Re: Thanks for Patent help.

In article <4314fb20@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Christina Peterson" <tinapetrsn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>"Dave Hinz" <DaveHinz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:3nj9tdF1pls0U5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 22:29:02 GMT, Doug Miller <spambait@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> > And the heat figures will prove it.
>> > Back to you, Dave...
>>
>> Naah, I think the evasion, while carefully executed no doubt, wasn't
>> accidental.
>
>I'm sorry I don't have the numbers for you at this time, Dave, but though it
>doesn't prove I'm right, it also doesn't prove I'm wrong either.
>
>Large increases in horsepower result in elimination of throttle, much higher
>power to weight ratio (about 3:1), use of exhaust force, elimination of
>friction and weight of superfluous parts, variable compression ratio,
>aspirated fuel, tripled psi before compression begins (almost double what a
>turbo charger does without the added complication or weight.
>
>I don't know much, but this stuff sounds like it would certainly increase
>horsepower.

Heat figures, Tina, heat figures. That's the _only_ way to conclusively
establish whether it is, or isn't, more efficient than a conventional design.
Did you ask Walter to provide them? What did he say?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
.