Anyone overcoming gas prices by hypermiling?

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Wow. Even scrolling through that site at high speed makes your brain creep out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick I reject your reality and substitute my own!

That seems to be happening a lot lately!

[Notmuchlonger]

Quote:

Originally Posted by M Paquette I kept looking for the links to Time Cube

Wow what the heck.

[Gumby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cute fuzzy bunny Wow. Even scrolling through that site at high speed makes your brain creep out.

Scary. I could feel my IQ dropping as I scrolled.

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Notmuchlonger Would you call that "bump" drafting Nords?

For a limited time only!

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem Bogus. He lost a court case brought by the investors he hoodwinked:

Quote:

Originally Posted by homestead I suppose nuclear bombs also violate that same law since the energy going in is just a few pounds of tnt.

Hey, Homestead, here's a question:
When Gumby and I were on submarines we ran nuclear reactors to generate propulsion & electricity. We also ran (at least one) oxygen generator that hydrolized pure water (distilled from seawater). Both functions are horribly expensive, time-consuming, and manpower-intensive. Kinda dangerous, too.

If Stanley Meyers was on to something, would the Navy buy it?

Hint: the Navy still makes oxygen the old-fashioned way (by splitting oxygen & hydrogen) and propulsion still comes from splitting atoms. I don't think Mr. Meyers has any military contracts.

Personally I'm holding out for cold fusion...

[Texas Proud]

CFB.... you missed my point....

I am not saying that THIS thing can work in our normal way of thinking... like you say.. the 'laws' we work under...

Back then the 'science laws' they knew were cast in stone would not allow for what we have today...

And we have science seem to say that they are missing 90% or so of matter (percent might be wrong... but 'dark matter')...

So if we can not even find the vast majority of the universe that we think is out there... how do we know that the 'laws' we are using are the actual final laws of science They work today... but who knows what will be discovered in the future...

Under the laws we know are 'true', we can not go faster than the speed of light... but then we now have some theories that we actual can... and there might be some energy source that would be like cold fusion (which would not break the energy in vs out issue)... E=MC^2 has a lot of energy in a small amount of M....


Don't get me wrong... the guy is nuts...


PS... just throwing out a random thought.... but wasn't it our thinking awhile back that from the science that we 'knew' that a bumble bee could not fly? but it did...


I know... I know... bad arguments.... so what

[TromboneAl]

Did you know that the TimeCube website is maintained by John McCain's Pastor?

[cute fuzzy bunny]

[calmloki]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TromboneAl Did you know that the TimeCube website is maintained by John McCain's Pastor?

Ah - had thought it was Dr.Bronner's evil twin.

[Walt34]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud PS... just throwing out a random thought.... but wasn't it our thinking awhile back that from the science that we 'knew' that a bumble bee could not fly? but it did...

Yes, an effect described by Reynolds numbers, it comes into play with model airplanes. Basically it matters because if one halves the size of an airfoil the number of air molecules supporting it drop by three quarters because the area of the airfoil is reduced not by half, but by three quarters. Or something like that, it's been a while since I looked at it closely.

The effect is that scale model aircraft will never be able to duplicate the scale performance of the full size prototype. The model must be either much lighter, have a higher power-to-weight ratio, or have larger control surfaces. Many have a combination of all three. The math gets complicated quickly.

So, using aerodynamic formulas that work with man-carrying aircraft the wing area of a bumblebee is insufficient to support it's weight. The bumblebee didn't know that so it flew anyway.

[mb]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bestwifeever Re drafting behind a semi on the highway--wouldn't that hurt the semi's MPG to be pulling you along? I could see some sudden stops on the truckdriver's part to deal with that problem....

No the guy in front actuals benefits also although not nearly as much as the guy in the back. I think that it reduces wake turbulence.

At least that is the way that it works for bicycles. I assume that it works the same for car.

MB

[mb]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud Let's just say.... that there is no KNOWN way to have a perpetual motion machine.... If we took almost anything that we have in electronics today back a couple of hundred years they would have said something similar... Take a 8GB USB drive... or even the TV... 200 years ago someone would have said... it is not possible!!! Why would anybody think that they could send a view of something from one place to another through thin air.... it is impossible... NOW, are the guys who are doing these things now able to do it NOT... but I would never say never....

Yes but they don't violate conservation of energy.

These "energy for nothing" schemes invariably violate the laws of thermodynamics.

Junior level ME and ChE students can usually identify the problem with them.

MB

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Quote:

Originally Posted by calmloki Ah - had thought it was Dr.Bronner's evil twin.

Funny, I used to use that stuff all the dang time when I was a regular backpacker in my teens. A couple of years ago I saw a bottle in Trader Joes and bought it. A few weeks later I started reading the label for the first time ever. Interesting. ALL ONE!

I noticed it wasnt ever for sale at TJ's after that either.

[Delawaredave5]

Quote:

Originally Posted by laurencewill I can push it in and ride for the 1-2 minutes at 800 rpm instead of 3000+ and save gas that way

I believe many newer cars shut down fuel injectors during deceleration to save fuel - and then resume fuel injecting when speed/rpm get down to a certain range.

I think they do this with both automatic and stickshift cars.

I have a Ford Taurus which does this. It is an automatic - so I guess there must be a lockup in the tranny that engages so the engine does not stall.

[laurence]

Well, just using some minor tweaks I've eeked out another mpg, that's 16 miles more a tank, hmmm, not thrilling. And since I'm not going to tailgate big rigs, take corners at 50 mph or overinflate my tires I guess I'll have to live with 27.5 mpg until the wheels fall off this car and I have to buy another. Only 40k on it so that will be a decade, most likely.

