering on a rail vehicle as witnessed by the very obvious Pitman arm and drag link.

A.K. Boomer
01-13-2012, 06:45 PM
Boomer, you are making the mistake that a lot of people make. What I wrote is that we are able to burn virtually all the fuel that is introduced into the engine. That is true now and has been so for a long time. What happens after that is another story.

No matter what sort of carb you put on an engine it cannot do better than 100 percent fuel burning. Even when the Pogue carb was the great conspiracy story the plain fact was an ordinary carb could easily achieve 90 plus percent burning efficiency. Since a carb is an open loop device with no feedback from the rest of the system it cannot adjust itself for multi factors that affect total efficiency. All it can do is supply a burnable mixture in approximately the right proportions for fairly clean burning. No matter how it is designed it cannot do better than 100%.

That means the best the Pogue could possibly do is to increase burn efficiency by maybe 10% at the time and that was and still is in practice impossible. Two or three percent improvement in fuel burn efficiency could have been possible but no more than that. That would translate to less than a 1 (one) mpg improvement since the majority of the heat produced is wasted.

Please note that fuel burning efficiency is not related to increase in fuel mileage as a 1 to 1 ratio. Since about 70 percent of the heat is wasted in the very best automotive engines today the mileage increases by a sub factor of only 30% of the extra heat gained or less. In the days of the Pogue carb the overall efficiency was more like 10 to 15 percent heat converted to motion. The Pogue carb could do nothing to change that.


Evan --- we run rich mixtures (that DON'T completely burn) just to meet NOx standards and to keep a cat alive - that's a fact and it's way over 1% waste. iv watched the NOx meters alongside the hydrocarbon ones and cranked the adjusting screws for decades...

Like I stated if you want to untie the hands of the IC engine in the form of emissions see "lean of peak" -------- you don't simply get a 42% efficiency gain off of 1% waste energies now do u? :rolleyes: that's what can happen if you don't have to keep a cat alive and are not concerned with NOx levels...

now your backpedaling on some of your numbers a little - that's a good thing - but you have a long way to go...

Toolguy
01-13-2012, 06:59 PM
I have a theory that maybe there is perpetual motion, though not the scientific background to know if it's correct.
It goes like this - If matter cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form, then we have all the same matter now that the universe started with.
That would mean that all the same subatomic particles have been in motion since the beginning. That seems fairly perpetual to me.

aboard_epsilon
01-13-2012, 07:41 PM
Evan has it dead on
read his post and take it in .

yes, you may be able to burn nearly all fuel ...so that there is very little wasted.

but the process of igniting gasoline to turn the wheels looses that efficiency in an internal combustion engine...that loss is in heat ...

if you could make a 100 percent efficient burn ......the kw's in the fuel is still not equal to kw's at the wheels ...thats were you loose ...70 percent of the fuel is wasted as heat instead of driving the wheels.

if it was efficient

you would not need a radiator .

and there would be cold gases coming out of the exhaust

and the oil would not even get warm

all the best...markj

Evan
01-13-2012, 08:03 PM
The photo is a fake, not even someone who believes in perpetual motion would put steering on a rail vehicle as witnessed by the very obvious Pitman arm and drag link.

It was intended to run off rail to some limited degree as well. It isn't a fake, there were articles in various magazines and newspapers at the time which, if I recall correctly, was in the 1920s or so. It was however a failure.

aboard_epsilon
01-13-2012, 08:20 PM
i often think that the way to achieve more efficiency

is to have a triple expansion slow burn gasoline engine.

you could sling long cylinders underneath the car

when the fuel stops burning and becomes cold ..and stops expanding..in the last cylinder ..only then is it released to atmosphere

the engines would be slow running and low compression ..and would not make much heat .

the cylinders would be of an insulated type ..so no heat is lost to the walls ..and all of it goes into expanding and pushing the pistons

the cars would be a lot slower but super efficient ..the whole world needs to slow down me thinks

all the best..martkj

Optics Curmudgeon
01-13-2012, 10:06 PM
With regard to "keeping a cat alive", eliminating all of the hydrocarbons from the exhaust would lower the cat operating temperature, but not by much. Carbon monoxide makes up 0.5% of the exhaust, 100 times as much as the 50ppm of hydrocarbons. The heating value of CO is 1/5 as much (10Kg/Kg vs. 47Kg/Kg) as that of hydrocarbons, but there's 100 times as much of it, and people forget that it's a fuel. These are average values for California cars, by the way, your mileage may vary (pun intended).

justanengineer
01-13-2012, 10:19 PM
its called "lean of peak" http://www.avweb.com/news/airman/are_you_wasting_avgas_196816-1.html

so what are the rough net gains you ask? oh uhm only about 42% better economy :rolleyes:

Learn before u post with such conviction --------- been at it far too long to listen to nonsense and misconceptions, but i do still wish you a good day:)

Boomer - I have learned. That is why I am a performance and design engineer at a Fortune 50 company that is known for making some of the world's toughest engines. Furthermore, in my position I design prototype and technology demonstration engines - the kind you see on TV and in magazines - taking purely cobbled research engines and creating a working product before the production folks tell me its expensive or unreasonable to do. I am also patented and published, and spent almost seven years as an ASE certified wrench before obtaining my degree and other accomplishments. I would say "I know," :D and see no reason for an attitude.

