Re: Mustang gets 110 mpg.
- From: "Ed Huntress" <huntres23@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 08:54:52 -0400
"texasjim1093" <texasjim1093@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:584f4eb5-9ed8-41bc-9f4f-dd02d45534d1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Oddly, I am in an email exchange with Aaron Brilbeck, the reporter for
WNWO NBC24 who did this story. Keep in mind, I am just some dude who
isn't an engineer or has a degree of any so please point out any
terrible errors in my analysis. I just responded to him tonight so we
will see what happens.
Here is the exchange so far:
Dear Mr. Brilbeck,
Your "110 MPG car" story is not very well researched. I would hope
in the future that you would be less gullible, actually take the 10-15
minutes to learn the facts, and maybe ask a few hard questions like
reporters are sometimes known to do.
The laws of thermodynamics and aerodynamics unfortunately limit
such a cumbersome vehicle from reaching the claimed efficiency.
Gasoline only has so much energy in it and much of it is lost to heat
in combustion. Even if there was no heat loss and all the fuel was
used for energy the Mustang in question the claimed gas mileage could
not be attained.
Another major red flag should be the high horsepower and economy
which are traditionally do not go together. Suddenly this man from
nowhere has a design that does what no other research facility in the
world can do? A romantic story but dubious and worthy of skepticism.
The "grandfather's idea" is an oldie but a goody and always sucks
people in. These types of statements should be setting off the alarms
in your head.
Most likely this car is not using exclusively gasoline and is
getting extra energy from another fuel or just as often, the person is
deluded and/or lying.
Best regards, Jim Anderson
__________________________
Hi, Jim--
Thanks for the great advice in asking harder questions. In my 20+
years of experience, which have garnered several national awards for
exposing curruption at different levels of government, I have never
thought about asking "Hard questions" (A goodle search will varify my
background--you know, research)
Seriously, though, we were somewhat limited at what types of "Hard
questions" we could ask. We are not able to look under the hood of
the car, so we're forced to rely on tests done by an independent
company that varified the claims of the gentleman who made the car.
You did say, "The laws of thermodynamics and aerodynamics
unfortunately limit such a cumbersome vehicle from reaching the
claimed efficiency.". That would be true--with a standard, off the
assembly line engine. The maker of this car did tell me, his engine
is his own design, similar in size to a Ford 302 cid engine. Most
shade tree mechanics know, engines, by nature, are not very
efficient. The owner of the car says, he's made his more efficient by
adding certain electrical modifications--he won't say what--patent
pending. The E-85 stickers on the car lead me to believe he's using
E-85 fuel. Whether he's supplimenting the fuel with something else--
or modifying the fuel-air mixture in some way--I don't know. But
these are questions that were asked. We also asked about the type of
transmission. Usually, a 302cid or 351w (And often a 351c) will use a
c-6 transmission--but again, he wouldn't answer these questions (See,
I did do my research). Unfortunately, I can't force anyone to answer
any questions--nor can I force them to show me what's under the hood
of their car. All I can do as a reporter, I am skeptical by nature.
But all I can do is rely on credible information provided to me--and
report those findings.
And, occasionally, ask "Hard questions".
Thanks---
Aaron Brilbeck
_____________________________________
Thanks for your quick response,
You are actually sitting on a great follow up story but let me explain
a few things first:
First, I would like to apologize, when I fired off my email, I had
just awaken and was quite cranky (ignore the automotive pun). I had
first read an article from another source attributed to your station
but had been hacked up to look more exciting. I just looked at your
original text as well as the video, it was a fairer treatment and
disclosed that he wouldn't open the hood. I understand you get the
lead, go check out a story, report what you see and move on to the
next story.
Here is the problem:
In regards to Pelmears claims, we are not talking about a better
mousetrap here. A more apt comparison would be a mousetrap that
teleports the rodents to another location.... seriously, I can prove
it.
The actual efficiencies of gas motors is 25-30%.
"Thermal Efficiency Ratio=Ratio of heat converted into motive power:
25-30%"
http://www.isuzu.co.jp/world/technology/clean/diesel_gasoline02.html
(This page is simple and to the point). Isuzu is not the top of the
heap as far as motor efficiency but respectable. This Isuzu internal
data is consistent with the science of the field. Diesel engines get
35-42% efficiency and we are seeing cars like the New Beetle Diesel
getting 40+ MPG. The Beetle is probably getting 40% or better
efficiency, is quite lightweight and highly engineered.
Pelmear claims that he gets 38% efficiency. An extra 8% over
current technology is a quantum leap, especially for a 400 horsepower
gasoline ICE (internal combustion engine). This gas type, piston and
rod design is called an "Otto engine". These efficiencies must fall
within the "Carnot cycle", which is governed by the second law of
thermodynamics. This is a well understood physical law of the universe
and not in scientific dispute. BTUs rule the day, there is no free
energy: diesel contains around 140,000 Btu per gallon, and gasoline
115,000 Btu, denatured ethanol contains only 78,000 Btu per
gallon....E85 is a sad 82000 Btu. The advent of fuel injection allows
for nearly a complete burn, so don't believe that gas travels unused
out of the tailpipe.
The Pelmear claim on it's face is unworkable. In comparison, a 30%
efficient car like a Toyota Yaris that is much lighter, with advanced
aerodynamics, drivetrain improvements, reduced friction and energy
efficient accessories cannot even approach his claims of MPG or
acceleration using Gasoline against his E85 (which has 27% less
energy). There is no way around this problem. If you want more
detailed proof of the claim being total nonsense just ask.
