Water 4 Gas

trvlr2 said:
You guys, jsfisher& brian m. , make very compelling points.
Dammitol, no free lunch, again.
Now, how to tell my associate his dad-in-law is a scammer. Or, not. As I stated, I have no dog in this fight.
Click to expand...


Tell your associate the truth. Pull up the patent documents. Show him the claims both from the patent application and the other documents at the web site. Output > Input.
 
trvlr2 said:
You guys, jsfisher& brian m. , make very compelling points.
Dammitol, no free lunch, again.
Now, how to tell my associate his dad-in-law is a scammer. Or, not. As I stated, I have no dog in this fight.
Click to expand...
In all probability he is not deliberately scamming. He probably actually believes that this stuff can work.
 
arthwollipot said:
In all probability he is not deliberately scamming. He probably actually believes that this stuff can work.
Click to expand...

As an overly-complicated electrical generator (which is what it seems to be intended as) it'll probably work. It might be more efficient than a regular generator. Maybe. (Personally, I doubt it, but I don't know anywhere near enough to pass judgment.)
 
Brian-M said:
WTF? While looking up that quote and link, I came across this bull****. :eye-poppi
Click to expand...

OMG! :jaw-dropp They even got their own Wikipedia. This is crazy!!

Brian-M said:
As an overly-complicated electrical generator (which is what it seems to be intended as) it'll probably work. It might be more efficient than a regular generator. Maybe. (Personally, I doubt it, but I don't know anywhere near enough to pass judgment.)
Click to expand...
People very commonly get themselves lost on the intrinsic apparatus of the rolling around of the machine.
Of course we can do an analysis of the inner workings of the machine and account what is going on (people tend to make a qualitative judgement and think it may work, when in fact it’s the quantitative calculations that tells it if it does or not), although that is not necessary, we can analyse the machine like a box and what goes in has to go out somewhere at some time (and it doesn’t get out more then what goes in). If what goes out is the same has what goes in plus something else, the by conservation what else gets out has to be nothing.
 
It 'feels' like red cars get better mileage than blue ones, but I can't prove it.

Yet, its a fact that skinny people get better mileage than fat people, especially if their fuel tank is mostly empty.

The big jump will be abandoning steel.
 
quarky said:
, especially if their fuel tank is mostly empty.

.
Click to expand...

That's actually a buddy of mine's fuel saving strategy. He has a pretty significant commute and he only buys enough gas that he figures he needs for the day.

Des it work ?? He seems to think so but he has no comparative data.

The theory's there at least.
 
Stout said:
That's actually a buddy of mine's fuel saving strategy. He has a pretty significant commute and he only buys enough gas that he figures he needs for the day.

Des it work ?? He seems to think so but he has no comparative data.

The theory's there at least.
Click to expand...

A) No.
B) Hell No.
C) What would ever make him think that.
D) Not a theory.
 
nonsense. Lightening the load means less force required to move it.

(Of course, in the real world, it might mean driving further to re-fuel.)
 
Stout said:
That's actually a buddy of mine's fuel saving strategy. He has a pretty significant commute and he only buys enough gas that he figures he needs for the day.

Des it work ?? He seems to think so but he has no comparative data.

The theory's there at least.
Click to expand...
Sure. If he doesn't have to detour for fuel, it probably makes a little difference. If he has to detour even short distance for fuel it almost certainly cancels out (or becomes negative) at today's prices, and the more times he fills up the less the benefit. But "a pint's a pound the world around," which means every gallon of gas weighs about 8 pounds, so you can save some weight by not carrying it, especially if your tank is big. So if his route passes right by a gas station, it might help and couldn't hurt unless he finds himself cutting it so close he runs out of gas on an unforeseen errand. It's a smarter way of reducing weight than some people's recommendation to toss the spare tire.
 
Last edited:
bruto said:
Sure. If he doesn't have to detour for fuel, it probably makes a little difference. If he has to detour even short distance for fuel it almost certainly cancels out (or becomes negative) at today's prices, and the more times he fills up the less the benefit. But "a pint's a pound the world around," which means every gallon of gas weighs about 8 pounds, so you can save some weight by not carrying it, especially if your tank is big. So if his route passes right by a gas station, it might help and couldn't hurt unless he finds himself cutting it so close he runs out of gas on an unforeseen errand. It's a smarter way of reducing weight than some people's recommendation to toss the spare tire.
Click to expand...

