Who Remembers The Biggest Scam?
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions. For investment, legal or other professional advice specific to your situation contact a licensed professional in your jurisdiction.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.


Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2021-05-18 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 293 references Ignore this thread
Who Remembers The Biggest Scam?
[Comments enabled]

I'm talking the late 1970s and early 1980s here.

If you think bull****ting people is new -- it's not.

I have always been a voracious reader.  By the time I was about 13 I had read the entire 500-700 section of the local library.  All of it, along with a fair bit of the other sections.  My personal favorites were books related to lasers and masers, believe it or not, along with the various books written on Bobby Fischer's chess strategy.

At the time I had no formal, or even really much of an informal, education on thermodynamics.  This was to vex me for quite some time.

You see, it was during that period of time that some of the so-called "mainstream science mags", including Popular Mechanics and Popular Science, started running articles here and there about an alleged 100mpg carburetor that big oil had suppressed.  One of the proponents was a man by the name of Smoky Yunick, a car guy of some note.

Do remember that during this time there was the Arab Oil Embargo, and gas was both hard to get and rapidly going up in price.  Suddenly that 8-10mpg, which was what pretty-much all the "full sized" cars got, wasn't so good.  The promise of ten times that was strong, as you might expect.

The claim was that by vaporizing the gas, rather than metering it with very hot intake air/fuel mixtures you could get radically better fuel economy.  More on the stupidity of that in a bit, but we'll continue.

My father had an old reel lawnmower with a 2.5HP Briggs engine on it.  I had wanted to make a minibike out of the engine after Dad bought a rotary mower instead, but he wouldn't let me.  Still, I had this engine on a nice metal mount (the old lawn mower), and he didn't give a crap about what I did with it, since it was "retired" although still in the garage.

So I set about trying to figure out how to optimize how it ran.  First, with the existing updraw carburetor.

Next was an attempt to build such a vaporizer, complete with the heating since I happened to have a nice metal can of a muffler on the engine as a heat source.

I spent about a year on it -- and never succeeded.  It simply never ran unless I used more fuel flow than the old-fashioned, 1960s-ish design.  But.... but..... but.... I was promised, according to all these articles.

It was all bull****.

You see, the laws of thermodynamics are not a set of suggestions.  The hotter air is the less-dense it is.  The less dense, the fewer oxygen molecules per unit of space.  The piston moves downward, opening space and admitting air.  There's only so much room by volume.  The more oxygen, the more fuel you can burn.

But it gets worse; the efficiency of an engine is defined by the difference between the temperature of combustion and that of exhaust.  That's all there is to start with, and from there you must subtract losses which are inevitable and every time you convert energy from one form to another you accumulate those.

There are no exceptions.

What I was to learn later is that there's no such thing as a free lunch, there's no way to even break even, and there's no way to avoid playing the game.  While it was certainly possible to get better fuel economy than we had at the time, and we have, it was impossible to get ten times the economy because when you take the two temperatures in Kelvin (combustion and exhaust) and then use that as a ratio on the BTUs in the fuel you can't get there from here; the alleged "benefit" is in fact more than 100% efficient, which is a free lunch and is impossible.

Yet this line of garbage was published in multiple alleged scientific-literate places.  I didn't know at the time that they were full of crap.  I first thought I was just not smart enough to figure out how to make it work, which of course led to me to believe that the claim that the oil companies had "suppressed" the technology was real.  Those evil bastards were screwing us all, was the story line, and it was a good one.

What I learned later was that it was bull****, top to bottom, and I'd been had.

I was not happy to make this discovery, but it has informed my thought process and willingness to believe what is claimed by so-called "experts" and "knowledgeable people" since.

So if you wonder why I've spent the last year and change reading scientific papers and ignoring things that are obvious bull**** when I have several decades of physics, more books and magazines than I can count and a decent fundamental knowledge of chemistry, biology, physics, thermodynamics and of course data analysis behind me -- well, that's why.

