It turns out that it's possible to build a full size car that gets 200 mpg

Pathetic as always. You are the worst troll I have ever encountered. Absolutely every description of a car engine explains this in the same way. There is NOBODY with a technical background in this field who says otherwise. Show me anyone who says the inefficiency is NOT through heat loss in the system...AFTER the combustion!

The problem is you. You are worse, far, far worse than a layman. They will at least make an attempt to try to understand something. You though, will do the opposite. If your ignorant understanding doesn't comprehend something, you will dismiss it and seek batshit that fits in line with your inept claim. If 1000 experts took turns explaining this to you, it would still not sink in. See batshit, believe batshit, defend at all costs.

Oh please. You are just reasserting the same crap and ignoring fundamental and unavoidable issues. That stupid video explains nothing. And of course, as always, neither do you.

You are missing everything. Every post, every subject you never have a clue about any of it! You rely on the word of others and choose to believe idiots instead of experts. Your whole catchphrase is "I'm missing something"!

Are you being deliberately dumb here? You've had it explained by a professor at MIT. The fuel is burnt almost completely. Right there is the salient bit. Your liars and conmen give the impression that their magic device raises the efficiency of a system, when the damn inefficiency occurs AFTER the combustion.

You cannot get energy beyond the finite capability of gasoline. Burning it leaner raises the engine temperature and that is lost in conductive transfer.

 

45MPG, 75MPH Ford 302 V8 is definitely possible. This guy put a lawnmower carb on a V8

 

How can we be sure he's telling the truth? Professors can lose their careers and their pensions if they deviate from the official narrative of something important. Check this out.

9/11 in the Academic Community - Winner Univ. of Toronto Film Festival (2013)

You're ignoring what this guy said at the 13:50 time mark.

Gashole
https://documentaryheaven.com/gashole/

He starts to talk at the 12:58 time mark. He's no dummy and he basically says that only the vapor in cylinders gets burned and the liquid comes out as pollution. None of these people say the inefficiency is not from the heat loss because the question never comes up. They say the inefficiency is caused by incomplete burning. If someone were to ask them, I don't know if they'd say that was a factor but I doubt they'd say there was no incomplete burning.

Start watching the documentary at the 19:30 time mark. The guy says that a big heavy car went two hundred miles on two gallons of gas. I'm not in a position to be able to verify this but I don't rule it out. Do you rule it out? Are you one hundred percent sure that the test they did was bogus?

 

When I was watching the video in post #27, I saw these on the sidebar. Listen to what he says at the 7:55 time mark in the first video and at the beginning of the second video.

Fred's Vapor Carb POC1

(7:55 time mark)

Fred's Vapor Carb POC2



I don't know what his credentials are but he says that liquid gasoline burns inefficiently and that's the cause of the inefficiency. I'm not going to just dismiss this. I think it's very probable that he's right.

 

Pathetic again. I'll tell you how I can be sure and using child proof simple explanations already given to you, I wil tell you again!

Vehicles are regulated all over the world by their exhaust emissions. It takes colossal stupidity to not understand that the lack of fuel in the exhaust means it all gets burnt in the combustion chamber.

Does that work for you? Or are you too thick to work that out?

Nope. You're ignoring every single reference page on the internet. That's the only thing you're actually good at.

Yes he is and you aren't qualified to tell the difference.

A provable liar or a moron. Probably both. Exhaust emissions say you and he are full of crap.

Once again your problem is twofold. You are ignorant in the extreme and gullibly believe liars who are easily proven wrong. Exhaust emissions. There is no getting around this.

Or does that confuse you? Does the proven fact that exhaust emissions are regulated and show your "expert" to be an idiot, confuse you?

You seem to be hopelessly unable to differentiate between facts and complete bullshit.

You can apply that statement to every single thing you post and have posted in the 20 years you have followed and sucked up almost every batshit conspiracy theory out there!

You can lead a horse to water! But try and explain simple physics to a stubborn conspiracy theorist with no obectivity, no logic, no critical thinking and of course there will be be no chance they will see reason!