You are misunderstanding the concept. Basically, there is a "perfect" air:fuel ratio (14.7:1 for gas, 11:1? for av gas etc) where the exact correct amount of air and fuel exist to produce combustion - stoichiometry, stoichmetric, or stoich for short. All of the air molecules combine with the fuel molecules, and nobody is left out. There is also rich burn, and lean burn engines - engines that either run significantly rich or lean of stoich during normal operation. Both have their positive sides and both have negatives. Rich burn engines are the older non-electonic controlled "truly throttled" engines. Lean burn typically is only used in stationary applications for constant speed, constant power use due to having/needing little response. Only in recent years, due to the use of NOx and O2 sensors along with electronic controls have we been able to run close to stoich - these allow the engine to "know" the fuel/air ratio by measuring excess O2 or NOx (a byproduct of excess O2 combining with atmosphere). Stoich engines "dither" (waver), going rich to lean to rich to lean constantly in tiny increments, because you cant achieve perfect stoich and even if you could, every change in throttle would throw it off a tiny amount until it can adjust.

The engine in the article is a rich burn engine. Assuming stoich for avgas is 11:1 (not sure of this, dont work with it myself), it may be running ~7 or 8:1 pretty consistently. What they did in the article was lean it out, raising it a point or two, so maybe 9 or 10:1, but it still isnt stoich. It is possible to lean it out further, pushing it into truly lean operation, but these engines usually start running like crap pretty quickly at that point - they are simply not designed for those air:fuel ratios, nor are they capable of running 10.75-11.25 consistently for stoich operation. If they were, you would see a bit of improvement, but considering the technology involved in many of hobby aviation engines (manual a:f ratio adjustment, carburetors etc), I would say there is significant room for improvement and would not dare compare these to a modern automotive engine. Yes, some newer technology exists for these engines such as electronically controlled fuel injection and emissions systems, but it still hasnt caught up to the automotive world and comparing these would be similar to comparing your lawn mower to a new pickup - you could easily increase the low efficiency of one but not so likely the other.

Regardless of the a:f, the overall engine efficiency is going to be the same -95-99% of the fuel is being combusted, just more heat is being made in some engines, more emissions in others, and more power in another group. Considering specific brake efficiency (you call it mechanical work), stoich is going to be a winner every time at 40-50%. Still reading? Lets consider vehicle efficiencies...

Unfortunately, relating engine efficiencies to a vehicle's efficiency is rather futile, which the authors of that article dont seem to understand. Whats more efficient, a large engine in a small plane or a small engine in a large plane? They could have identical vehicle efficiencies, ie a highly efficient engine raises the overall efficiency of an inefficient vehicle and vice versa. They simply cannot be direcly related or compared directly as they are independent of one another, until you add in a third factor, such as comparing the two for a specific engine or application. Relating the two in broad generalizations cannot be done as it is entirely situation based, and these situations vary a LOT. Even if the plane is constant, adjusting the a:f ratio isnt going to be the only change that affects efficiency. The power curve changes as well, along with quite a few other factors that may make an engine more or less efficient and either hide gains made by the a:f change or may even give false indications one way or the other. Think the power curve and efficiency are related? Nope, I can adjust timing, EGR (if equipped) and quite a few other factors to change one but not necessarily the other. The engine in the article wasnt in a lab, it was in a plane, and these other factors werent considered.

Emissions and engine efficiency are similar. ~99% of the fuel is being burned regardless and converted largely to heat and motion. ~40% is mechanical power, You cant directly relate either to emissions - a 45% (brake/mechanically) efficient rich burn engine produces completely different emissions than a 45% efficient (one makes largely NOx, the other may be high in particulate matter, or hydrocarbons, and low in NOx). Moreover, a 45% efficient stoich engine produces significantly different emissions than either the rich burn or lean burn, usually with the stoich making less at an air:fuel ratio between the other two. Factor in things like power made, and the speed at which peak brake efficiency occurs, and as many can guess...it isnt so easy and generalizations cant be made as one factor will cancel another.

Personally, I would say that article is inane if for no other reason than for recommending modification of an engine outside of factory spec, but that is another story completely, and not emissions related... IMHO that advice is on par with telling someone to toss any/all emissions equipment bc its "guaranteed" to improve everything from power to fuel economy, much like I see in the diesel truck rags.

Men have been designing internal combustion engines for more than a century now. If there was a simple answer to any of this, or easy generalizations it wouldnt be such a difficult challenge, still "one of the most difficult challenges ever undertaken by man."

hitnmiss
01-13-2012, 10:44 PM
...and see no reason for an attitude."

No doubt...

Evan
01-14-2012, 03:23 AM
Unfortunately engine efficiency isn't the entire story either. The bottom line is the efficiency of converting the fuel to vehicular motion. That requires subtracting all the losses in the drive train, rolling resistance and air resistance.

Typical heat from fuel to drive wheel efficiency is around 15% to 25% at most. Then we have to subtract losses of rolling resistance and air friction.

It isn't difficult to calculate the actual efficiency of moving a vehicle from point A to point B. There are only two factors that need be considered. One is the amount of energy required to accelerate the mass from a standstill to a given velocity. The other is how much total altitude gain, if any, must be achieved.

Note that the total acceleration required will be the sum of all the times that the vehicle is accelerated. All decelerations are total losses. All altitude gains must must be summed. Strangely, altitude losses are also efficiency losses since even if the engine isn't required to go down a hill it is still burning fuel. That makes down hill travel even lower efficiency than on flat terrain. It can be as low as zero percent, total loss. Very few vehicles have a mechanism for storing energy that could be gained going down hill. Even regenerative braking systems in electric vehicles are very low efficiency.

In a vacuum with no friction or hills (space) the only energy cost is accelerating and braking. On Earth we must take into account changes in altitude as it costs energy to elevate mass in the gravity well.