No it's not. Not even a pint of water weighs a pound. Gasoline is about 75% of the density, so has 75% of the weight of water, per unit volume.

Pints are a measurement of volume, not weight.
 
Nevertheless, the main point is that with less mass in the car, there will be slightly less rolling resistance, and it will take slightly less energy to accelerate.

Some airlines have taken to doing this in a big way, reducing fuel carried to the point that the ALPA has complained that more than just the legal minimums are necessary for safety.
Induced drag is a much larger component of total drag on an airplane than rolling resistance is of an automobile, but there is still some theoretical advantage to lowering the weight.

I suspect keeping the tires inflated correctly would be a bigger effect, though.
That has the advantage of not wearing out your tires as quickly.
 
GreyICE said:
No it's not. Not even a pint of water weighs a pound. Gasoline is about 75% of the density, so has 75% of the weight of water, per unit volume.

Pints are a measurement of volume, not weight.
Click to expand...
True enough, a gallon of gas is about 6 pounds depending on the time of day, and the old saying is not very accurate, but I think it still makes the point. A 15 gallon tank of gas weighs about 90 pounds, and if you could eliminate that weight over a length of time without any other penalty, you'd probably find a small but measurable gain in economy.
 
bruto said:
Sure. If he doesn't have to detour for fuel, it probably makes a little difference. If he has to detour even short distance for fuel it almost certainly cancels out (or becomes negative) at today's prices, and the more times he fills up the less the benefit. But "a pint's a pound the world around," which means every gallon of gas weighs about 8 pounds, so you can save some weight by not carrying it, especially if your tank is big. So if his route passes right by a gas station, it might help and couldn't hurt unless he finds himself cutting it so close he runs out of gas on an unforeseen errand. It's a smarter way of reducing weight than some people's recommendation to toss the spare tire.
Click to expand...

Luckily, he doesn't have to detour for fuel as his route takes him past several gas stations. He claims he's never run his tank dry but figures there's always the possibility of that happening.

I only mentioned it because upthread we were talking about wanting fuel saving ideas to be effective and although my buddy has no data, he remains convinced that he's saving a few pennies at the pump. I don't know how big his tank is, but he's driving an ancient Suzuki Samurai, which AFAIK, isn't a gas hog ( when compared to say...my Astro van ) I'd probably benefit more form using this technique, but I've told myself that since I only drive that van about 4000 km/yr ( yay for small cities ) that I'm not going to get worked up about the price of fuel.

So, we have reducing weight, a proper tune up, properly inflated tires, conscientious driving habits ....what else ? as being the only *effective* methods of reducing fuel consumption, yet still there's this draw to "the quick fix " the miracle invention that , as far as I can tell, has a certain component of somehow thwarting big oil and their supposed link with big auto combining to lighten your wallet as best they can.

Maybe there's a "chalk one up for the little guy" mentality going on with these devices. After all, since that tailpipe thing, and HHo devices are obviously not OEM...is it too much of a stretch to imagine that a purchaser of these devices is thinking that maybe they're reducing their victimization at the hands of the corporations and by insisting these devices work, are somehow empowering themselves as individuals?
 
Stout said:
So, we have reducing weight, a proper tune up, properly inflated tires, conscientious driving habits ....what else ?
Click to expand...
I understand that installing a sports exhaust+extraction system can improve performance. Although, that does seem a little extreme (and expensive) just to save a tiny amount of fuel in a regular car.
 
jsfisher said:
Another thing in its favor is Science News isn't stupid.
Click to expand...

Yeah I saw this make the rounds on the news sites. In a couple of months we'll see DIY kits where you tape a copper write from your battery to your fuel injector and claiming 20% MPG increase. When people try to debunk it, they'll link to that article and say, "SEE!!! THE TECHNOLOGY IS PROVEN!!!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom