100 MPG X-Prize

The entries for the 100 MPG X-Prize are set...
formatting link

And it looks very good.
There are some tricycles, there are some very small cars, and there are some
cars converted from standard cars. But many other cars look like exotic
prototypes. And there is some surprising technology...like compressed air.
The Loremo diesel looks very practical and very capable. But there is some
highly developed hybrid technology as well.
So at the web link...click every team like that offers a photo or a
video...and then ask yourself...does this look like something or not ?
Reply to
PolicySpy
Loading thread data ...
The technology has already existed since the '40s to get fantastic mileage, since the "supercarburetor" is not a "myth". However, if the people who have the patent for that don't release it, the only thing that can be done is to build cars and trucks much smaller, and with more efficient fuel systems. That being the case, the car that represents the least radical shift from what people are accustomed to seeing (in terms of internal space, etc) but which meets the requirement is the one most likely to be commercially successful in most areas.
Reply to
Scotius
This technology is called the "motorcycle" and I have it on good word that several companies in Japan and Germany, as well as at least one in the US, are currently developing these "motorcycles" which should be on the market soon.
There is no miracle fuel system, there is only efficiency caused by reducing wind resistance and decreasing mass. There's only so much you can do with a monster SUV design. --scott
Reply to
Scott Dorsey
A former Ford executive I met at a dinner I recently went to for a friend told me the "super-carburetor" was real. I think he would know.
Reply to
Scotius
Then why doesn't Ford bring it to market and capitalize on the, "green," trend with some 100+ MPG cars that don't rely on highly sophisticated junk like hybrid drives? -- "I... Can't drive... FIFTY-FIVE!!" --Sammy Hagar
Reply to
necromancer - ECHM
"necromancer - ECHM"
Because it is all horse carp. Pogue designed a carburetor that was supposed to do this, but it failed miserably. Fish also put out some "high mileage" carburetors, but they werent.
You CANNOT avoid the laws of thermodynamics. There is NO perpetual motion,and there is no super high economy carburetor.
Anyone who believes there is has to be severaly under-educated.
Reply to
hls
No one was talking about "perpetual motion" as far as I know. That's a straw man argument, and not one I was trying to make. And by the way, the universe is in perpetual motion.
Right, like the guy with the masters degree at the Canadian university whose page on this I read. Yup, a real nitwit.
Reply to
Scotius
"Scotius" wrote in message
Are you versed in thermodynamics? If not, spend a little time and educate yourself. When you do, you will realize the defects in your arguments.
One cannot, with magic carburetors or anything else, avoid the rules of thermo.
Yes, some engines in some vehicles can deliver 100 mpg, but these are not magically carburetted. They follow the same rules of science that all other engines follow.
Reply to
hls
laws of phsyics... bah. Just have congress legislate a 100mpg minimum and cars will get that. The government defines reality!
Reply to
Brent
All congress would have to do is put a $200/barrel tax on petroleum and lots of fuel efficient transportation solutions would come popping out of the woodwork.
-jim
Reply to
jim
um no. government intervention cannot change reality and its consequences are usually worse than what the intervention was supposed to correct.
Reply to
Brent
Government intervention is already changing reality.
In US factories cost of labor about 1/2 goes to taxes (combined employee employer taxes). In China factory labor isn't taxed - that is part of the reason Chinese labor is so much cheaper. In the US we go to great pains to make sure that the transportation cost of getting those Chinese made factory goods to your local store is as cheap as possible. That whole system doesn't make a lot of sense. It is like we have found the perfect way to put ourselves out of business. The current tax policy seems to be designed to benefit the Chinese.
The result of the current US strategy is The U.S. as a nation is sitting on a mountain of debt and the Chinese have no debt and are sitting on a 2 trillion dollar cash surplus. And on top of that about half the US work force is planning to retire soon and collect money from the government that the government doesn't really have to give. Where do you think that money is going to come from?
formatting link
Look at that graph. For 25 years we have operated with massive trade and federal budget deficits and that fact pretty clearly shows up if you look at the last 25 years of debt growth. How long do you think that graph can keep sailing upward like that?
The purpose of taxing oil would be to avoid bankruptcy. Our current debt is largely caused by a dependence on oil we get from foreign nations and a failure to produce enough US made goods to sell to balance the books. There is little doubt that a tax on oil would help reduce the massive government debt and at the same time reduce the dependence on the substance that is really the root cause of the debt.
-jim
Reply to
jim
Reality defined as things like the laws of physics. Laws of the market place, etc and so on. These things do not change. They are not suspended because of government intervention. Those in elected office think they can change such things with a new tax or law or regulation, but all they end up doing is causing consquences that they couldn't see (if we are to believe them) (but anyone with half a brain could)
In response to the mess they created government demands more power to tax, legislate, and regulate to fix it. They get the power and make a bigger mess. Rinse, repeat.
Reply to
Brent
So what has that got to with anything other than to obfuscate reality. The debt is very real. You can sit in your ivory tower dwelling on your laws of physics and economy and it going to do you much good when that load of crap comes crashing down.
