Slashdot Mirror

I'm left with the same old question.

If the major car companies could indeed implement any of various technologies or techniques to enhance fuel economy, why would they NOT do it?

For instance, if just introducing turbulence in the fuel stream or direct injection in the chamber improved fuel economy substantially, why would they not do it?

Actually, they do.

TFA makes a few claims about the Transonic invention:

- Heating the gasoline.
- Pressurizing gasoline before injecting it into the combustion chamber.
- injecting it into the combustion chamber.

Pre-heating the gasoline is not common, to my knowledge, in passenger car engines. However, it is the subject of a patent. Indeed, there is an fascinating writeup by a determined and fairly clever amateur (maybe) on preheating the fuel. His concept seems dangerous, but it might work... Might, if we could test it adequately.

Pressurizing the gasoline is fundamental to injection; the process is obvious upon inspection. Higher pressures are being used now to overcome other problems. So far, we are not seeing improved economy, largely because these techniques are being used to improve performance. More about that later.

Injecting it into the chamber is not new, nor is it unused in passenger cars. Porche uses the technique, and advertises that it does improve economy. This is not new art.

So, if these techniques are well-known ( I know of them, so I expect the engineers know them even better), why aren;t they beign used to improve economy?

Well, it's later now. Performance is also a goal.

Turbocharging is used to essentially stuff more air and fuel into the chamber and either improve performance or economy, at little cost since it uses exhaust gas to power the pump. Usually used to deliver performance. actually, to deliver improved performance from otherwise economical engines. Serving two purposes at the same time - good engineering. Supercharging requires engine power to deliver the improved performance, so economy is not a goal there.

And the American market at least is not so focused on economy. Somewhat, but we also want to be able to beat the other guy to the end of the ramp. Deal with it.

Toyota clearly demonstrates the incentive manufacturers have to pursue economical cars, though right now it's as much marketing as it is market share. All-electric cars were tried - the Chevy EV1. It probably failed primarily because it threatened dealer profits. There is some diversity of opinion on this. The EV1 was just an experiment.

But my answer to the question "why not" is simple. These techniques to improve economy are not without consequences. Preheating fuel increases pressure and therefore chamber pressures. This imposes new demands on engine design, some increasing weight and size, which is contrary to current design trends. Complex injector design needs to be tested to verify it can survive at least the 100,000 mile standards. Lots of inventors don't ever test long-term or design life. The EPA does.

Bottom line, for me, is that if it were that simple it's either a true breakthrough or it's not that good in practice. Which one is this? I vote not that good in practice, but if it is, the manufacturers will either license it or steal it. Or not, for a good (to them) reason.

This is not new. They keep trying to say that it "creates" energy and defies what we know about physics. They would get a better reception if they instead claimed that it is converting energy from a yet unknown source.

1. The technology has a coefficient of performance greater than 100%.
2. The operation of the technology (i.e. the creation of energy) is not derived from the degradation of its component parts.
3. There is no identifiable environmental source of the energy (as might be witnessed by a cooling of ambient air temperature).

What about Brown's Gas? http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/NuclearRemedia tion/index.html

why not just harness the wave energy?

As mentioned above, you might want to read our definition of "free energy"

http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/free_energ y.htm

It includes solar, wind, tide, or any source of energy free for the taking, acknowledging that the devices that harness these are not free, and pointing out that the object is to go for clean, affordable, reliable solutions.

Before you go knee-jerking, you might want to read our definition of "free energy"

http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/free_energ y.htm

It includes solar, wind, tide, or any source of energy free for the taking, acknowledging that the devices that harness these are not free, and pointing out that the object is to go for clean, affordable, reliable solutions.

Actually, this person is somewhat involved with the Open Source Energy Network. It's open source, even if it isn't software, so it's on-topic here at Slashdot.

Check out Brown's Gas at FreeEnergyNews as well as other proven nuclear remediation technologies there. You may be pleasently surprised.

Stirling engines seem legitimate enough, but the linked site describing them seems somewhat crack-potish. They promote cold fusion and zero point energy, as well as a number of "alternative energy sources" I've never even heard of. There's also a page trying to disprove the Peak Oil theory, which should be real popular with the Slashdot crowd. Anyway, I sometimes wish that /. nerds had a greater understanding of the pure sciences, rather than just software engineering. Oh well.

Stirling engines seem legitimate enough, but the linked site describing them seems somewhat crack-potish. They promote cold fusion and zero point energy, as well as a number of "alternative energy sources" I've never even heard of. There's also a page trying to disprove the Peak Oil theory, which should be real popular with the Slashdot crowd. Anyway, I sometimes wish that /. nerds had a greater understanding of the pure sciences, rather than just software engineering. Oh well.

Stirling engines seem legitimate enough, but the linked site describing them seems somewhat crack-potish. They promote cold fusion and zero point energy, as well as a number of "alternative energy sources" I've never even heard of. There's also a page trying to disprove the Peak Oil theory, which should be real popular with the Slashdot crowd. Anyway, I sometimes wish that /. nerds had a greater understanding of the pure sciences, rather than just software engineering. Oh well.

Stirling engines seem legitimate enough, but the linked site describing them seems somewhat crack-potish. They promote cold fusion and zero point energy, as well as a number of "alternative energy sources" I've never even heard of. There's also a page trying to disprove the Peak Oil theory, which should be real popular with the Slashdot crowd. Anyway, I sometimes wish that /. nerds had a greater understanding of the pure sciences, rather than just software engineering. Oh well.

Wow, just can't wait to hook up my cellphone to my Thestatika Machine as soon as i've installed this device!

To me, it seems like the car companies don't care that much about gas mileage. I read somewhere (I think it was in Adbusters) that the weight of the average new car has gone over 4000 lbs for the first time since the 1970s. To me this seems ridiculous, considering the increases in technology: aluminum alloys and plastic are replacing cast iron and steel, unibodies are replacing full frames, and rack-and-pinion steering systems are replacing recirculating-ball systems. Cars today are generally not much more fuel-efficient than they used to be; here is an example. Again, there have been many drastic improvements in technology: lighter materials, improved aerodynamics, computer-controlled fuel injection instead of carburetors. But somehow, regardless of how much technology they introduce, cars in the US still seem to mostly get between around 20 and 30 mpg. The Japanese companies are making some improvement, but most American cars don't seem much better than they were 50 years ago. I am really not that excited about the new hybrid cars; what good would new technology do if the car companies clearly aren't making good use of the technology they already have? I think that most of the early hybrid cars will be more efficient, then the later ones will only get about 30 mpg for some reason, and they will keep making them that way until we have a serious oil crisis.