The gas is virtually ALL burnt. The inefficiency is AFTER combustion. There is a finite amount of energy from a gallon of gasoline.

 

You don't know his credentials. YOU have zero. He talks provable bullshit about how combustion works and even worse, completely lies about where engine inefficiency occurs (AFTER combustion!).

You say it's provable he is is right, but lack even a scrap of knowledge on the subject, let alone the skill necessary to a) properly research it b) the understanding to know what you are reading and c) the honesty to actually do it.

Instead, you will wait for others to do the legwork, you will automatically dismiss EVERY response proving your batshit wrong and will automatically believe EVERY garbage video or website that reinforces it.

 

Of course that's easy to understand. I just wonder whether you're basing your opinion on a false presumption. Just saying exhaust emissions are regulated doesn't mean that over ninety five percent efficiency is demanded everywhere. Different locations have different standards. You're being pretty simplistic. Your statement doesn't prove that liquid gas burns less efficiently than vaporized gas.

Watch those two videos in my last post. This subject is dealt with.

 

I have heard about this fictional high mileage carburetor all my life. The truth is .....there is only so much energy that be produced through the combustion of a gallon of gasoline.

 

Yet the next statement says you don't!

Shakes head, realizes that this person is beyond help. Burning 95% and upwards of fuel in a combustion chamber is not the damn efficiency part! This is just basic combustion. Car motors have been doing this for decades. The MIT professor explains this very simple fact, easily verifiable with exhaust emission testing on every car produced.

Just completely stupid. The car manufacturers don't build cars to expel unburnt fuel out of the back!

Nope. You are as clueless about this as everything you ever suck up.

What the hell are you talking about now! Liquid gasoline is far less combustible than vapor, never disputed. But once again you are just ignorantly waving away the major detail. There is a finite amount of energy from burning a gallon of gasoline. Period. You don't extract more energy by burning it slower!

Bullshit. Your goto "look at my video" because of reasons, doesn't cut it. You don't understand any of it.

As usual you avoid so many things:
Plus, with gas vapors this is just plain dangerous. It's already a crazy idea to have vapor anywhere near a hot engine, in liquid form gas doesn't burn that well, but you start messing with vaporizing it and you are turning your nice little runabout into a potential mobile bomb!

Without lying and without your usual pathetic knee-jerk dismissal, why is this video not proof you are talking crap? He takes the method for delivery and directly compares this with conventional. There is no difference.

 

(from post #30)

This response would get you laughed out of the debating hall. You didn't address the issue.

But there are other videos in which the opposite is claimed. It's pretty simple-minded to just ignore them and just choose the one that supports what you want to be true. Maybe that's a damage-control video made by a paid sophist. We can't verify how long the engine ran in each case. You're just taking his word.

There's too much info on the internet that supports the idea that drops of liquid gasoline burn inefficiently and vaporized gas burns efficiently to ignore. Your ignoring it shows that you have a foregone conclusion. You can't make all of that go away by ranting. You're not using the scientific method*.

This is a very simplistic argument. It doesn't address the issue of how the gasoline is burned.


*
https://www.google.com/search?q=sci...12j0i512l4.6954j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

My answer may be simplistic but true.

 

If you were ever to get your frightened butt into a debate hall with me, I would crush you like a flea. Your whole "knowledge base" is what you can ineptly google, only without the relevant intelligence to understand anything or the imagination to expand on your blinkered "research" criteria!

Yes I did, I completely addressed it. The real "issue", once again, is your integrity and your dreadful failure to understand things that small children would get.

So your conclusion does exactly what your next statement says! I said "without your usual pathetic knee-jerk dismissal".

The hair-pulling irony!

The usual pathetic response. Maybe all your "amazing claim" videos are from people who want to attract youtube views!

The hair-pulling irony.

The cluelessness is breath-taking as is your ignorant strawman. You are worse than a layman, you stick to your idiotic opinion no matter what evidence is presented to you.