As it happens, the answer is that it takes very little actual energy to theoretically move something around, even on Earth. For instance, the amount of energy required to lift one pound from sea level to the top of Mt. Everest in one minute (!!!) is about 1 horsepower. That's about 5 cents worth of energy. A mountain climber expends about 65 watt hours to climb 1000 feet on average. The cost of accelerating mass on the level is in the same range since it is really the same thing.

What this all boils down to is that real vehicular efficiency is abysmal, usually in the less than 5% range. Of course, it becomes far worse if you do the calculation based on just moving your own body from point A to point B. Then the efficiency may drop to the small fractions of a percent, depending on the vehicle in question.

psomero
01-14-2012, 03:30 AM
i see you found the hojoke motor. err, F'in B.S. motor...


free energy does not exist. there is no energy conversion with a yield greater than unity.

it's funny how these geniuses, err conmen, always want money for the plans, too.

aboard_epsilon
01-14-2012, 08:30 AM
What this all boils down to is that real vehicular efficiency is abysmal, usually in the less than 5% range. Of course, it becomes far worse if you do the calculation based on just moving your own body from point A to point B. Then the efficiency may drop to the small fractions of a percent, depending on the vehicle in question.

what they want then is a biological; engine ..made up of muscle and nerves and fed sugar.

biologocal motor.

all the best.markj

philbur
01-14-2012, 09:00 AM
It takes an infinitesimally small amount of energy to move any mass any distance, providing you have enough time.

It's all in Newtons equations of motion:

s = u.t + 1/2a.t^2
f=m.a

If you borrow the energy and pay it back then it takes zero energy. All you have to pay for is the losses. One example is a pendulum.

Phil:)

aboard_epsilon
01-14-2012, 09:13 AM
i see you found the hojoke motor. err, F'in B.S. motor...


free energy does not exist. there is no energy conversion with a yield greater than unity.

it's funny how these geniuses, err conmen, always want money for the plans, too.

it does exist ..if you have free fuel

all thew best.markj

A.K. Boomer
01-14-2012, 09:56 AM
what they want then is a biological; engine ..made up of muscle and nerves and fed sugar.

biologocal motor.

all the best.markj


Iv thought about that one before - high revin "fast twitch" Cheetah muscle sports cars,

big dodge rams with elephant muscles ---------- but what do u do when it gets cold? "honey - you let the muscles freeze again and now were going to have to take the truck back to the lab..."

What do you do when your pushing it too hard up a hill in the summer and smoke starts pouring out under the hood - just carry some barbie sauce I suppose....?

search "grasshopper engine" for one of my nuthin but fun inventions :p

A.K. Boomer
01-14-2012, 10:33 AM
Evan has it dead on
read his post and take it in .

yes, you may be able to burn nearly all fuel ...so that there is very little wasted.

but the process of igniting gasoline to turn the wheels looses that efficiency in an internal combustion engine...that loss is in heat ...

if you could make a 100 percent efficient burn ......the kw's in the fuel is still not equal to kw's at the wheels ...thats were you loose ...70 percent of the fuel is wasted as heat instead of driving the wheels.

if it was efficient

you would not need a radiator .

and there would be cold gases coming out of the exhaust

and the oil would not even get warm

all the best...markj


Aboard ------------------ your making the same mistake Evan is and "just an engineer"

Your thinking the 70% heat waste is all over and done with on the combustion side of the exhaust valve and your dead wrong... there is a fair percentage of that 70% that ends up on the atmosphere side of that valve and its not just "residual" - it's actually still burning and still expanding (see why tuned headers work);)

when it comes to that 70% were talking about BOTH the heat losses in the combustion process AND the fact thereafter...
your assuming the act of fuel burning is all over and done with once it leaves the Exhaust port ----- Iv been around engines all my life --- iv built race engines for close to a decade - iv designed and built my own 4 stroke cylinder head that uses ports instead of valves ------------------- You can take any of these engines and run them "open header" and start pouring the coals to them and I guarantee you that each and every one of them will be throwing 2 to 3 foot blue/yellow flames out the exhaust ------- next thing you'll tell me is that the flames are an illusion - and that they are "cool" to the touch and can't hurt you cuz they only contain only 1% of the heat energies --- lol go ahead and touch that 1% Aboard --------- really - im not trying to stop u this time:p

some people need a good "hands on" lesson in life to fully understand whats going on - it's called the school of hard knocks;)

A.K. Boomer
01-14-2012, 10:40 AM
With regard to "keeping a cat alive", eliminating all of the hydrocarbons from the exhaust would lower the cat operating temperature, but not by much. Carbon monoxide makes up 0.5% of the exhaust, 100 times as much as the 50ppm of hydrocarbons. The heating value of CO is 1/5 as much (10Kg/Kg vs. 47Kg/Kg) as that of hydrocarbons, but there's 100 times as much of it, and people forget that it's a fuel. These are average values for California cars, by the way, your mileage may vary (pun intended).


See post above about "3 foot flames" also see why tuned headers work ----- that ain't no carbon monoxide pilgrim ;)

Cats die at idle if your not careful - iv killed them in the shop simply by reducing the hydrocarbon level too low - takes a minute or two and then the hydrocarbon level goes way up ;)

aboard_epsilon
01-14-2012, 11:16 AM
Aboard ------------------ your making the same mistake Evan is and "just an engineer"

Your thinking the 70% heat waste is all over and done with on the combustion side of the exhaust valve and your dead wrong... there is a fair percentage of that 70% that ends up on the atmosphere side of that valve and its not just "residual" - it's actually still burning and still expanding (see why tuned headers work);)

when it comes to that 70% were talking about BOTH the heat losses in the combustion process AND the fact thereafter...
your assuming the act of fuel burning is all over and done with once it leaves the Exhaust port ----- Iv been around engines all my life --- iv built race engines for close to a decade - iv designed and built my own 4 stroke cylinder head that uses ports instead of valves ------------------- You can take any of these engines and run them "open header" and start pouring the coals to them and I guarantee you that each and every one of them will be throwing 2 to 3 foot blue/yellow flames out the exhaust ------- next thing you'll tell me is that the flames are an illusion - and that they are "cool" to the touch and can't hurt you cuz they only contain only 1% of the heat energies --- lol go ahead and touch that 1% Aboard --------- really - im not trying to stop u this time:p

some people need a good "hands on" lesson in life to fully understand whats going on - it's called the school of hard knocks;)

Yup, those flames are wasted ..those flames, if the engine was 100 percent efficient at comnverting fuel; to power would be cold .

