• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Solution to Save Gas

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
It costs roughly $72 to fill my gas tank. While COTA is insufficient in a lot of ways, it's a perfectly legitimate alternative. The buses have racks on the front for bicycles, and unless you live in the sticks, the routes are reasonably convenient. Amuses me when people dismiss it out of hand.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye;867731; said:
Hmmm, maybe it's because this "revolutionary technology" would cut fuel consumption--and thus their bottom line--by billions of gallon a year? Ya think? :roll1:
Click to expand...

The question was, "what exactly does big oil do to keep this revolutionary technology out of the public's hands". Bribery, thuggery, extortion etc etc. I'm not questioning whether or not the technology exists. I also realize who would lose if this caught on. This blaming big oil for everything is pretty comical. My theory is that there aren't 80 MPG cars out there becuase no one would buy them because of the tradeoffs (size and power specifically). Also, do you think a company like Exxon has enough power to keep a company like GM from producing a revolutionary product that would transform the world and make the owners (shareholders) a ton of money in the process? I doubt it.
 
Upvote 0
60-80 MPG Cars
Geo Metro XFI a whopping 49HP - EPA 53/58 MPG - died a slow death, pulled from market in mid 90's

Ford "Ka" - 3 cylinder engine, 60 MPG - still available, though only in Europe.

Ford Fiesta - also only available in Europe had models with mpg ranging anywhere from 40 to 60+ MPG. Was briefly marketed in US - no buyer interest so withdrawn from US market.

Funny thing is, there have been relatively high MPG, small power-plant cars brought to the States. As fourteenandoh suggests, they simply have not sold.

Today, you are more likely to see that 60+ MPG benchmark breached by a correctly engineered hybrid - and if that is what works instead of a poorly sized powerplant for a mid-size to fuller size vehicle, I see nothing wrong at all with the solution.

Sell the 2-stroke 100 MPG engines to China instead.
 
Upvote 0
fourteenandoh;868161; said:
The question was, "what exactly does big oil do to keep this revolutionary technology out of the public's hands". Bribery, thuggery, extortion etc etc. I'm not questioning whether or not the technology exists. I also realize who would lose if this caught on. This blaming big oil for everything is pretty comical. My theory is that there aren't 80 MPG cars out there becuase no one would buy them because of the tradeoffs (size and power specifically).
Click to expand...

Uh, it's called a patent buyout (if he even had a patent on it yet), or they simply paid him an amount he couldn't refuse and then had him sign a non-disclosure document. Paying him $20 million or even $50 million to save billions a year in sales is nothing...and guess what, as a business expense they can write it off. As for the size and power tradeoffs, did you even fathom my post? Seriously. This engine wasn't some fucking Briggs and Stratton lawn mower engine...it was an engine that was light enough for him to carry (he picked it up himself and carried it to a workbench for the camera to get a closer look), and yet put out enough HP to smoke the tires on a small car...and still got cosmic gas milage. IIRC, the displacement was well under 100 cubic inches. Say he increased the size to about 150 cubic inches or so (about 2.5L), which is still well under the average engine displacement for the mid-sized car, to bump up the HP to make the mid-sized car be able to smoke the tires...you'd still get well over 50 MPG while having a high-performance engine.
 
Upvote 0
vrbryant said:
It costs roughly $72 to fill my gas tank. While COTA is insufficient in a lot of ways, it's a perfectly legitimate alternative. The buses have racks on the front for bicycles, and unless you live in the sticks, the routes are reasonably convenient. Amuses me when people dismiss it out of hand.
Click to expand...
its no a reasonable means of transportation for me, i looked into for days i didnt have appointments. 1 hr 48 mins to go what normally takes me 20 mins and 3 bus changes...


it amuses me that people dont realize this isnt an american issue, its based on world demand, we already have some of the cheapest gas prices in the world, most other countries have already dealt with this issue...

on milis stuff i have no idea, but you need a reliable product not just one that gets 90mpgs but only runs for 30k milies.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye;868186; said:
Uh, it's called a patent buyout (if he even had a patent on it yet), or they simply paid him an amount he couldn't refuse and then had him sign a non-disclosure document. Paying him $20 million or even $50 million to save billions a year in sales is nothing...and guess what, as a business expense they can write it off. As for the size and power tradeoffs, did you even fathom my post? Seriously. This engine wasn't some fucking Briggs and Stratton lawn mower engine...it was an engine that was light enough for him to carry (he picked it up himself and carried it to a workbench for the camera to get a closer look), and yet put out enough HP to smoke the tires on a small car...and still got cosmic gas milage. IIRC, the displacement was well under 100 cubic inches. Say he increased the size to about 150 cubic inches or so (about 2.5L), which is still well under the average engine displacement for the mid-sized car, to bump up the HP to make the mid-sized car be able to smoke the tires...you'd still get well over 50 MPG while having a high-performance engine.
Click to expand...

If he sold this patent for 50-100 million dollars he is a fucking retard! Just as a hypothetical, say Exxon (or some other oil company) owns this patent. Wouldn't it show up on thier balance sheet? Oil was worth about 18 bucks a barrel in the mid 90's. This would make the technology in question worth much more today than it was then. An asset like that doesn't just disappear.
 
Upvote 0
Small reality check.

What are the two biggest reasons for falling market share among US automakers?

A - Quality or Reliability.
B - Poor Highway Mileage.

Now handling the first problem would require some major effort. However, if any of the erstwhile Big Three actually had in hand technology for a super-efficient and sufficiently high-powered engine, addressing problem (B) wouldn't say, the last decade have been the time that it came to market?
 
Upvote 0
fourteenandoh;867557; said:
there is no such thing as "our gas"
Click to expand...
Bull. Forty-five minutes after my Taco Bell meal, exactly whose gas is it, pal? I think it is all mine.

With respect to the magical 150-mpg engines, I wish Snopes.com would get to work on that particular urban legend. Not a realistic goal in any practical auto, and GM and Ford have FA to do with it.
 
Upvote 0
Sugar made into fuel

Scientists manage to turn sugar into fuel
By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 21/06/2007

A way of turning simple plant sugar into a fuel as powerful as petrol has been discovered by scientists.

Researchers in the United States have developed a way of converting fructose, the sugar that gives apples and oranges their sweet taste, into a fuel that can be burned to generate energy.

For years, chemists have been searching for a way to sidestep the use of crude oil as the root source of chemicals for fuels, aiming to replace it with inexpensive, non-polluting plant matter that is more environmentally friendly.

Now a team of American researchers has discovered a process for turning fructose into 2,5-dimethylfuran (DMF), a liquid fuel which packs in as much energy as petrol - and 40 per cent more than ethanol.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
HabaneroBuck;867852; said:
Ban NASCAR, IndyCar, F1, Kil-Kare, Motocross, etc. from using petroleum. All auto racing could convert to alcohol or some other source. Those racers act all patriotic and everything, they should be right on board with freeing the US from oil dependence.

Actually, now that I think about it, just ban racing. It's a pretty stupid "sport". Wow, my car averaged 157.657, and yours just averaged 157.459. I mean, WOW.
Click to expand...


no need to ban nascar, just change it from cars racing around a track to dumping a bag of skittles in the toilet and flushing it. Its about the same anyway isnt it?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top