In the combustion process, the droplets vaporize in the chamber, atomization is one of the crucial design elements of modern engines. Phase-changing is obviously more for smaller droplets with more surface area. There is very little difference between what you term as gas vapor and atomization through the injection process. Gas vapor is merely air with suspended gasoline molecules. But THAT is not the issue that your internet fumbling is suggesting!

Your claim is that vaporized gas will burn more efficiently than the gas injected by the fuel system currently used. That is complete horseshit. Gas has an ideal ratio for burning when combined with air. This is a stoichiometric measurement of around 15 parts air to 1 part gasoline. This is where the minimum heat is produced and the maximum fuel is burned.
Air fuel ratio – x-engineer.org


For those who lack the intelligence to understand, the leaner the engine runs the less torque there is(!) and the faster the engine runs(more heat and friction = more waste!)

Already proven is that well over 95% of gasoline is ignited in the combustion chamber so for your pathetic urban-myth to be true, somewhere you have to take the tiny amount unburnt and make it produce 200mpg!
Liquid Fuel Droplet - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
"For small liquid fuel droplets, liquid fuel droplets will completely vaporize instantaneously before the beginning of the combustion process. "

Explain in your own words, from all the data and information you have assembled, the exact process. Do this using the "scientific method", take care to pay attention to disproving some of your "data" as fraudulent. I am expecting absolutely zero from you. You make this same troll comment over and over, yet not once in your 20 years of batshit have you ever used it.

 

That is not the issue I asked you to address. This is the issue I asked you to address.

Do think it's true that the car went two hundred miles on two gallons of gas? If you don't, please explain why. Use the scientific method. Don't be dogmatic.

 

Look at this troll. Completely ignores a huge post!

No.

Already explained in small sentences that children understand.

• On modern cars, the unburnt fuel detected in exhaust gasses is virtually non-existent.
• The stoichiometric ratio for optimized burn is 14.7:1 air to gasoline - this is the ideal ratio used by all fuel delivery systems .
• If you go leaner than this, the motor over-revs, loses power and the block/exhaust heats up.
• There is a finite amount of energy that a gallon of gasoline produces.
• ALL inefficiency in the system occurs AFTER combustion.
• Using a system with gasoline vapor near a significantly hotter motor is extremely dangerous!
• Running a motor lean for any degree of time will burn out the valves and piston rings and create undue pressure on gaskets.

Like you? Show me ANYWHERE in ANY post you have made in the last 20 years where YOU have used this method.

I never am. Your pathetic tendency to believe something, that appears to reinforce your stubborn belief , is in full flow here.

Show your "scientific method" for why you can't rule it out!

Try these:

• All items in the list above!
• None of the actions claimed have been independently monitored.
• None of the actions claimed above have had any sort of verification.
• Everything he said amounts to bare assertion.
• Does he gain notoriety in doing this?
• Does such notoriety increase his chances of making money?

 

I'm not going to take anything that comes from you as fact considering your record.

This is a response to both of the above. I used the scientific method here and you made a careless mistake and refused to admit it which destroyed your credibility.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-apollo-landing.519410/page-9#post-1072078676

 

You are the worst forum spammer on the internet. Banned from over 100 forums and duplicating content on every one, regardless of any/all previously received responses. You have zero critical thinking skills. You make your mind up based on conspiracy batshit and then do everything you can to avoid admitting your ridiculous failures. I just listed some facts that ANYONE with a computer can verify. What do you do? You cowardly troll and arm-wave them all away. You have no logic, you have not one iota of objectivity or integrity and have the temerity to call yourself a "truther"!

My "record" he says meh!

Haha, you have got to be kidding me!

Clown tactics in play, attempting to divert to another moronic conspiracy. Your "scientific method" involves your ignorant observation huh? Is that really what you are saying!?