You see if you're paying attention to what goes on around you and what's claimed you will notice all manner of things that make no sense.  Like, for example, why would you engineer a vaccine that produces several times the antibodies in a human that are provided by a natural infection.  That makes no sense.  If one 325mg Aspirin produces headache relief you don't take three, five or ten of them at once for grins and giggles!  It should be obvious that if there is a risk of bad side effects from one, and there always is with any drug, that the risk from three is higher.  How much higher I'm not sure, but that it's higher is a certainty.  I do remind you that during the 1918 Pandemic people poisoned themselves this way; "some is good, more is better" -- with Aspirin!  Nope.

When you see something that appears to make no sense there is an explanation.  It may be nothing more complicated than stupidity, but among those who claim to be skilled in a given art or science this is rare.  If its true then you are truly dealing with idiots, as is the case with so many "coders" today; the reason they insist on Internet access at their desks is that they can't actually code at all; they look up whatever they need on stackoverflow, find something plausible and then copy it, often without understanding how it works!  Yes, companies are dumb enough to pay such people.

That which contradicts physics is never true.  The day it is is the day we've discovered warp drive for real; we have a real-life, no-bull**** Zefram Cochrane in our midst, a greater mind than Einstein, Bell and Edison combined -- by far.  Until that day arrives and is proved this is fiction and anyone who so-claims is lying

I have spent the last 15 years as an independent journalist.  I won the Reed Irvine Accuracy In Media award for my coverage of the meltdown of 2007/08; I simply followed the basics of mathematics and, when I found companies that were claiming the impossible I called bull**** on it repeatedly and loudly.  For this, and after multiple appearances on the major national networks, I earned a blackball from all the major media; it's not acceptable to attack someone who is on their knees praying before Zod -- when Zod is paying the advertising bills.  Since I considered the truth more important than being invited on various TeeVee shows I'm no longer welcome.  So be it.

I understand how many various public "faces" have a road to travel, like it or not, with guardrails on both sides.  They're "cute" from a standpoint of whatever the audience and advertisers want.  But they won't touch some of the biggest scams and frauds facing us today, even the ones that might kill you, because someone is writing a check to their "outlet" and they simply cannot******those people off.

Don't ever believe, however, that the problems we face today with incurious so-called "journalists" and such are new.  They're not.  10 minutes with a professor or even myself, ten years later after I'd had a couple of years of physics, before those magazines published the articles on that 100mpg carburetor would have made clear, with facts and math, that the article they were about to run was pure bull****.

They never asked, they never checked, and they ran it anyway some 40-odd years ago.

That hasn't changed a bit.

Go to responses (registration required to post)
 

 
Comments.......
User: Not logged on
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Showing Page 1 of 3  First123Last
User Info Who Remembers The Biggest Scam? in forum [Market-Ticker]
Vernonb
Posts: 2578
Incept: 2009-06-03

East of Sheol
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I find it amazing how many parallels you and I have in our lives Karl. I too was a voracious reader from the moment I was taught to read. I consumed anything I could with sciences and science fiction. I was lucky in that my dad could provide a lot of real world expertise when it cam to the mechanical aspects of machines.

Yeah it was all bull****. I never quite believed any of it especially since waste heat loss from the IC engine represents a major energy loss issue. Find a way to get that "waste heat" to do work and one might be on their way to actually making a real efficiency improvement in the IC engine. Instead we rely on water/air circulation to exhaust that wasted energy to get some improvement in the Carnot cycle by transferring it into the external environment as a heat sink.

We had cold fusion. All we need know is "cool combustion."

But scams change and evolve. Not long ago people were again touting new bull**** as H-H-O or Brown's gas being evolved into the fuel intake system by a hydrolysis process. This supposedly increased MPG. It is freaking water vapor, some hydrogen gas, and some oxygen. They spend so much time on esoteric bull**** to hide the lack of science.

Now with all that water present it "might" improve the octane rating to stop premature detonation but even that is a big dang "IF". I've seen knock suppressors that use ethanol, methanol, and/or water and a system lubricant - especially for older turbocharged vehicles.

