I'll believe it when I drive one myself.

On the other hand, the article states that:

His idea was so brilliant that Texas A&M University became involved in the project, providing MacDowell with technical expertise and a testing environment to aid in the development of the engine.

A&M's involvement gives some credibility to the article, don't you think?

 

On the other hand, the article states that:

His idea was so brilliant that Texas A&M University became involved in the project, providing MacDowell with technical expertise and a testing environment to aid in the development of the engine.

A&M's involvement gives some credibility to the article, don't you think?

Absolutely not! How do I know the involvement isn't by the department of women's and minority studies and social justice?

 

Absolutely not! How do I know the involvement isn't by the department of women's and minority studies and social justice?

*sigh* ... you're hopeless, dude...

 

A&M's involvement gives some credibility to the article, don't you think?

That's certainly the inventor's opinion.

Just because someone lends their credibility, doesn't mean it's not playing on man's credulity.

People have been playing on man's credulity for a very long time.

 

On the other hand, the article states that:

His idea was so brilliant that Texas A&M University became involved in the project, providing MacDowell with technical expertise and a testing environment to aid in the development of the engine.

A&M's involvement gives some credibility to the article, don't you think?

Universities, particularly public universities, generally have as part of their mission doing outreach to assist small businesses and individuals develop innovative ideas and that almost always includes working with some folks that are way out in left field. I have been involved in "providing technical expertise" to several projects over the years an in several of them that technical expertise was of the form, "what you are trying to do violates the laws of physics by trying to do such and such." Given the nature of self-generated back-patting, for all we know Texas A&M sat down with him, explained numerous ways in which his ideas were seriously flawed, and then allowed him to use some of their equipment to test his engine to prove to him that his claims were bogus. Having done that, he then walks away and writes up the above claim. Happens all the time (and it may or may not have happened in this case).

The bottom line is that if he is legitimately getting 100 mpg in an SUV, then it would be TRIVIALLY easy for him to be on every major national news show within one or two weeks.

 

For comparison, a standard internal combustion engine operates only at 14 percent efficiency.

Correction. An emission compliant engine may only operate at 14% efficiency.

A properly built high-efficiency non-emission compliant spark-ignition automotive engine can easily pass the 30% range and a diesel 40%.

Now as for getting 100 MPG on a common auto engine that not that hard. Build the engine for maximum fuel efficiency and near diesel level compression then put a tiny string trimmer carburetor on it.
It will be a gutless turd to drive but dang fuel efficient!

 

I have been involved in "providing technical expertise" to several projects over the years an in several of them that technical expertise was of the form, "what you are trying to do violates the laws of physics by trying to do such and such."

Me too, and I quote, "You do realize this is a perpetual motion machine, don't you? I will help you build it, I will make the electronics work, but it won't do what you're trying to do." And that was the end of that HHO project!

 

I thought you would be "pro-autonomous car".

Only if it uses Linux to be autonomous.

 

Me too, and I quote, "You do realize this is a perpetual motion machine, don't you? I will help you build it, I will make the electronics work, but it won't do what you're trying to do." And that was the end of that HHO project!

I had one guy whose brilliant idea was to float dirigibles over forest fires and have one hose going up to it from a lake and then nozzles spraying out over the fire. And to increase the lifting ability, he wanted to use hydrogen instead of helium since it could lift four times as much (since the atomic mass of He is ~4 while the atomic mass of H is ~1. I made zero headway with the notion that floating a big bag of highly flammable gas over a raging forest fire might just not be a very smart idea. Not a problem, he was going to use a reflective film on the bag to keep the heat out. He needed the lifting capacity because he was going to have solar panels on the top to run the pumps. Yep, the pumps were going to be in the dirigible. So I tried to explain that you can only pull water up through a distance of roughly thirty feet even with a pure vacuum. Not a problem, he was going to use top-of-the-line pumps. I pointed out that most forest fires aren't close enough to a lake to be fought from a dirigible that is over it. Not a problem, he would drop the end of the hose into the lake and then reel out hose until he got over the fire. I tried to explain that his solar panels wouldn't get very much light given all the smoke and that his dirigible would be uncontrollable since forest fires can generate their own violent weather patterns. Not a problem, his dirigible would be well above that. I worked out that, even at 100% efficiency, it would take 100 horsepower to deliver 400 gpm for each 1000 feet above the inlet -- and pointed out that 400 gpm was about the flow rate of one fire hose and asked him to consider how many hoses are used to fight even a typical residential structure fire. Not a problem, he'll just use multiple hoses. I pointed out a half dozen other things and each time it was "not a problem".

I spent more than an hour trying to clear up the huge misconception about the lifting capacity. First I tried to explain that gaseous hydrogen is diatomic and so has a molecular mass of ~2. Then I tried to show him, several different ways, that the increase in lift isn't due to the ratio of the two lifting gasses, but rather to the difference in the ratios between the two gasses and air which, IIRC, works out to an increase of about 8% (or maybe it was 4%, that was nearly thirty years ago). I derived the formula for him. I worked examples for him. I explained it at least three different ways using analogies. At the end he merely reiterated that his dirigible could lift four times the weight because helium is four times as heavy as hydrogen.