Race engines are meant to chuck as much fuel and air in as possible to make the car accerate as fast as possible ..they aint meant to be fuel efficient..meaning they aint ever going to get plus 40 mpg ..or even 100 mpg

I think you are miss undestanding the points made by Evan and just an enginner.
The point is... all the heat left over ...is wasted heat ...one kw of fuel would equal 1 kw of energy at the wheels if you had a 100 percent efficient engine ..

Just like 1 kw of electricity put into a room to heat it ....you get 1 kw of heat ..
so the heater is 100 percent efficient at doing its intended job

So an engine consuming 1 kw of fuel ..and only putting some 300 watts to the wheels has wasted the energy stored in the fuel.

now if you used that wasted heat to power an auxilary super light weight steam steam turbine ..you would gain more efficiency

I'm not argueing any more, will sit back and watch the others do it in a more complex way ...as i dont like wasting energy. :)

all the best..markj

Black_Moons
01-14-2012, 11:18 AM
What this all boils down to is that real vehicular efficiency is abysmal, usually in the less than 5% range. Of course, it becomes far worse if you do the calculation based on just moving your own body from point A to point B. Then the efficiency may drop to the small fractions of a percent, depending on the vehicle in question.

That'd be why I drive a 40lb motorbicycle that gets 110MPG in stop/go hilly city traffic while being driven wide open throttle and shifting through the gears as fast as I can.

240lbs stoping and going every light is 10x as efficent as 2400lbs stoping and going every light :) (And 2400lbs would be a *TINY* car)

And even that is nodoubt inefficent as hell, considering its a 2 stroke with just port valves. At least it has a tuned exhaust, *wide open* intake and 7 speeds (Via the bikes shifter system) So pertty low pumping losses and low losses from operation at improper RPM rnages.

Come to think of it, My fuel efficency actualy is pertty close to what the masses alone say it should be. If you just took mass vs GPM into account, Id say my 'low tech dirty simple' 2 stroke engine is somewhere around 40~60% as efficent as a cars engine (Assuming somewhere around 20MPG for a 2400lb japbox car in town)

Maybe I could get 200MPG with some 4 stroke EFI engine and a better built transmission, But then it would cost a lot more then $140 to replace! And be a much larger, lower power engine. (Right now my motor goes through a poorly made 4:1 gear reduction and 3 chains to get to the rear wheel, That could be reduced to a gear reduction and 2 chains at least)

Legaly, the 4 stroke would limit me to around 1/2 the power (as the limit is by cylinder displacement, Not horsepower or vehical weight..), Hence why the 2 stroke motor is 'king' of the motorbicycles... Yet another broken regulation!

As far as car fuel efficency goes.. Waste heat from the engine could be put to much better use.
For example, I don't think it would be too hard to make a flash boiler in the exhaust header of a car, And that flash boiler could for example provide the power used for auxillery loads like alternator, AC, power steering, brakes, etc (Right now brakes are run off the vacuum system of the car.. Fun fact: If you go wide open throttle, and pump the brakes a few times, you lose all power braking!)

The big question becomes: Is the savings in fuel of getting a couple 1HP loads off your 100HP's engine back, worth the 100lbs+ of steam boiler and turbines and such? Worth both the cost of materials, cost of safty (Any energy storage system will have safty problems! Energy is Dangerious!), and weight of moving the system around? Of course, It might also be able to provide additional power to the wheels, considering so much energy is lost as heat, more then the accessorys use can likey be recovered from exhaust heat without reducing engine efficency more then recovery.

One nifty bonus of a exhaust heat turbine IMO is that it would'nt be limited to the exhaust, the brakes are also a wonderful place to grab some heat when your engine isent producing any, And if you have the turbines in place, another flash boiler isent much weight/expense.

However I don't see 'storage' of braking energy very pratical. Its just too much energy too quick, And storing that much energy in anything that can take/release it that fast is dangerious.

A.K. Boomer
01-14-2012, 11:22 AM
Another thing that might help u guys out in understanding "why" much fuel is being burnt "outside" the combustion chamber is the very fact that we have to get the next intake charge into the chamber for the next combustion stroke -------- and yes it has to do with the 3 foot flames out the exhaust ---- it's called valve duration and even though there's still some effective work being done the exhaust valve has to crack open way before BDC --- and it does so under extreme pressure, it's more closer to when the piston is 2/3rds down the cylinder bore than it is to BDC (depending on the engine of course)

it's a necessary evil ----- gasses have mass and the process of "jetting" them out has to take place pre-maturely in able to introduce the next fresh charge, (esp. when its' happening so many times a second) except unlike the advanced exhaust timing the intake timing is retarded to allow for the flow that has started to keep coming in - yes - even when the piston is past BDC and moving up.......