So who in government is proposing a tax on petroleum as a solution? As far as I can tell the politicians want to just bury their heads in the sand - just like you.
Three quarters of the debt you see in that graph in the link I posted is not government debt. It is private debt. And A lot of that massive private debt that came to be in the last 25 years was created because the government regulations that were in place were removed. And more and more of that private debt is becoming government debt as it becomes toxic and bailout after bailout goes into place.
And there is not much talk of any new tax or legislation or regulation to address the mess. Why bother with that when you can just keep printing more money (which doesn't require any action by the government at all) and making more debt. The whole process becomes quite simple and easy when you have arrived at the conclusion that you don't have to pay for what you spend.
Government isn't proposing a tax on petroleum or any solution besides doing what they have been for the last 25 years which is borrow lots of money. The government as far as I can tell is following your logic.
Government is pretty much the same as it was 230 years ago. There is really not much new. Only one thing is new and that is about 25 years ago the whole country decided it no longer needed to pay it's bills. I guess everybody is just hoping they won't be around when the shit hits the fan.
-jim
Reply to
jim
You're missing the point. It's those laws that will bring about the crash. The government tries to deny their reality.
I am guessing your scarasm meter is broken. My first post in this thread is scarcasm. And more intervention, in the form of the tax you propose may force slightly more fuel sipping vehicles, but there will be some other consequence to that intervention. Perhaps the person who was working on a cure for cancer that would have been successful dies in a traffic collision because he was riding a scooter due to the cost of fuel. Perhaps the economy comes crashing down due to the tax because the conspiracy of the 100mpg carb was but a myth.
Again, you're missing the point.
Yes there has been, well in the name of it. Haven't you been paying attention? Dear leader, Obama, wants to give the federal reserve and his masters at goldman sachs much greater power to regulate the economy, right down to the ma and pa store on the corner.
'my logic'? are you daft? You're bringing up subject matter I didn't even hint at and then claim I have some 'logic' about it? Even if you dug up some old posts in other threads and groups what you are assigning me is quite the opposite.
Government is the same as it was 2300 years ago, it's the same as it has always been, a gang of thieves with a monopoly on legal violence.
The system of debt started late in 1913 with the Federal Reserve act when the large bankers formed a cartel with government authority.
Reply to
Brent
So just keep on borrowing everything is fine
So just keep on borrowing everything will be fine?
Well the federal reserve exists to pander to people like you that can't trust congress. But I don't see any real changes being proposed in Washington. It is all about how do we get the train back on the same track of prosperity by borrow and borrow and borrow that we have been running on for 25 years.
You want to do nothing - which is not very different than what the government is doing.
So just keep on borrowing everything will be fine?
Well sure and FRB was presented as a private system that would not be in the hands of those untrustworthy government thieves. Because they knew there were plenty of fools who would buy into it if presented like that. So now we have a private system that is not controlled by government - that is not better than direct government control?
But it doesn't really matter the current debt is not caused by the federal reserve it is because we used borrowing to get out of the long lingering recession caused by the 70's oil price increases and we thought it worked, so well we decided we could keep on doing it forever. As I said 3/4 of the debt that is going to drag us into the gutter is private debt. And that chart I posted only goes to 2006 Since 2006 the total debt has nearly doubled, so extend that line up about twice as far to get an picture of where we are today.
You try to portray my petroleum tax proposal as the governments plan. Then why isn't anybody in government proposing a hefty tax on oil? The government is in fact trying to get rid of the gas tax. The want a system that measures the miles you drive and tax you on mileage. Why do the oil interests oops... I mean government want that new system? Because that will tax the guy who drives a prius the same as the guy who drives a hummer. See the government works just fine for those who take an interest. Trust me government intervention is usually accomplishing exactly what government intervention is intended to accomplish. And it is the many fools like you that can't see that reality, that make it all possible.
It is your stupid kind of mentality that propagates the myth that government is incompetent and bumbling that perpetuates the ability of the government to continue to act against the interests of many who vote for it. As long as you convince enough people that the government can't possibly ever get it right and do anything that would work in their favor then any program designed to do just that will rarely happen.... and so guess what it rarely does. Meanwhile the people who do believe in the power of government get it to work in their favor most of the time.
-jim
Reply to
jim
Are you just stupid or trolling? That's how the government tries to deny reality, they really believe in the keynesian nonsense
Buh bye troll.
Reply to
Brent
The government isn't denying reality. It is now the voting public that is in denial of reality. The reality for elected government officials is that doing anything about the growing debt will only get them thrown out of office.
-jim
Reply to
jim

Site Timeline

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.