Re: Historic gasoline prices, 1965-1978
- From: "Christina Peterson" <tinapetrsn@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 09:50:40 -0800
"Dave Hinz" <DaveHinz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:3mmaurF17l8afU6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 23:24:29 -0800, Christina Peterson
<tinapetrsn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Yes, I don't believe you. The reality is that gasoline is a chemical
> fuel. If there is more energy in that gasoline that some magic carb is
> going to harvest, then that chemical energy in that fuel must at this
> time be being wasted by the current process.
You're putting the horse before the cart. The carburetor is NOT the big
deal. The innovation is in the engine itself. Even without the change in
the carburetor the engine is more efficient. And you're damned right that
the energy in the gasoline is under-utilized.
>
> > Actually, because of the innovativeness of this technology, I don't
think
> > it's likely you'll be seeing it soon in cars.
>
> Well, that and the fact that it can't possibly work.
It works. I've seen it.
>
> > Even experiment aircraft are
> > problematic, as it changes the COG so much.
>
> COG? And what, asked Dave hesitantly, does COG mean in _this_ context
> please?
>
It has to do with applications for the engine. Where and when it's likely
to be seen first. The engine is unusually light. Put into an airplane,
this would have to extend way up front, like on a Polatus Porter, for the
weight to be properly balanced.
> > Snow machines for extreme
> > sports would be a good bet. But I expect this will first show up in the
> > military and then in agriculture and industrial applications.
>
> Farmers are not early adopters of technology, and are going to notice if
> your magic carb doesn't help their fuel costs. Find a different group
> to scam.
Scam? What, you think I want something from you? Ferarri, Mercedes, etc,
make their big money in military and industry, including agra-industry.
That's also where their innovations are first implimented. I'm not trying
to sell you a tractor.
> Show me the laboratory results which back this up. You do know where
> the 63% of inefficiency goes in today's engines, of course; show me the
> heat (specifically exhaust gas temperatures) figures to back up your
> incredible (look it up) claim.
Frankly, Dave, I'm not a mechanic or scientist. That's not my area of
expertise or involvement. I don't need to convince you; I don't care if you
believe. And I'm not trying to explain brand new technology and somehow
make it easy. If you want that you'll have to ait for the technical
magazines to pick it up.
>
> Oh, and when you top-post, it screws up the flow of conversation. Why
> do you do that?
>
> Dave Hinz
>
Sorry about the top posting. That is the requested form in my other news
group.
Tina
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Historic gasoline prices, 1965-1978
- From: Dave Hinz
- Re: Historic gasoline prices, 1965-1978
- References:
- Historic gasoline prices, 1965-1978
- From: Ann
- Re: Historic gasoline prices, 1965-1978
- From: Christina Peterson
- Re: Historic gasoline prices, 1965-1978
- From: Vic Dura
- Re: Historic gasoline prices, 1965-1978
- From: Doug Miller
- Re: Historic gasoline prices, 1965-1978
- From: Christina Peterson
- Re: Historic gasoline prices, 1965-1978
- From: Dave Hinz
- Re: Historic gasoline prices, 1965-1978
- From: Doug Miller
- Re: Historic gasoline prices, 1965-1978
- From: Dave Hinz
- Re: Historic gasoline prices, 1965-1978
- From: Christina Peterson
- Re: Historic gasoline prices, 1965-1978
- From: Dave Hinz
- Historic gasoline prices, 1965-1978
- Prev by Date: Re: Historic gasoline prices, 1965-1978
- Next by Date: Re: Historic gasoline prices, 1965-1978
- Previous by thread: Re: Historic gasoline prices, 1965-1978
- Next by thread: Re: Historic gasoline prices, 1965-1978
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|