A.K. Boomer
01-14-2012, 11:27 AM
I think you are miss undestanding the points made by Evan and just an enginner.
The point is... all the heat left over ...is wasted heat ...one kw of fuel would equal 1 kw of energy at the wheels if you had a 100 percent efficient engine ..


all the best..markj



Im not missing that point at all -------- Im verifying it -------- but unlike them im telling you where it lies -------- it's BOTH in the combustion process AND the atmosphere side of the exhaust valve!!!!!!!! are you getting this?


they are way way way off the mark if they think it's 1% after the engine - are you getting this? way off!

One side has at least a shot at getting some effective work done - the other? nothing - ziltch - zippo - nadda,,,,,, keep in mind that even when "effective" work gets done it still ends up as heat - heat in the form of warming the air the vehicle passes through - or the pavement and tires or the brake pads when you have to stop...

Back to the original conversation now ------ better fuel atomization has a direct effect of the ratio's between what happens inside the combustion chamber and what happens outside, More of the fuel gets to be used for "real work" and less of the heat energies are expended "after the exhaust valve" ------- Fact...

Bmyers
01-14-2012, 12:34 PM
AK your points would be better taken without the snide remarks. Make you sound like a grade schooler arguing on the play ground.

Optics Curmudgeon
01-14-2012, 01:12 PM
Jeez, this is staring to sound like that thread where some guy went on and on about colloidal silver or whatever it was......
Seriously, years spent turning screws teaches you some things, but you can easily become convinced of "facts" that aren't the way things really are. I've heard many "old mechanic's tales" over the years, and they never die, even in the face of science. Some people even believe the thing that appears here once in a while about top fuel dragsters, with all it's wild exaggerations.

A.K. Boomer
01-14-2012, 01:35 PM
AK your points would be better taken without the snide remarks. Make you sound like a grade schooler arguing on the play ground.


I know -- but it just gets old having to repeat the way it is - over and over again, I will try to be better...

justanengineer
01-14-2012, 01:50 PM
See post above about "3 foot flames" also see why tuned headers work

As the man said above, race engines are not optimized for efficiency, they are meant to suck as much fuel as possible and deliver pure power. Power does not have anything to do with efficiency. You wont see "3 foot flames" out of anything production.

Tuned headers work because of flow, nothing else. Each cylinder creates a "pulse" of exhaust that flows into its respective tube at a specific moment. If the headers arent "tuned" correctly, one pulse takes longer than another to reach the collector, and should two pulses hit the collector simultaneously then the flow is severely reduced and the engine suffers.


Im not missing that point at all -------- Im verifying it -------- but unlike them im telling you where it lies -------- it's BOTH in the combustion process AND the atmosphere side of the exhaust valve!!!!!!!! are you getting this?

Back to the original conversation now ------ better fuel atomization has a direct effect of the ratio's between what happens inside the combustion chamber and what happens outside, More of the fuel gets to be used for "real work" and less of the heat energies are expended "after the exhaust valve" ------- Fact...

The first point is valid, and I didnt disagree with it. I simply said you think its much more than it really is. 1% of the fuel does get through into the exhaust. Its the reason many modern automobiles have one form of air injection or another. If it was significantly more than 1%, the vehicle would not come close to passing modern emissions law. The necessary external combustion is also complete long before the catalyst, which is a purely chemical reaction (also producing heat) oxidizing various components of the exhaust into less harmful substances. Cat "poisoning" can occur with excessive idling, but that is also more due to lack of flow than anything else, not due to excessive fuel reaching the cat.

As for the second point - partially correct. Better fuel atomization does help with combustion and is the reason there has been significant research into fuel injector design/location, but that has been a rather beaten dead horse for decades now. Significant gains from that alone are a thing of the past. There is much more work to be done in other areas such as turbocharger design, and reusing waste heat that has a much more profound impact.

The Artful Bodger
01-14-2012, 01:56 PM
Exhaust turbine energy recovery is not new and I dont just mean turbo chargers. If I recall correctly the DC6C was one of the first commercial airliners capable of a non-stop Atlantic service and they did that with engines that had turbines to recover energy from the hot exhaust.

I have often pondered if a home shop turbine alternator could be constructed. Hot exhaust gases would drive an alternator which would take load off the engine alternator. Developed further the system might power electric coolant pump, oil pump, maybe aircon. Sure, any alteration to the exhaust path reflects on the performance of the engine itself but the example of the aero engine demonstrates that a gain in effeciency may be possible.

A.K. Boomer
01-14-2012, 02:01 PM
Jeez, this is staring to sound like that thread where some guy went on and on about colloidal silver or whatever it was......
Seriously, years spent turning screws teaches you some things, but you can easily become convinced of "facts" that aren't the way things really are. I've heard many "old mechanic's tales" over the years, and they never die, even in the face of science. Some people even believe the thing that appears here once in a while about top fuel dragsters, with all it's wild exaggerations.





Get to know theory of operation first and then get back to me, when u crack an exhaust valve open when the piston is only 2/3rds its way down it's stroke you get more than just C.O. and incidentally - C.O. is produced by the incomplete combustion of carbonaceous material ( I.E. GASOLINE) so it's directly related and created by inefficiency's and in part qualifies as part of the overall BTU value...

If you learn theory of operation first you can then cut to the chase - you can use deductive reasoning and you can hit people with facts that cannot be disputed ------- again - the reason why tuned headers work sssssooooooooooo damn good is the gasses are still expanding after they leave the backside of the exhaust valve , and the reason there still expanding is because they are still burning and releasing heat,
have a rebuttal to that? lets hear it my friend:)

A.K. Boomer
01-14-2012, 02:39 PM
As the man said above, race engines are not optimized for efficiency, they are meant to suck as much fuel as possible and deliver pure power. Power does not have anything to do with efficiency.

you guys get mixed up very easily - sorry but just an observation --- Iv said iv been around engines all my life - yes race engines were included -- but the 2 to 3 foot flames gives me a little le-way between standard valve duration and what's going on with race engines -- so to make the point totally clear to u --- you can take a box stock car engine and run it at the proper fuel ratio that its designed for and leave the exhaust manifold off and you will get a MASSIVE flame out the exhaust when you pour the coals to it --- do you understand that now? It's not a 1% of the total btu's flame either -- it's far greater - do u understand?