[homestead]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nords For a limited time only! Hey, Homestead, here's a question: When Gumby and I were on submarines we ran nuclear reactors to generate propulsion & electricity. We also ran (at least one) oxygen generator that hydrolized pure water (distilled from seawater). Both functions are horribly expensive, time-consuming, and manpower-intensive. Kinda dangerous, too. If Stanley Meyers was on to something, would the Navy buy it? Hint: the Navy still makes oxygen the old-fashioned way (by splitting oxygen & hydrogen) and propulsion still comes from splitting atoms. I don't think Mr. Meyers has any military contracts. Personally I'm holding out for cold fusion...

Stan Meyers died before he produced a product. I read his brother is working it now.
Military is known for using obsolete technology. When I got a tour of a SAGE facility (long time ago) they were using drum memory and vacuum tubes.
Also worked where we were sell oscilloscopes to military in the 70's, as of a couple years ago they were still building and fixing them.

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Clearly the navy would prefer to operate a nuclear power plant on a number of their ships rather than implement an allegedly simple system that fits in a dune buggy and can be built at costs a homeowner can incur.

Besides, The Arabs offered him a billion dollars to hide the technology and he refused so what chance did the navy have? Seems he was too busy defrauding individual investors for $25k a pop up until The Government killed him and took all his prototypes, so not really a lot of time to put together an actual working product that someone could examine. I understand the dune buggy is now propping up a flying saucer at Area 51.

[Gumby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by homestead Military is known for using obsolete technology.

You've got a point there, but that is primarily due to the extremely long design and construction process for things such as ships. Something this important would undoubtedly be considered for the newest submarines that are in the design stage today. I would also think that NASA would be most interested for it's new Orion project. Certainly the military has no commercial motive to suppress the development of such revolutionary technology.

This whole discussion reminds me of the time in 7th grade when I needed to find a project for the science fair. I read up on how motors and generators worked and had the absolutely ingenious idea to hook up a motor and generator on the same shaft, which would then spin forever. I was sure that no one had ever thought such a bold new thought before and that I would be justly famous. When I proudly explained my grand new idea to my dad, he explained electrical resistance and mechanical friction to me. I was most disappointed.

[HFWR]

You were just lacking enough faith...

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby This whole discussion reminds me of the time in 7th grade when I needed to find a project for the science fair. I read up on how motors and generators worked and had the absolutely ingenious idea to hook up a motor and generator on the same shaft, which would then spin forever. I was sure that no one had ever thought such a bold new thought before and that I would be justly famous. When I proudly explained my grand new idea to my dad, he explained electrical resistance and mechanical friction to me. I was most disappointed.

I guess that is just a phase that every kid who is interested in technology goes through. Apparently, some never outgrow it.

If you look at the blogs on tesla motors, posts keep popping up that they should put generators on the front wheels, put solar panels by the headlamps, put a windmill on the roof, etc, etc, etc to capture that energy.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by homestead Stan Meyers died before he produced a product. I read his brother is working it now.

OK, I actually spent a bit of time going through some of those documents. Here's the run-down:

A) Electrolysis of water into hydrogen and oxygen is well understood. It takes X amount of energy to break the bonds.

B) Combustion of hydrogen and oxygen is well understood. It takes a small amount of high level energy to trigger it (a spark for example), the hydrogen and oxygen combine back together to form water, and energy is produced. The same amount of energy as it took in step A to break the bonds. The process can be repeated over and over again, but there is no free energy.

C) Meyer's 'invention' centers on the use of a resonant circuit to break the bonds. A resonant circuit adds all sorts of appeal, and a path to make the whole electrolysis thing sound like zero-energy magic to people who don't fully understand it. It is a bit of 'smoke and mirrors' approach to electrolysis, but you can't get something from nothing.

Here is how Meyer's fans present resonance:

A) A resonant circuit can keep running, 'swinging' back and forth at high voltage with almost no energy input. This is actually true.

B) The high voltage (pulsed DC) can perform the electrolysis of water. This is also actually true.

Here is where it falls apart. Once you try to do some actual work with the resonant circuit (like electrolysis), you need to replace the energy you take out. There is no 'free energy'. A mechanical analogy:

Once started, a pendulum will swing for a very long time with no energy input. It will go longer if you put it in a vacuum, or take other steps to reduce friction. You can also make it go 'forever' with a very small energy input (like a pendulum clock).

However, if you try to tap energy from the pendulum, it is going to slow down and stop, unless you put at least that amount of energy back in. Period.

Now, since electrolysis and combustion are well understood, and do not provide free energy, the only way that Meyer could do something amazing is to take advantage of some currently unknown process. But, the only unique thing I see in Meyer's approach is this resonant circuit. It is still electrolysis, a well understood process. The resonance, IMO, is just a distraction. It can't break the bonds any more efficiently, in fact, it takes energy to convert DC to pulsed DC, so it would be less efficient.

Again, since electrolysis and combustion are well understood, IF there was some way that a pulsed DC could perform the electrolysis more efficiently, I think current researchers would have been all over it years ago. There are just too many ways it could be used, too many applications for somebody to NOT already have described it and demonstrated it in detail.

Invest in this? Buy a lottery ticket instead.

wiki has some good entries on these approaches:

Free energy suppression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-ERD50

[homestead]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Now, since electrolysis and combustion are well understood, and do not provide free energy, the only way that Meyer could do something amazing is to take advantage of some currently unknown process. But, the only unique thing I see in Meyer's approach is this resonant circuit. It is still electrolysis, a well understood process. The resonance, IMO, is just a distraction. It can't break the bonds any more efficiently, in fact, it takes energy to convert DC to pulsed DC, so it would be less efficient. -ERD50

I don't really want to argue about it anymore.

YouTube - Monty Python - Argument Clinic