I had a floor tiler that told me he had done it and it actually worked. I never called him back for other tile jobs because he was a either damned liar or a total fool and perhaps both. Guy refused to listen to any real science. He "knew" it worked. I don't like dealing with delusional people. I told him he should bring it to me and we could make a fortune. He never did-lol.


Jeez these people with all their blind faith to "all caring" Zod because it is all about feelings these days. And when Zod cockslaps them upside the face the response is "please Zod may I have other?" America has become a nation of (insert explicative) masochists.



----------
"Mass intelligence does not mean intelligent masses."
Step55
Posts: 134
Incept: 2009-02-27

Connecticut - Massachusetts
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
There is a general rule regarding the BTU value of gasoline. One gallon of gas will provide 10 horse power over an hour. 2 gallons, 20 horse power. If a small car uses the 2 gallons to travel 60 miles per hour, It delivers 30 MPG. Most vehicles use 1/2 the BTUs to push the wind aside, the rest is mechanical friction and heat loss. Unless the vehicle weighs 2/3 less and the frontal area is 1/3 of usual, 100 mpg is impossible.

Fuel mileage has increased over the years as airflow and turbulence have been reduced along with computer fuel air mixing and injection of a spray of gas at high pressure but there is no magic way to triple mileage.
Spanky
Posts: 89
Incept: 2011-03-22

United States
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
In late stages of a mania, nothing is real and large percentages of the population are running scams or falling for them in their attempt to get rich quickly.
Whitehat
Posts: 4991
Incept: 2017-06-27

Elsewhere
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
and lack of common sense and basic science understanding has allowed car manufacturers to market small displacement turbo charged engines that "fool" the EPA fuel economy tests. Use them in the real world with very moderate driving and the economy sucks. People are too ignorant to notice how they are being screwed, twice actually, if they "purchase" them as opposed to leasing. These engines have **** for longevity with many expensive repairs along the way.

People find it weird that my eight cylinder, heavy car gets better mileage in local town driving. It is easier for this engine to make the power to accelerate, and it has more internal rotational inertia.

A normal four cylinder before the above stupid was great on the highway with overdrive gears and could be useful locally when it had enough torque without a turbo.

But then again most people around here lease for three years. It is why so much automotive bull**** including battery cars can be pushed. Bad monetary policy affecting consumer behavior. See, stupidity fixes stupidity. smiley

----------
smiley

"Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven," Satan's monologue in the first book of John Milton's Paradise Lost
Tdurden
Posts: 1102
Incept: 2015-01-29

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I tangentially had my brush with vaporware/pseudo-science when I was a kid in the early 1970's. Back then there was a guy named Stanley Meyer who lived around the then farm town where I grew up. At one point, my father bought an old Willy's jeep from him. Some years later, it turns out this was one of the guys who went on to claim he built a car that "runs on water" (hydrogen, actually, thru some hydrolysis slight of hand or some other claptrap) and gained some internet notoriety for it. And no...the jeep didn't run on water...in ran on leaded gasoline like everything else in the early 70's.

----------
"I'd like to live just long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next 10 generations that some favors come with too high of a price." -Vir Cotto Babylon 5
Scottj175
Posts: 235
Incept: 2010-09-06

Vandiver, AL
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
as is the case with so many "coders" today; the reason they insist on Internet access at their desks is that they can't actually code at all; they look up whatever they need on stackoverflow, find something plausible and then copy it, often without understanding how it works! Yes, companies are dumb enough to pay such people.


I felt this HARD. I've been a coder since 1996. In my last two quarters at Auburn I was paid by the MIS department to tutor COBOL students. The course was used to teach logic and as a weed out for those not cut out.

I developed the view then that good coders are born rather than taught and nothing in the ensuing 25 years has changed that view.

Had two frustrating moments over the past month that made me thing of those old days as a tutor. One was a co-worker saying that he was getting an error out of some custom API code I've been the SME on for years. 10 minutes running the application in debug mode with a couple of breakpoints proved said custom code was running fine and the error was coming from code that processed the output of this long running API. Co-worker had been looking in the wrong place for days? I was flabbergasted that someone alleged to be "good" at coding couldn't be bothered to do the debugging we did over screen share.