Tuned headers work because of flow, nothing else. Each cylinder creates a "pulse" of exhaust that flows into its respective tube at a specific moment. If the headers arent "tuned" correctly, one pulse takes longer than another to reach the collector, and should two pulses hit the collector simultaneously then the flow is severely reduced and the engine suffers.


And you have flow because your still creating HEAT,, do u understand this? if there was nothing but cooling after the exhaust left its port you would have to have the pipes about half to 1/3rd their size to keep the flow - but we don't do we --- it's why my little 4 banger honda v-tec's individual header tubes are as large in diameter as the single rear exhaust pipe, are you getting it now?


The first point is valid, and I didnt disagree with it. I simply said you think its much more than it really is. 1% of the fuel does get through into the exhaust. Its the reason many modern automobiles have one form of air injection or another. If it was significantly more than 1%, the vehicle would not come close to passing modern emissions law. The necessary external combustion is also complete long before the catalyst, which is a purely chemical reaction (also producing heat) oxidizing various components of the exhaust into less harmful substances. Cat "poisoning" can occur with excessive idling, but that is also more due to lack of flow than anything else, not due to excessive fuel reaching the cat.

again - your way way off the mark... :rolleyes:


As for the second point - partially correct. Better fuel atomization does help with combustion and is the reason there has been significant research into fuel injector design/location, but that has been a rather beaten dead horse for decades now. Significant gains from that alone are a thing of the past. There is much more work to be done in other areas of engine induction such as turbocharger design, and reusing waste heat that has a much more profound impact.

It's not a "dead horse" it's simply one that never gets a chance to leave the gate due to NOx standards and emission equipment needs (cats)

it's a far cry from your statement of;
One of your worst assumptions IMHO is that emissions and efficiency are related

that's outright laughable dude ---- you need to go back into the recent past and find out just what kind of gains HAVE BEEN achieved, and as always - have a nice day :)

Evan
01-14-2012, 03:09 PM
There is much more work to be done in other areas such as turbocharger design, and reusing waste heat that has a much more profound impact.

Absolutely correct. Waste heat is where the great potential for improvement lies. Over 40% of the heat produced by the fuel is thrown away by the cooling system for the simple reason that the materials used to build a mass production engine cannot withstand higher temperatures. In fact, that is where much of the improvement over the last 50 years has been realized. Thermostat temperatures on modern cars are much higher than they were in the 1960s. That simple fact is responsible for most of the engine efficiency gains since then and is directly attributable to improvements in materials.

The Carnot limit is based on one simple relationship. The difference between the highest temperature in the power cycle versus the outlet temperature of the working fluid defines the possible efficiency. The reason it is limited to around 65% maximum under standard conditions is because to achieve 100% efficiency the exhaust would have to exit at absolute zero.

Obviously that is impossible outside of extraordinarily special lab conditions and even then it can only be approached, not met. In the real world it is possible to come close to the Carnot efficiency limit but not with portable power plants suitable for vehicular propulsion.

Combined cycle stationary power plants with triple heat recovery systems can come within a few points of the limit. The most efficient mobile power plants are the enormous ship diesels with the largest having an efficiency of about 50%. A very few vehicular engines are in the range of 40%. It is technically possible to build a vehicle engine that can reach about 50% by using special materials such as ceramics that can withstand higher temperatures.

It's all about increasing the temperature differential between the power cycle and the atmosphere. We already extract virtually all the heat available from the combustion cycle but throw away nearly half of it to keep the engine from melting. Limitations imposed by NOX production are another major factor and are a primary issue with hydrogen fuel.

The higher the temperature of the combustion cycle the greater the pressures and available expansion to produce mechanical force. That is how turbochargers improve efficiency. The next step will be improving materials and finding a way to reduce/convert NOX emissions to acceptable byproducts. Unfortunately our atmosphere is mainly nitrogen and there is no economic way to get around that problem (yet) using a fuel burning, air breathing engine.

Willy
01-14-2012, 03:28 PM
Exhaust turbine energy recovery is not new and I dont just mean turbo chargers. If I recall correctly the DC6C was one of the first commercial airliners capable of a non-stop Atlantic service and they did that with engines that had turbines to recover energy from the hot exhaust.

I have often pondered if a home shop turbine alternator could be constructed. Hot exhaust gases would drive an alternator which would take load off the engine alternator. Developed further the system might power electric coolant pump, oil pump, maybe aircon. Sure, any alteration to the exhaust path reflects on the performance of the engine itself but the example of the aero engine demonstrates that a gain in effeciency may be possible.

AB, your reference to energy recovery from hot exhaust gases was very successfully used as you mentioned in aircraft, most notably in the Wright R3350 engines starting during WWII, and a few others if I'm not mistaken.

Detroit Diesel currently is also successfully using the turbo compounding concept in order to recover up to 50 "bonus" horsepower and improved fuel economy from it's 15 liter truck engines (http://www.detroitdiesel.com/engines/dd15/economy.aspx).

