Slashdot Mirror
UBC Engineers Reach Mileage Of Over 3000 MPG
The New Revelation writes "Physorg reports that engineers at UBC have developed a single occupancy vehicle that achieves a ridiculous 3145 MPG! From the article: 'The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Supermileage Competition took place June 9 in Marshall, Michigan. Forty teams from Canada, the U.S. and India competed in designing and building the most fuel-efficient vehicle... The UBC design, which required the driver to lie down while navigating it, achieved 3,145 miles per US gallon (0.074 liters/100 km) -- equivalent of Vancouver to Halifax on a gallon (3.79 liters) of gas -- costing less than $5 at the pump.'"
But theoretical science often *does* lead to science with more practical applications.
Building the body out of light weight materials definitely cuts down on fuel usage, but is it impact resistant in a crash?
Ever see film of an F1/Indy car hitting a wall at 200 mph and the driver walking away?
As it happens the light stuff is also the strong, safe stuff. Doesn't rust either.
Steel is used for economy of manufacturing ( it can be stamped to shape and robotically welded), not because it's the best material for the job.
KFG
Not a direct hit but close enough.
http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/carburetor.a
There are too many automobile companies.
There are too many motorcycle companies.
There are too many lawnmower companies.
There are too many gasoline engine makers... in the world... for your story to be credible.
In addition, I offer other anti-super fuel efficiency arguments:
Is it plausable that this technology was supressed during World War II, when the outcome of major battles depended on gasoline more than once and there was massive rationing in the states (ration coupons for gasoline, etc.)
Is it plausible that perhaps companies composing a fraction of 1% of the economy could suppress this information from the rest of the economy which would make so much money off it (every major trucking company, every taxi company, every delivery company, etc.).
I think the other companies have too much to looossee* for them to let such an invention be supressed.
---
* I have given up trying to oppose the increasingly popular misuse of "loose" as "lose" so now I will join with them.. but of course I am way behind on having the proper number of extra letters by the new contemporary spelling of loooose so I'll be putting in even more extra o's to catch up.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Also, why such a severe restriction on the engine? According to the rules they must use a specific 4-cylinder engine produced by Briggs & Stratton. Seems to cramp creativity a bit (although I guess it gives them a sponser).
This guy has the common misconception that having a US patent is evidence that your invention actually works. Or even exists.
A US patent simply means that you were able to confuse an undertrained patents clerk.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
It doesn't matter much if your carburetor burns fumes because the fumes are just molecules of gasoline. There are only a certain number of molecules of gasoline in a gallon. Each molecule of gas releases a certain amount of energy when it is burned whether it's in fumes or liquid. Thus running on fumes doesn't make your gallon of gas last any longer if you want to get the same power out. Actually vaporizing the gas into fumes does increase its energy content slightly, but not much. It may allow the fuel to be burned a little more completely, but again, regular engines do pretty well already.
There are several ways to know that our engines haven't been detuned. One is to put a car on a dynonometer and measure it's power output and fuel consumption at the same time. Another is to determine the aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance, and use that along with the gas mileage to determine the efficiency. Aeronautical engineers do extensive calculations and tests to extract efficiency from their aircraft. They would surely know if their engines weren't doing their best or car engines were doing much less than aircraft engines.
Car engines convert gasoline energy to crankshaft energy with something like 25% efficiency. That only leaves about a possible four fold increase in gas mileage even if these carburetors and engines could achieve 100% efficiency. Not that four times better gas mileage wouldn't be great, but any claim of a larger increase based only on engine or carburetor improvements is immediately suspect. What's more, the laws of thermodynamics limit piston engines to much less than 100% efficiency.
Many of the above super mileage claims are probably scams. Some are mistakes. Some are misinterpretations or misquotes. Many are probably impractical circumstances like ultra light, ultra low drag, low power vehicles under constant, low speed, flat ground conditions.
There are too many engineers that could and would EASILY expose a cover up if one existed. Not just a few engineers like have been cited above but LOTS of them. In fact most engineers could easily uncover such a conspiracy. Every town would have multiple engineers that could and would uncover such a conspiracy. So what's a better explanation for these ultra mileage claims? That they are impractical, mistakes, scams, and such, or most of the engineers in the world have been duped by the oil companies? There are plenty of real conspiracies in the world. This one is pretty easy to dismiss.