The actual scientific method would ask:

• If air was causing this, why is there zero, unavoidable, large disturbance in the direction of the falling flat surface? The puff distributes diagonally and in a tiny area.
• What possible reason is there to dismiss simple impact? This is by far the most obvious cause.
• In normal gravity would dust act in this odd manner - rising that high from an impossible, diagonally and isolated air ejection? the answer is clearly no.
• Given that the battery lid is being pushed shut, increasing airflow, what SHOULD normal air currents do in this instance? They would definitely disturb all the clearly visible dust.
• The lack of any significant unavoidable air-currents identifies that there cannot be any air. This leads to the obvious scientific conclusion that it is in a vacuum and on the lunar surface!

THAT is just a cursory but highly accurate assessment!

A conspiracy theorist troll would fail to do any of that, completely deny it anyway, then make up spam horseshit about the person kicking their ass.

 

Your lameness and deceit in that discussion is simply too clear to obfuscate. Anybody who reads it will understand what you are. You are not on this forum to seek the truth. You're here to obfuscate the truth and mislead the viewers.

 

Oh look, the troll describes himself, with his "scientific method", a man who himself specializes in dishonesty, evasion and equipped with an integrity bypass. I identified clear and definitive factual points that a genuinely honest and scientific person would use and the big cry-baby runs away and pretends they aren't there!

A person who kicks your ignorant backside all over the forum.

Which incidentally has never come from you! No. I don't seek the truth from people like you, you have no logic, no critical thinking, no objectivity. You have no capacity to assess evidence properly.

Clown words. You wouldn't recognize truth if it ran you over in a 20mpg SUV! The "viewers" understand all about you, you are an object of amusement, every post demonstrating that you are a "layman" in every subject you infect.

 

As noted you failed again to do any of that!

 

In the combustion process, the droplets vaporize in the chamber, atomization is one of the crucial design elements of modern engines. Phase-changing is obviously more for smaller droplets with more surface area. There is very little difference between what you term as gas vapor and atomization through the injection process. Gas vapor is merely air with suspended gasoline molecules. But THAT is not the issue that your internet fumbling is suggesting!


Your claim is that vaporized gas will burn more efficiently than the gas injected by the fuel system currently used. That is complete horseshit. Gas has an ideal ratio for burning when combined with air. This is a stoichiometric measurement of around 15 parts air to 1 part gasoline. This is where the minimum heat is produced and the maximum fuel is burned.
Air fuel ratio – x-engineer.org


For those who lack the intelligence to understand, the leaner the engine runs the less torque there is(!) and the faster the engine runs(more heat and friction = more waste!)

Already proven is that well over 95% of gasoline is ignited in the combustion chamber so for your pathetic urban-myth to be true, somewhere you have to take the tiny amount unburnt and make it produce 200mpg!
Liquid Fuel Droplet - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
"For small liquid fuel droplets, liquid fuel droplets will completely vaporize instantaneously before the beginning of the combustion process. "


Explain in your own words, from all the data and information you have assembled, the exact process. Do this using the "scientific method", take care to pay attention to disproving some of your "data" as fraudulent. I am expecting absolutely zero from you. You make this same troll comment over and over, yet not once in your 20 years of batshit have you ever used it

 

Once people read the info in the link in post #40, they'll know that you fit the profile of a paid sophist* who doesn't even believe his own arguments. You can obfuscate endlessly.

*
https://www.nowandfutures.com/spew_tools.html

 

You aren't the spokesman for "people". You are a serial forum spammer, shamelessly banned for duplicating content on 100s of forums. You have no logic, no critical thinking skills, no objectivity, no integrity, no capacity for honest debate and you are a completely hopeless spreader of batshit for 2 decades!

Read it and weep:
https://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/

Not only do I believe them, prove them and kick your ass with them, they remain for others to see how useless you are. Yet another thread where your stupid claims have been totally dismantled, where you cowardly run away from irrefutable facts and where you try to hide this with your cry-baby antics.

Nope, just put you in your place and kick your ass.

 

Right there your stupid claim destroyed. No wonder you are once again afraid to answer this!

 

Viewers...

Please read the discussion which is linked to in post #40.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...at-gets-200-mpg.379505/page-2#post-1074143176

Betamax is totally cornered and he still claims victory.

 

Deleted.