The other incident involved the same code and an alleged expert supplied by the vendor for the out of box portions of our application. New vendor functionality from said vendor is being brought online and there was a datatype error being thrown. Said expert kept trying to "help" us find where in the custom code the error was happening. No matter how I explained it he couldn't understand that the custom code was running fine but something in the new OOB code was choking on the datatype and also didn't grasp that simply changing the datatype the custom code was handing back probably wasn't wise because the rest of the extensive OOB codebase had been running fine with said datatype since 2012. I had to wonder if flowcharting is even taught any more.
Tickerguy
Posts: 174197
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Yep - COBOL is a pain in the ass but if you cannot actually manage to understand logic it's going to go right in one ear and out the other, and none of it will stick. RPG is another language I learned (and could probably re-learn rather quickly) which again, if you can't do logic you're ****ed.

----------
I don't give a flying **** if you're offended.
Scottj175
Posts: 235
Incept: 2010-09-06

Vandiver, AL
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I haven't touched COBOL since those those college days but I keep in the back of my mind refreshing the knowledge and doing contract work if I ever get too fed up with the Stackoverflow monkeys in the VB and C# world.
Tickerguy
Posts: 174197
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
If you can actually code in COBOL there are still places that use it, and there aren't very many people who can code it.

That imbalance is, well, to your advantage.

----------
I don't give a flying **** if you're offended.
Scottj175
Posts: 235
Incept: 2010-09-06

Vandiver, AL
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Also since the subject here is also car efficiency stuff I'll confess to something silly I did last year:

Bought a super low mileage 2009 RX-8 because I've always been curious about rotary engines. I know they're stupid inefficient but it makes cool noises and is a hoot to drive.
Whitehat
Posts: 4991
Incept: 2017-06-27

Elsewhere
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
during my first retirement fun job which did not involve anything using a computer other than the employee schedule word file i got friendly with a member who worked for Verizon. He was in IT working the backend of customer service. He was trying to grok why people were doing online shopping and contract upgrades all night when he wanted to take the system down. Normal people from other countries get shocked by this kind of stuff here. Nice guy, showed him some of my COBOL hobby work when we were speaking about older languages. He worked in this language and some others. He called a supervisor who called a manager who asked me if i wanted a job that day.

i just find the language amusing and for some strange reason stimulating. Thinking of setting up a COBOL box when i move and getting good enough to do contract work and debugging.

discovered it by accident needing another elective.

In college it was taught like **** as were many things there, so i did not bother to attend class and self-learnt. Paid a fellow student to tell me when there was an assignment or test to be done. The computer guys looked at the COBOL people as some sort of lesser to be scorned. For some reason the opinion of disgusting, socially inept, bereft of common sense, fat slobs who did not bathe much did not matter to me, nor did that of the feminazis, former insurance actuary attempting to teach a course in something she never did as a profession.

----------
smiley

"Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven," Satan's monologue in the first book of John Milton's Paradise Lost
Kokobeware
Posts: 95
Incept: 2010-05-04

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
APL .. now that's a fun programming language.
Bluebird
Posts: 2152
Incept: 2008-05-02

SW Ohio
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
old coder of SabreTalk/TPF and PL/1, also a wee bit of Assembler.

Those old Assembler coders knew absolutely every bit and byte, and disliked any of the modern languages.

My Assembler instructor in college was Struble. He was the nephew who wrote the book.

Reason: wording
Peterm99
Posts: 8298
Incept: 2009-03-21

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Great Ticker, Karl.

What should be common knowledge but clearly isn't is that of those who invent the fallacious BS, of those who pick it up and promulgate it via the press and other media, of those people/entities who obtain and those who dole out grant money to pursue it, of the politicians advocating for and the bureaucrats working in gov't "environmental" agencies who, completely oblivious of the Pareto principle and law of diminishing returns, continue to impose huge costs on society, etc., etc., etc., only a minuscule and ignorable fraction pay any price for hopping onto the BS bandwagon.