50 HP, that's a lot of hot air!:)

Optics Curmudgeon
01-14-2012, 03:29 PM
It's really very simple, you're here spouting hokum and voodoo, people that actually know what they're talking about are telling you you're wrong and you think they're a bunch of over educated fools that don't know how the real world works. That's fine, you're free to believe that, but that doesn't make you right. I've been hearing this stuff about valve timing, tuned headers, electronic ignition, flutter valves, etc. for years. Performance increases? Yes. Efficiency increases? A little. Very little. As Evan said (and he's right) going to fuel injection made things better by introducing a fuel delivery system that properly proportioned fuel for the conditions, something carburetors were not good at. Other improvements like electronic ignition helped, too. I remember a conversation with the auto shop teacher at the high school I went to, in 1968. He said that electronic ignition would never be practical because the spark was too hot, and claimed to have seem pistons and even cylinder walls melted in minutes because of that. This was just one of several such beliefs he expounded. On the other hand, he was a great at teaching the basics of auto repair and was otherwise a great guy. Anyone that thinks there is a way to modify the fuel induction system and get huge mileage increases should pick one or more of the many hokum patents out there, build the thing and demonstrate it. A common way of saying this is "put up or shut up". It's easy to sit at the keyboard and say "tweak the veeblefetzer two zorches lean and put a cow magnet on the flaggenburster and you'll get 100MPG, because the molecules in the gas will align with Orion and be more cromulant", but there's never anything to show for it. Laughing at the idea that the lone tinkerer has something on the rest of the world is what started this thread, and properly so.

Evan
01-14-2012, 03:55 PM
AB, your reference to energy recovery from hot exhaust gases was very successfully used as you mentioned in aircraft, most notably in the Wright R3350 engines starting during WWII, and a few others if I'm not mistaken.

Possibly the most successful use of waste heat was implemented on the P-51 Mustang. By placing the radiator on the underside of the aircraft where the airflow was relatively undisturbed it was possible to make a laminar flow cooling system that used the waste heat to expand the air and produce thrust, very similar to a ramjet. The amount of thrust at full power when the radiator shutters were full open at full power was enough to nearly cancel the cooling drag for the engine. For numbers, the prop produces about 1000 lbs of thrust at full power with the original Packard Merlin. The radiator drag was about 400 lbs but the thrust produced by the Meredith effect was around 350 lbs.

Unfortunately, the effect is only efficient at rather high velocities over about 300 mph. It isn't a viable option for an automobile. :eek:

danlb
01-14-2012, 04:20 PM
Given a choice of which to believe, I'll go for the person who engineers engines over a person who designs them. After all, the people at west cost choppers design motorcycles. Honda engineers them.

The challenge appears to be making an engine that has all these characteristics;
Durable ( greater than 2,000 hours between rebuilds)
Usable (gotta have torque and hp in usable RPM ranges)
Clean ( Have you driven behind a 1950's dodge when it leaves the light? Yuck!)
Easy to use (no special startup or running procedures)
High MPG (we all want free energy)
Use common fuels ( 100 MPG of anhydrous ammonia ? No way! )
Safe ( molten sulfur batteries have to be kept at 350 degrees C and highly corrosive but can power an electric car )

I'd guess that hybrids will be the best solution for the foreseeable future. They allow the engineers to use power sources that have complementary flaws. As an example a steam - electric hybrid would allow for instant drive away under electric power while the gas heated boiler is building pressure. Just an example.

As proof of that way of thinking, I give you the 2002 Prius. The gas engine is terribly under powered with almost no torque under 1500 RPM. It has less than 80 HP!!! The battery is way too small for any serious driving. It has less than 10 miles of range on battery. Combined, they allow climbing mountain ranges and speeding down the freeway as if it was 150 HP. All that while providing the mileage of a 1960's VW bug and 1/10 the emissions of a like sized car with similar performance 15 just years ago.

Dan

A.K. Boomer
01-14-2012, 04:49 PM
keep in mind that turbo chargers aren't really operating off of "waste heat" , they are operating off of waste fuel, it's what happens when you crack an exhaust valve open while its still under extreme pressures -------- it's this fuel that creates the heat that creates the needed pressure for them to function - - just like the extractor exhaust system or the " tuned header" -----------

it's so much pressure on the atmosphere side of the exhaust valve that valve spring load rates on turbo charged engines have to be ramped up in order to keep the exhaust valve from opening on the intake stroke, there are exceptions with mild turbo charging on standard engines that already have enough overkill built into the spring rates...

In the world of the IC piston engine and it's pre-mature cost of doing business of having to throw out part of a perfectly good tail end of a power stroke - it's one of the added bennies that you can use to still milk some form of usable potential energies - and in the form of turbo charging it consists of a dividend in the form of restriction being paid on the exhaust side of the motor BUT The intake valve is the dominant valve so the compression rewards on this side far outweigh the negatives ------ it's like robbing peter to pay paul ------ but paul makes some pretty damn good investments...:p

Evan
01-14-2012, 08:48 PM
keep in mind that turbo chargers aren't really operating off of "waste heat" , they are operating off of waste fuel...

No, they are operating on waste heat. The fuel has already combusted by the time the exhaust gases get to the turbo. The turbo is powered by the pressure drop across the impeller as the gases expand.

Willy
01-14-2012, 09:23 PM
No, they are operating on waste heat. The fuel has already combusted by the time the exhaust gases get to the turbo. The turbo is powered by the pressure drop across the impeller as the gases expand.

Precisely, also the reason why turbochargers are always located as close to the engine's exhaust ports as possible, even though it would be more convenient to locate them in a more remote location.
Also why quite often you will see thermal wrap on exhaust manifolds leading up to the turbo. The more heat the turbo has to work with the more efficient it becomes.

Many new V configuration engine designs that incorporate a turbocharger as an initial design element, now have the turbo located inside the V between the heads in order to capitalize on the more efficient direct path to the turbo in order to utilize as much of the heat as possible.