Liars, lunatics and fools really come out of the woodwork when
something big happens like high gas prices. Eventually the dust
settles, daylight shines down on them and they run back into their
holes. He claims the motor was being tested at Ford when cutbacks
retired ALL the engineers on the project...hmm. He was supposed to
demonstrate his car at the Milan Dragway in Milan, Michigan but no
reports of an appearance of this have surfaced. Rocket Ventures touted
this appearance. Check out his site: http://www.hp2g.com/homeofhp2g.html
The technology con is as old as the hills and always manages to dupe
some very smart folks. Am I a lone weirdo hassling you? Nope. Google
Pelmear's claims and you will see that he is on fantasy Island, at
least by people in the science community. The people that believe big
oil will kill you if design a highly efficient car think Pelmear is a
genius and are worried he will be dead soon.
The real story here is why has Rocket Ventures has invested public
money into this fraud? How much? I don't know for sure. I read from a
blog post that Rocket Ventures gave him 1.5 million in "pre-seed"
money, 2/3 comes from the good citizens of Ohio and 1/3
private. According to
http://ozarksfirst.com/content/fulltext/?cid=30111
"Rocket Ventures, a subsidiary of the Regional Growth Partnership of
Toledo, tested the car and says Pelmear's claims seem to be true."
Can you get them to disclose? Does the Freedom of Information Act
apply?
They are adding credibilty to Pelmear if this news article is
accurate. Investing in a total lack of proven science is
irresponsible. High risk venture capital is responsibly spent on a
novel application of known science. They should have at least
consulted some experts and protected Pelmear with nondisclosure
agreements. Verifying the scientific basis of a claim is standard
practice in technology ventures. A preliminary check would have
revealed this to be a fraud. This is not the due diligence generally
required in the spending of taxpayer money.
Here are some questions you could ask Pelmear:
What proof is there that the car actually works as described? If it
has been tested, then by whom? What testing method was used? Can he
name an engineer from Ford that can verify his story that Ford even
looked at the car? Does he use regenerative braking technology of any
kind? Is he familiar with the Carnot Theorum? Their are skeptics that
say if the 38% efficiency claim is taken at face value, the friction
coefficient and aerodynamic load would keep the car from exceeding 40
MPG particularly rolling on those wide heavy Cobra racing rims, how do
you respond to this? Was he at the June 14th Milan track for the
demonstration as he advertised? if no, why not? If he can engineer a
20 year old, 3000 lb vehicle to get 100 mpg @ 400hp and also manage
0-60 in 3 seconds, he will have achieved a scientific breakthrough
that will easily make him the richest man in the world, not to mention
winning the Nobel prize. Is he ready for the kind of power? The US
military alone will spend over 15 billion on fuel this year. They
could switch over to his engine and save at least 10 billion on gas (a
hummer gets about 4 mpg with armor, 10 mpg without). How does he feel
about changing the world as we know it? (The poor guy is either too
stupid to know how outrageous the claim is or he thinks that about
other people)
A person making a legitimate claim would be happy to answer most
of these questions and not be offended. The con man will get
defensive.
I appreciate your interest in reading this if you made it this
far. I can see from google that you do serious reporting. If you want
to nail a science story without having wade through tons of data go to
the forums at any one of these:
http://www.theskepticsguide.org
http://www.skeptic.com
http://www.randi.org/ (aka JREF, James Randi Educational Foundation)
Register, simply say you are a reporter doing research and would
like some input. Tell them you would like sources if possible to
verify their info, any questions they would ask a claimant and the
tricks & pitfalls regarding the subject. The guys that hang out these
forums are serious skeptics that includes scientists, doctors,
professors, all well versed in pseudoscientific claims, you will be
surprised at their credentials. Phoney medical claims, bunk products,
psychics, faith healers and others can be difficult to nail down, they
will give you the inside details on all the cons and how to trip them
up in interviews. Or send me an email.
This is a really interesting blurb off the internet that will give you
some idea of the birth of the Prius and engineering involved:
"Toyota realised that this is the big problem with using gasoline, so
had to switch from Otto-cycle to an 'Atkinson'-like cycle in their
Prius to allow a more diesel-engine-like 13:1 expansion ratio. This
enables a peak thermal efficiency of 36%, and is the key reason for
the Priuses improved economy.
However, the Prius engineers realised that such an engine would be
almost undriveable (lack of low end torque and ramping issues etc), so
had to resort to some kind of assist feature. This is why they
eventually adopted a hybrid electric approach. Many people think that
the hybrid-electric component of the Prius was designed to allow
regenerative braking - it was NOT, and this only contributes about 2%
to the improved economy of the Prius. The hybrid electric system was
deployed so that Toyota could use a 13:1 expansion ratio engine with
high efficiency (ie 36%)."
Best regards, Jim Anderson
'Looks good, Jim. Unless the reporter understands heat-engine theory and the
Carnot cycle, and has some feel for the total drag that this Mustang has to
overcome, I suspect he'll still be on the fence. But you steered him in the
right direction.
--
Ed Huntress
.
- References:
- Mustang gets 110 mpg.
- From: azotic
- Re: Mustang gets 110 mpg.
- From: texasjim1093
- Mustang gets 110 mpg.
- Prev by Date: Re: Russian scrap metal press machine
- Next by Date: Re: IMF Investigating the Fed
- Previous by thread: Re: Mustang gets 110 mpg.
- Next by thread: Re: Mustang gets 110 mpg.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
