Keith Tanner, this is just screaming out to you

kb58 wrote: Ugh, I smell a rat... Reminds me of Shelby's electric supercar, the one that claims to be charged in about 10 minutes, goes 200 mph+, 0-60 in about 3 seconds, and gets the equivalent of something like 200 mpg... All at the same time? uh huh.

This might not be too far off, actually. Somebody developed, about a year ago, fast-charge Lithium batteries. These were really only designed for small applications (cell phones, for example) but they could be charged to 95% of their capacity in just a few minutes.

The reason they aren't going on a large scale (that I know of) is that the amount of electricity needed to charge a battery big enough to power a car would just be silly and the cable required would be gigantic.

If this guy was serious about trying to develop a stupidly-efficient engine like this, he would have put it in a Prius. His numbers would then be able to jump to somewhere in the neighborhood of 170 MPG or better.

Of course, he'd look silly driving around in a 400 HP Prius.

confuZion3 wrote: The reason they aren't going on a large scale (that I know of) is that the amount of electricity needed to charge a battery big enough to power a car would just be silly and the cable required would be gigantic.

Which is another reason why I pull the BS flag. If you work through the math, to move that much energy in that amount of time would cause blackouts for blocks... "theoretically possible" doesn't cut it.

As I recall, the big demo for the car was/is supposed to happen at California Speedway, in a state that's already on the edge of not having enough electricity... now lets all start buying electric cars.... but I digress.

I'm actually all for electric cars, but the Marketting BS gets me really ticked off. A whole lot of partial truths strung together into what are complete lies.

Keith wrote: But you need lots of it, it has a lower energy density than gasoline.

Bingo! It's the same reason we have an equivalency ratio of 1.40:1 for E85 vs 93 or 100 octane in Formula SAE fuel economy calculations. I don't believe the claims for a second.

Fuel efficiency is only partially in the engine. It is as much, or more (probably more), in the transmission and AERODYNAMICS.

The Aptera can do 100 mpg+ with the drag coefficient of a windshield wiper. This is a mustang with the drag coefficient of a streamer-wrapped brick.

know these guys I talk to them all the time on the internet and I believe everything I read on the internet.

Their secret is directly injecting Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) at a very high ratio. DHMO is very dangerous so it will be hard to convince people to carry it around in the car!

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

I love the EPA page. Lots of scanned documents that have nothing to do with a mileage test and then their chart, with no certifications or anything. It makes me laugh. If they had something real and wanted a real test, they could visit just about any university in the US, give them a few thousand dollars, and have a complete, unbiased, and independent test.

Nice try.

littleturquoiseb wrote: know these guys I talk to them all the time on the internet and I believe everything I read on the internet. Their secret is directly injecting Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) at a very high ratio. DHMO is very dangerous so it will be hard to convince people to carry it around in the car! http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

LMAO

This guy accosted me at SEMA this year. I was tempted to try and grab some under car shots. I've been following this "breath through" for a while and it doesn't add up. Their dropping out of the X-Prize didn't help any.

The only thing he mentioned to me was using a multi displacement cylinder deactivation system. Something about the valve train. He swore that at the Detroit Auto Show they were going to finally reveal the secret. Umm, yeah.

Im pretty sure the whole thing is BS, but even if not, whether or not its due to patent issues, the secrecy and threatening (the incident mentioned on the corner carvers board, etc) has done a pretty good job of ruining the companies reputation on the internet. I think for most people, unless they see something in person, they arent going to believe it even if somehow they did manage to do what they say they did.

Travis_K wrote: ...I think for most people, unless they see something in person, they arent going to believe it even if somehow they did manage to do what they say they did.

I went to their site wondering what was going on, and left with the strong feeling it's all BS. What they "showed me" was a bunch of letters that mean nothing. They're using any and every prop they can find to appear real... why? Why the smoke and mirrors... unless it really is just smoke. If it's as said above, that the claims are real, but only because they're using an additive that's either expensive, dangererous, or poisonous, well, that would pretty much kill the chances of commercial success.

kb58 wrote:

wbjones wrote: the E85 claims might not be so far off... at least as far as hp is concerned. the Suby people have been experimenting with it for some time now with claims of huge hp gains...

Right, and what mileage do they get? The problem is the mileage claims, not the power. I know ethynol is way up there in octane, essentially race gas, so it's easy to crank the boost way up - the power's a no-brainer.

"... as to the mpg claims.... SCAMSCAMSCAMSCAM... can't have both"

from my earlier post ...