I think skeptical is precisely the correct reaction.
I've made something of a hobby following such claims, including the odd (okay, one) article. So far the number of proven versus unproven claims is 0 to n, where n is a very large number.
The tin-foil-hat crowd dutifully adds each claim onto their list of free-energy (or in this case, low-energy) devices that have been suppressed by big evil corporations. That fact that they have no solid evidence for any of it phases them not a bit.
I meant faze, not phase. Don't let anyone tell you that watching Star Drek reruns is harmless.
Posted at 2008-07-02 09:30:40 [PermaLink]Note the completely credulous tone of the blog. 80 mpg and 400 h.p. Naw, we don't need any, you know, evidence, we'll just take you at your word.
Posted at 2008-07-02 10:17:30 [PermaLink]Snake oil.
Google "hydrogen gas generator car" or variations on those words for similar "interesting" tales of free energy crackpottery.
E85 is less energetic than gasoline.
Modern gasoline engines run at something like 25% efficiency. (Despite the "inventor's" claim of 8-10%, though perhaps he means "the crappy old 300 inch V8 in my old car" rather than "most engines" - if he's really somehow getting 38% he's reached the thermal efficiency limits of the engine block.)
The stock 5L engine put out only 225hp and 300lb-f of torque, and gets 27mpg highway, on the EPA model.
I don't care whet kind of "electronics and block improvements" he put in, the numbers don't add up to over triple the economy and nearly twice the power out of a significantly less energetic fuel.
I'll believe it when independent sources get to run a few tanks through it and inspect the engine and run it on a dyno.
I followed the link trail a bit and he actually states that he's getting 38% efficiency as opposed to a standard car getting 8-10%, which I would guess to be a total mechanical efficiency.
Given that the thermal efficiency of the Otto cycle tops out at about 60% for reasonable compression ratios, this means that he has either figured out how to turn waste heat into propulsion(!) or has eliminated almost all mechanical losses from the vehicle, a 1980 Mustang.
Neither of those options sound too plausible. The only thing I can think of is some kind of sophisticated injection and combustion control system but I fail to see where a 5.0L Ford engine would fit into this plan.
At least he doesn't mention using water *HHO* or oxyhydrogen, which keeps his credibility from bottoming out.
Nice post Sigivald,
One thing to realize about E85 is that it has an extremely high octane rating which will allow for higher compression than with gasoline. If you can pack more fuel-air mixture into the cylinder, it might even out the energy content deficit.
Since one of the keys to engine efficiency is compression I would put money on his car having a dragstrip ready ratio. (If it isn't pure fiction).
Is there that much energy in E85? We are asked believe that he can run the beast on the highway at under a thousand RPM - to achieve a tiny fraction of that horsepower output and thus the claimed efficiency. Even if the car's exo was made of paper mache...
Colour me very skeptical that he can get hundreds of horsepower taxable AND 80 MPG. To get that mileage he's got to deliver, what, 20 net horses at the rubber, something like that? At a hundred kliks?
Dara may have some numbers to offer.
What are the emmissions like? One of the reasons cars get crappy mileage is the need to reduce NOx emmissions that go along with lean fuel air ratios and high compression engines.
Posted at 2008-07-02 16:19:08 [PermaLink]Ran:
It's a slippery car despite its looks, with a drag coefficient of 0.36 and a frontal area of about 3500 in^2 (2.25 m^2). Highway speed is 28 m/s.
Drag is CD x A x V^2 = .36 * 2.25 * 28^2 = 635 N
Power = Force X Velocity = 635N * 28m/s = 18 kW
Which makes the final drag number about 25 horsepower. You also have to add on all the other mechanical losses, but that's the baseline figure for any Mustang LX on the highway.
If he's starting with 5L of displacement it should be doable on ethanol at 1000 rpm. There's no replacement for displacement, but 80mpg out of a 5L???
If he has an electronically controlled valvetrain (quite probable), then it's likely that he's running a very different engine at low and high rpm. Not only would that give you infinitely variable timing, but the ability to micromanage individual cylinders.
This would go far to explain the apparently polar opposites of engine performance that he's claiming.
As far as emissions go, it depends mainly on how hot you burn the fuel which he isn't revealing. You can also add a silver catalyst to the system to prevent Nox from forming, among other measures. With the amount of engine customization suggested, it could go either way depending on how he weighted emissions goals.