A few weeks later I got a call from an investor (who turned out to be a wannabe venture capitalist) who this guy had given my name to and told him that his entire plan had been vetted by NBS (this was shortly before it became NIST), despite the fact that I made it crystal clear when I met with him that I was an undergraduate co-op student working at NBS in the Superconductor and Magnetic Measurements Group and that I was most definitely NOT representing NBS in any way (the person that he originally spoke with asked me to meet with him as an individual because he knew I had a reasonable physics and mechanics background).

 

That tops anything I've ever seen (outside of an insane asylum).
One woman wanted air conditioning installed without making any holes in the building. That included the floors, ceilings, roof, and walls, but that doesn't beat the fire fighting dirigible.

 

That tops anything I've ever seen (outside of an insane asylum).
One woman wanted air conditioning installed without making any holes in the building. That included the floors, ceilings, roof, and walls, but that doesn't beat the fire fighting dirigible.

Man, I'm having fun here... I don't know whose post I like best here, yours or Wbahns!

 

Only if it uses Linux to be autonomous.

A Windows car would get 200 MPG, go 150 MPH, cost less than $10K, and blow up once a year killing everyone inside.

 

Once everyone is driving autonomous cars, will we need the same degree of structural integrity?

a. Semantically, a person cannot drive an autonomous car, only ride in one.
b. No, we'll need more.

ak

 

A&M's involvement gives some credibility to the article, don't you think?

No.

Funding through a university and funding *by* a university are two entirely different things. University research is very cheap compared to doing the same project in a purely commercial environment, and comes with perceived cred. But most universities, both public and private, have almost zero dollars for purely internally-funded research. OTOH, if Exxon wants to hedge their position, it is cheaper for them to give a university 50 million rather than spend 100 million in-house and be accused of holding back the "real results". It also is a way for a company to hide its intent. Toyota did this with funded battery research in the 80's. After the 1989 cold fusion flap, Toyota continued (continues?) to fund cold fusion research.

ak

 

No.

Funding through a university and funding *by* a university are two entirely different things. University research is very cheap compared to doing the same project in a purely commercial environment, and comes with perceived cred. But most universities, both public and private, have almost zero dollars for purely internally-funded research. OTOH, if Exxon wants to hedge their position, it is cheaper for them to give a university 50 million rather than spend 100 million in-house and be accused of holding back the "real results". It also is a way for a company to hide its intent. Toyota did this with funded battery research in the 80's. After the 1898 cold fusion flap, Toyota continued (continues?) to fund cold fusion research.

ak

1898 typo - 1989

 

1898 typo - 1989

Or maybe Toyota was waaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy ahead of its time... Oops, I mean, thank you for correcting my obvious misteak.

 

The 100mpg target is not impossible. GE claims their Diesel-electric locomotives move 1 ton 500 miles per gallon of diesel. that's 250 mils for a 2-ton car then a 15% loss to use gasoline vs diesel, down to 220 miles. I understand that rails are different than roads and the drafting that each rail-car gets from the engine and previous cars add to aerodynamics but the tires used on these hyper-mile test vehicles and cockpit design are not always realistic either. Just trying to bring a perspective that such efficiency is possible (if few start/stop cycles and few hills are in your path).

 

That tops anything I've ever seen (outside of an insane asylum).
One woman wanted air conditioning installed without making any holes in the building. That included the floors, ceilings, roof, and walls, but that doesn't beat the fire fighting dirigible.

Well, I guess if she doesn't mind duct work running out the doors and down the halls....

 

a. Semantically, a person cannot drive an autonomous car, only ride in one.
b. No, we'll need more.

ak

Curious, why would we need more? One of the big claims being pushed is that autonomous vehicles will be inherently so much safer because they won't make the mistakes human drivers will make.

 

The 100mpg target is not impossible. GE claims their Diesel-electric locomotives move 1 ton 500 miles per gallon of diesel. that's 250 mils for a 2-ton car then a 15% loss to use gasoline vs diesel, down to 220 miles. I understand that rails are different than roads and the drafting that each rail-car gets from the engine and previous cars add to aerodynamics but the tires used on these hyper-mile test vehicles and cockpit design are not always realistic either. Just trying to bring a perspective that such efficiency is possible (if few start/stop cycles and few hills are in your path).

I used to work at our local rail yard fueling locomotives and there is more to that feat than average public knows.

1. Locomotive diesel fuel is not formulated the same as the stuff we get at the local fuel stations. Theirs has a much higher BTU per gallon plus would not pass any over the road clean burn (low/no sulfur) and whatnot regs.

2. Locomotive diesels are built to be as fuel efficient as possible which means they are exempt from EPA and emissions related regs as well.

If the diesel engines used in our vehicles were built the same and ran on locomotive grade fuel most would see close to double if not more than the average MPG numbers than they do now and many of the newest EPA compliant diesel's near triple what they get now.

Basically their not the same engines we get in vehicles and it's not the fuel we get to power them either.