Evan
01-14-2012, 09:35 PM
An engine with a turbocharger is also no longer an Otto cycle engine. It incorporates one but with the turbo it becomes a combined cycle engine. That is standard practice to increase efficiency in power plant applications.

A.K. Boomer
01-15-2012, 11:57 AM
No, they are operating on waste heat. The fuel has already combusted by the time the exhaust gases get to the turbo. The turbo is powered by the pressure drop across the impeller as the gases expand.



Totally incorrect ------- and it does not matter if the fuel has totally combusted by the time the exhaust gasses get to the turbo --- what matters is if the fuel has already combusted by the time the exhaust valve cracks open (under extreme combustion pressure) when the piston is 2/3rds its way down from the power stroke - It's all simple plumbing from that point to the turbo -- and the answer is NO WAY IN HELL ------ of course the fuel is still burning - the exhaust valve is opening up during the combustion stroke !!! ---- ever run an open header engine at night ???????? also listen to all the noise like a series of gunshot's :rolleyes:

Waste heat does nothing - true waste heat can only do nothing but cool and lose pressure - it takes combustion to keep producing heat and therefor expansion which = pressure -- and here's a little news flash for you --- the exhaust valve is opening up UNDER COMBUSTION...

If there is one thing that totally amazes me it's most people's inability to grasp the concept of the time frame that all this is taking place - it's why the exhaust valve has to crack open whilst the fuel is still burning --- im shifting out my little V-tec @ 7,500 rpm on a daily bases ---- that's 3,750 power strokes per minute and 62.5 of them PER SECOND !!!! Hello??? is anybody there?
Do you have any idea what it takes to get that kind of mass moving through an engine in that short of a time frame ----- no obviously you don't --- but lucky for u I do --- it's takes cracking the exhaust valve open whilst the combustion chamber is STILL COMBUSTING - it takes getting the mix moving to make room for the next charge - yes - raw unburnt fuel is being Dumped into the exhaust system - and in the world of normally aspirated performance engine building you are taught to look at each and every exhaust pipe that's right next to the cylinder head as mini-secondary combustion chambers because that's exactly what they are and if you use these chambers properly they can help you scavenge and evacuate the exhaust strokes even further and therefor allow you to introduce a more powerful intake charge....

A quick note to Willy ---- there's all kinds of reasoning behind keeping turbo's as close to the cylinder heads as possible - for one you want to be as close to the secondary combustion process as possible ---- this does a plethora of things that are positive for boost including keeping the plumbing volume to a minimum and allowing for "quicker spool ups" of the turbine ------ and as far as reducing heat loses that's a no brainer --- the more you keep the pipes hot the more the combustion pressure stays up - its as simple as that... Same goes for your "primary" combustion chamber right --- and u do grasp that concept don't u?

one more time folks ---- recognize the fact that the tail end part of the power stroke (what u are comfortable calling combustion) - is actually the largest part of your exhaust stroke, it is then and only then that you will start to get a grasp on how turbo charging actually works.

remember ---- heat alone don't spin no freaking impeller - it's pressure - and it takes combustion to create heat that creates the pressure, the gasses are still DRASTICALLY expanding after they leave the exhaust valve ----- this cannot be disputed - it's a total fact - in order for this to happen here's another fact - it's due to them still burning and creating heat - which incidentally is why your getting so much pressure...;)

justanengineer
01-15-2012, 12:51 PM
Precisely, also the reason why turbochargers are always located as close to the engine's exhaust ports as possible, even though it would be more convenient to locate them in a more remote location.
Also why quite often you will see thermal wrap on exhaust manifolds leading up to the turbo. The more heat the turbo has to work with the more efficient it becomes.


Very well said Willy. If the turbo does receive some of the external combustion Boomer is multiplying, it very shortly self destructs. Luckily, one requirement of turbocharger housing design is that they contain the broken pieces.

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u21/cdubdrummin/ABBchoc.jpg
Turbo chocolates anyone? :cool: These folks are doing quite a bit of research into variable geometry turbos, multiple compressor turbos (on a simgle common shaft with single turbines), and matching the turbo to the engine over significantly more of/widening its operating range - where many including myself believe significant gains still can be made. They also had some unique freebies the last time I worked with them.

A.K. Boomer
01-15-2012, 02:58 PM
Very well said Willy. If the turbo does receive some of the external combustion Boomer is multiplying, it very shortly self destructs.

ROTFLMAO! yeah - and in the case of something like a subaru "shortly" thereabouts @ approximately 250,000 miles :p

To deny external combustion whilst the exhaust valve is opening up during internal combustion is denying internal combustion, to deny internal combustion and still thinking your going to be getting your phat little ass down the road somehow is like believing in the ho-jo motor - but I will give you credit for keeping with the original post :p

stick to your chocolates bro! lol

listen and learn the basics, then you can make some sense... turbo's (on the exhaust side) in general hold up pretty good ----- it's the semi-static waste gates that seem to have a rough time holding up to the pressure's heat and therefore erosion of the COMBUSTION GASSES ;) but in extreme performance situations nothing a little ceramics wont take care of in either BOTH the turbine and/or the gate and seat itself.

have a nice day J.E. :) (really)

bborr01
01-20-2012, 10:45 AM
I almost hate to bring this back to page one but now I saw that they have changed the ad to "magnetic motor car".

Evidently these genuises have figures out a way to use magnets in an electric motor. Amazing.;)

Brian

flylo
01-20-2012, 11:17 AM
Brian see what you started! Would this be a good place to post a pic of my french Citroen 2 cyl turbocharged gear reduction Harley carbed aircraft engine? Probably not.;)