If this [competition] was in fact 'theoretical science' - you have a point. But it's not.
[rant]
Every time an article like this is posted to slashdot, somebody asks what are the practical applications? And, invariably, a karma whore will drag out the tired old chestnut quoted above, knowing he'll get modded up. But sometimes, it's a valid question and deserves a real answer - not a chestnut.
[/rant]
This competition wasn't an experiment to see what can be done to raise gas mileage. From a scientific point of view, it's the equivalent of the guys who attach jet engines to their cars. It's cool and all - but it isn't research and it doesn't prove anything. The scientific method is all but uninvolved. The students took extremely well known and well proven principles and 'turned them up to 11'. The result, given the years this competition has taken place and years of concept cars, was utterly unsurprising. It's the high tech equivalent of mixing baking powder and vinegar together - it'll work every time.
The original poster is correct, this is an ivory tower exercise - not a practical one. The results of this competition tell us nothing that wasn't already known, and contributes zip point to the development of real world vehicles.
Unfortunately there are more factors you need to consider than just raw fuel efficiency. The pulse and glide technique is only practical if you are alone on the road. Consider a situation with normal traffic, and every car using pulse and glide. It wouldn't work. The Prius marathoners you linked to also ran into problems with this, being pulled over by a cop for driving too slow.
The traditional technique (planning ahead and avoiding sudden changes in speed) brings not only decent fuel ecenomy, but also increased safety and ride comfort.
...ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
... but people need to get real about these competitions they have every year.
Every year American auto makers fund for a pittance several of these types of competitions. The results are always the same: some college kids design a vehicle that weighs practically nothing, runs on solar or such, and is totally impractical. Usually little more than a bicycle or go-cart. This has been going on much the same for decades.
And every time the results are the same:
1) US automakers get their names associated with some supposedly high-tech, innovative, and efficient technology as part of a low cost PR campaign in the form of a tiny grant to students.
2) The media is obligated to cover it as part feel good fluff: see, we're still leading the world in useless technology despite everything being made overseas! Aren't our students bright?!
3) Said automakers recruit off the various campuses engineers who then proceed to design SUV having absolutely nothing to do with afore mentioned efficient technology.
4) US makers continue declining.
S.O.S.
Wouldn't it be great if these students for once asked "how about granting us money to make something f'ing useful or hiring us to build what we made for a change?"
Same thing could be said of Israeli tanks and planes. They were attacked many times, and they didnt drag out the 200MPG carburetors either.
So let's just retire the 200MPG stories, okay?
You know there's a word for someone who looks at a new technology and sees that it doesn't have direct application to his life and therefore talks it down.
....
Seriously this is research, they are pushing the limits as far in one direction as they possibly can with the assumption that if you research at the extreme then you'll learn things that can be applied to more mundane situations.
What next? IBM issue a press release about new transistors based on nanotubes that go 1000X faster and you complain that because there won't be a processor available based on them available any time soon that they are wasting their time?
Watching Karma burn in 5, 4, 3, 2
"The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
By using the phrase "begs the question" ignorantly, people are depriving the language of a term that has few other real synonyms, if any, that can be used in the same way-- unlike the "popular" use of "begs the question" which is perfectly adequately served by "raises the question," "poses the question," and myriad other variations.
It's like the word "disinterested" which specifically means that one is not invested in an issue in a monetary sense, as opposed to "uninterested" which basically means that one doesn't care. People using "disinterested" to mean "uninterested" are stripping the language of a word that has few synonyms, if any.
Not to defend them, but Monty Python and Red Dwarf are both British. The British folks I know insist that they aren't European. AFAIK, the British "get" our American humor, but just don't think it's very sophisticated (I'm not sure I disagree). The continental Europeans just don't seem to get it at all, except maybe the Germans, who think it's funny but refuse to laugh.
Oh, I'm feeling quite finger-pointy this morning, aren't I?
The Spoon
Updated 6/28/2011