For all practical purposes, no "journalists", or members of the "education" establishment, or gov't employees lose their jobs or "prestige" for their direct or indirect involvement, and very, very few of those trying to make money scamming the public ever get punished. In fact, many enrich themselves and/or make careers out of this and other not much different follow-on scams, one of the more notable of which is, IMO, the addition of methanol to gasoline from which large and profitable business and political empires have been built.

The takeaways should be that 1.) yes, there are always scams and scammers, 2.) the general public is easily duped, 3.) even allegedly "reputable" people/entities are frequently involved in one way or another, and 4.) gov't is at best nearly useless and at worst directly involved and hugely counterproductive whenever such scams occur.

----------
". . . the Constitution has died, the economy welters in irreversible decline, we have perpetual war, all power lies in the hands of the executive, the police are supreme, and a surveillance beyond Orwells imaginings falls into place." - Fred Reed
Cobra2411
Posts: 13253
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Philly P.a.
Online
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I remember Smokey's Hot Vapor engine! Somewhere I have the Hot Rod Magazine that featured it. From what I remember it include a turbo as part of the package and it's likely the improvements in economy and power were due to extracting waste heat energy and turning it into usable work. We were coming out of the dark ages so to speak where engineers were starting to understand combustion science. Also, wet airflow separation was always an issue and being free of that allowed you to make a more efficient dry manifold. Vapor solved that but so did port fuel injection.

Smokey was a unique guy. He loved getting away with things and playing in the grey areas of life. On the track the rules didn't dictate where the exhaust was routed so he sent it out back to overheat any car that tried to draft him. There was no rule about the size of the fuel line to the engine so he used the roll cage tubing to carry an extra gallon or two. That was discovered when he failed tech and drove away with what should have been an empty tank of gas...

The car is real and it was an improvement over what was available but it was also completely impractical. Although I don't know if it was ever marketed as a 100mpg carb. It was a 50mpg Fiero which isn't that out of line. 80's cars where light as **** and with good efficient combustion and a light foot I bet it's real as can be. But not practical... EFI solved the problem and cars porked up like the average American...

However true or false it is everyone wants it to be real. The idea that some mysterious force is suppressing something magical that they shut off that part of their brain that says it simply won't work. I think that's where we're at now - it's not that people are stupid per se, but they want it to be real and they talk themselves into ignoring the obvious.

Maybe I watched too many Myth Buster episodes but I like the concept of "plausible". I have three categories things go into - Bull****, fact and plausible. If I can't disprove it and it seems like it might be possible but it's not proven fact then it gets labeled "plausible." But anything labeled "Plausible" can be later disproven... It's easier to find that one gotcha that moves something from plausible to bull**** than it is to prove fact IMO.

But hey, it makes for great ratings. Just like "reality" TV...

----------
Nature: A place where birds fly around uncooked...
Peterm99
Posts: 8298
Incept: 2009-03-21

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Scottj175 wrote..
I had to wonder if flowcharting is even taught any more.
For what it's worth, twenty-some years ago, the S/W management bureaucracy convinced the institutional management at a large, very prominent, high-tech, quasi-gov't entity to ban the use of flowcharts in the S/W development process and to demote and/or to silence anyone who insisted that flowcharting was worthwhile.

Don't know (and don't care since I retired) if that's still in effect, but the institution is still chugging along as ever, still doing marvelous things.

----------
". . . the Constitution has died, the economy welters in irreversible decline, we have perpetual war, all power lies in the hands of the executive, the police are supreme, and a surveillance beyond Orwells imaginings falls into place." - Fred Reed
Vernonb
Posts: 2578
Incept: 2009-06-03

East of Sheol
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Whitehat said:

Quote:
People find it weird that my eight cylinder, heavy car gets better mileage in local town driving. It is easier for this engine to make the power to accelerate, and it has more internal rotational inertia.

A normal four cylinder before the above stupid was great on the highway with overdrive gears and could be useful locally when it had enough torque without a turbo.


I remember when engines actually relied on high rotational inertia from heavy flywheels to keep moving. A little slow to start but when running they chugged along quite well. You then only needed enough energy to keep the flywheel moving at the desired RPM depending on the load.

Remember the older Lister Diesel engines? Of course the EPA banned their import last time I checked. Great for farm work. I think the general rule was 2 HP for evey Kilowatt of electric power needed from the generator. These things easily burned waste vegetable oil once everything was heated.

It does not surprise me you are getting better gas mileage than some turbocharged vehicles of equivalent or less mass.

Turbocharged engines not at idle pump in more fuel and in turn the turbochargers pump in more air on top of into the confined combustion space.

All that "engineering" means more heat into a smaller and more confined displacement. You need more RPM to generate "equivalent" torque. If the car is sitting idle or not needing the turbo gas mileage is fine. Need that engine to do real work then watch the rapid drop in fuel economy. It's a shell game.

With smaller engine displacement surface area for cooling is also affected. You can only pump so much volume of coolant through an engine at a certain pressure before the gaskets leak. Then you'd better have a radiator capable of displacing that heat quickly.

All things being equal that larger engine produced higher torque at lower RPM and displaces heat more efefctively to the environment due to the increased surface area. Plus that "atmospheric combustion" engine should never get as hot as a turbocharged one for an equivalent load.

From a mechanical stress point of view the 8 cylinder has larger more robust parts and distributes the forces across 8 cylinders.

All that high RPM needed for HP and torque in these turbocharged engines are not good. The lifetime of an engine is ~centered on the square of the RPM. The higher the RPM the shorter the life. A 2500 RPM engine should have ~7.84 times the life of an engine needing 7000 RPM to do the same work.

Better fuel economy or a more devious way to plan vehicle/engine obsolesence? I see too much of the latter.

----------
"Mass intelligence does not mean intelligent masses."
Punch_rockgroin
Posts: 3047
Incept: 2008-12-31

Pacific NW USA
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
https://www.legendarycollectorcars.com/f....

The car itself exists and is in running condition. Should be a simple matter to instrument it and prove the claims. Otherwise, bull****.

----------
I want to see teeth flying as someone is beaten with a cast iron dildo hidden in a sock.
Abelardlindsey
Posts: 219
Incept: 2021-03-26

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Your typical roomy sedan today, like my Altima, gets around 30-32 mpg, which is around 3-4 times the fuel efficiency of the early 70's sedans.
Erroldo
Posts: 266
Incept: 2013-09-12

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Amazing Karl! Yes, reading is how we educate ourselves. This is what got me from the poor little boy in Jamaica to be "OK" in USA now. The best part of your story is you dont need the advertisers to pay your bills. As a result the rest of us here on TF gets summary of what is not being discussed in mainstream media, and likely, given a lot of us dont have/take the time to analyze the raw data published in the manner you have the time and acumen to do.
I remember visiting my cousins almost every Sabbath when we were suppose to rest from weekly work. THe place was so silent. Could not even speak too loud. No radio, no TV. They had 3 shelves of books. All I did in that silence was to read what they had on the shelves. Most were written for for teen readers. Biographies of Isaac Newton, ancient world history, Pasteur, Marconi. With else to do on Sabbath, I read and dream how these men of science took simple observations and create laws of physics, chemistry, biology and ahhh: MATHS. I lived sometimes in fantasy of how some day I will invent something and be a scientist too. Math and Chem became my favorite. Did'nt land on the moon, but did not fall back in trench from which I ascended. Landed on an ant hill, to what opps US offered for self realization. It feels so good just to write this and reflect back on that journey...
Marc2mrkt
Posts: 1206
Incept: 2008-04-12

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Voxday has this article featured today: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2021/05/they-....

Tickerguy
Posts: 174197
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@Abelardlindsey - Your typical "roomy sedan" of today is a puny, weightless thing with wildly better aerodynamics and is TINY compared to what used to be called a "roomy sedan."

Let's look.

Olds Delta 88, the definition of a "full size" car in those days. I'll take the one I'm rather familiar with as a friend had one when I was in my teens and he had a license. We called it the Green Monster. It WAS a monster; 124" wheelbase and ~226" (nearly NINETEEN FEET!) in length. 4,500lbs curb weight. It was the size of a small apartment inside with a HUGE trunk and had the aerodynamic profile of a TANK. It was entirely possible for TWO couples to **** in that car at once; one in the front and one in the back on the bench seats without engaging in contortions.

Your Altima is shorter (by more than two feet), has a shorter wheelbase (by a foot or so), has a curb weight half-a-ton less (1,000lbs). Those are big differences. But even larger is the Cd; the Delta 88 has an estimated Cd (nobody cared back then) of 0.48, which is slightly better than a brick. Your Altima is 0.26 if yours has the shutters, or a couple ticks higher without them. That's INSANELY more-slippery in the air, which is where most of the improvement comes from. The rest, in the city anyway, comes from the wildly lower mass which means less fuel to accelerate it. And if just ONE couple can **** in THAT car without engaging in contortions you're both midgets.

On an engine efficiency difference yes, it's real. The Altima has half the cylinders, so half the drag from pistons in holes going up and down. It also has the benefit of tighter tolerances which means lighter-weight oil and, again, less drag. It has WILDLY less slippage than any of the old-style automatics w/o lockup torque converters, all of which of course is wasted energy. And finally, it has a computer, which means at all but heavy load it can and does pin the mixture right at 14.7:1, where the Olds is probably running about 12:1 to avoid detonation and that's just throwing 10% or so of the fuel out the ass end of the car -- and since there's no feedback you have to guess and you do not want to guess lean because being lean means burning pistons and valves even if you don't get detonation, so you don't set it up like that.

Indeed with a modern vehicle they run so close to idea fuel/air mixtures that once the oxygen sensor(s) light off and the ECU can run it closed-loop it's very hard (but not impossible) to poison yourself intentionally by breathing the exhaust as there simply is almost NO CO in there.

I had a Skylark with a piece-of-**** 231ci V6 in it with the most-****ty Rochester 2bbl carb you can imagine, but it had roughly the same length, wheelbase, interior volume and curb weight as your Altima; without computer control it would get 18-20mpg on the highway provided you didn't stomp it, which I regularly did. Then again "stomp" was relative; it didn't have much in the way of power. Yes, the 30ish is better but you have a CVT in there .vs. my 3 speed slushbox with no lockup converter and I've got an old carb and again, am running an intentionally-rich mixture because I had to. And the aero on the Skylark was pretty much a brick too (estimated Cd 0.5!)

----------
I don't give a flying **** if you're offended.

Redjack
Posts: 566
Incept: 2018-01-29

Iowa
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Most "scientists" do NOT believe in the Three Laws of Thermodynamics.

More than one highly educated PhD has told me "That is outdated!" When I ask for proof, and believe me if someone disproved the Big 3 of T I would hear about it, they would point to some math equation or model. Or maybe say how constrictive and horrible a person I am.

See, like TG stated, those mythical carburetors fascinated me. The new scam is magnetizing the fuel flow yielding higher than possible energy out of combustion. Which is BS. Breaking chemical bonds yields a known amount of energy. That is not something you can change.

Oh, and for the MAXIMUM Carnot efficiency, see this link

https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/....

Big three are
1. You can't win (make more energy than you start with)
2. You can't break even (every interaction loses energy)
3. You can't quit (you are in the system. Nothing can remove you from the system).

Biologists, meteorologists, politicians, etc all hate that.
Jw.
Posts: 166
Incept: 2019-10-10

Leaving CA
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Boom!


Mic drop.


The more things change, the more they stay the same.


----------
"Why yes, I am trying to destroy the planet. I want your children to live in the hell they deserve..."
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Showing Page 1 of 3  First123Last