Hybrids are a Problem Rather Than a Solution

Gun-engine has been invented and developed and tests proved that:

1. torque two orders higher than that of diesel consuming the same fuel;
2. Torque equally high during whole range of speeds;
3. runs on any liquid or gaseous fuels having zero toxic emissions;
4. is inexpensive to produce;
   
5. it is internally cooled exclusively by superior heat to work conversion;
6. has less stress on parts as max pressure is replicated over work piston when crank is horizontal;
7. consumes only 5% of fuel consumed by diesel engine;
8. Geo-Metro car in which original power train has been replaced with gun-engine directly clutched to wheels boosted mileage from original to 450 mpg.

Could any hybrid compete with that?

Could any hybrid compete with that?

Yes, of course. Simply compare the number of hybrids sold to the number of cars sold with "gun" engines. Hybrids are winning.

I gather you are unfamiliar with the notion of plausibility. Consider your claim #7. Diesels are 35-40% efficient. If your engine actually consumed 1/20 the fuel consumed by a diesel, then your engine would be 700% - 800% efficient. If you think that is plausible, you've been hanging around Peswiki too much.

Some of these claims go well beyond implausible into clearly impossible territory. This sort of presentation is not a good fit for CR4. (Even it it were a good fit for CR4, sales pitches like these belong in the commercial section rather than in the automotive.) It looks like you've already contacted Peswiki, Rex Research, and some other supporters of pseudoscience. Apparently, that has not worked, so perhaps you should go directly to VC firms. They often appear to have no common sense and negligible technical knowledge, so they may fall for your idea.

I certainly wish you luck with this, but until independent testing and verification of a prototype is published, you are posting in the wrong place. Getting your Geo tested by Popular Mechanics might be a good place to start. If you can come up with something believable enough to gain their interest, they will fly a reporter in, produce artwork, etc.

Sorry I can't be of more help, other than to say that posting on CR4 is counterproductive for imagined over-unity machines. Working with a university to gain some credibility might be a thought. I'm afraid this will have to be my last post on the subject, but perhaps others can offer advice.

tests proved that:

Can you please provide a url for DOT, DOE, Major University or recognized research facility such as South West Research Institute in San Antonio for documentation? Can you provide the protocols used in the testing, such as ASTM or SAE?

People forget that there is already a transportation industry that has maximized the efficiency of their propulsion system to move overland freight, the railroad. Railroad freight has for decades utilized hybrid diesel electric locomotive engines. Being able to recover as much as practical mechanical power back into stored battery or ultracapacitor power instead of just dumping the power into the resistors of dynamic brakes has saved a vast amount of fuel. Along with reusing dynamic brake energy, these engines get to constantly run the diesel engine in the most efficient part of its power/torque curve. An additional advantage to this system is that there is no clutch between engine and drive wheel, just substantial switches.

So instead of enormous engines capable of moving more than a mile of freight cars, we are now trying to downsize this approach to the personal vehicles that will hold a family.

Now as far as the gun engine and its potential future use, I'm all for any new technology that can actually improve efficiencies in converting chemical energy to mechanical energy. By requiring to vaporize the fuel prior to ignition, I do wonder about measurement methods to calculate the efficiencies. Was the amount of heat required for vaporization included in the measurements? Certainly one can obviate this heat requirement by using a flammable gas like acetylene, but surely one STP liter of acetylene will not have anywhere near the same amount of energy as one liter of gasoline, diesel or other liquid fuel. We should also remember that nobody has exceeded the efficiencies of the Carnot cycle. A Rankine cycle steam turbine engine does get very close but is so far only practical with large power production of some electric power generation facilities.

Any propulsion engine design application can benefit from a hybrid approach. Losing all mechanical energy to only the heating of brakes will always be a waste of energy. By definition.

There appears to be a previous thread on the Gun Engine ... in which the inventor of the engine has participated..

"You should have no problem with understanding this approach if you know basics of physics!"

"Unfortunately I cannot spare time to explain details but if you go Google you might find more!"

Stan

These two sentences sum up ...at least for me ... the gun engine.... I suspect that it may run very well on snake oil.


http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/44693/Efficient-and-not-polluting-gun-engine-technology

More info here.

http://www.rexresearch.com/holubowicz/holubowicz.htm

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/44693/Efficient-and-not-polluting-gun-engine-technology

detonation of vaporised fuel oh like a diesel then hahahahahaha

"You should have no problem with understanding this approach if you know basics of physics!"

It is ironic (as with so many things that show up on Keelynet, Peswiki, Rex Research, etc.) that a basic understanding of physics tells you that this engine does not work as claimed. Most modern car engines are over 30% efficient, (with the Prius engine being 38% efficient, and the VW TDI just over 40%) but even if we accept the inventors claim of only 20%, a ten-fold increase would suggest 200% efficiency. Even the most basic understanding of physics tells you that this is ludicrous -- yet another "over-unity" device.

Inventor says that he can develop a six passenger vehicle with mileage above 450 mpg and adds "People complain on pollution and high gasoline prices, but nobody wants to invest money into my gun-engine technology.

Clearly this is what the world needs, but investors won't invest. Why? Two possibilities come to mind.

1. Technology Suppression:

Six passenger vehicles currently get about 20 mpg. Improving this figure by over twenty fold would seem to be just what our world needs... but just what Big Oil does not want. So why is this technology being suppressed? Is the inventor part of a conspiracy to suppress the technology by making ludicrous claims to undermine the idea and to make potential investors laugh? Has the inventor been paid off by the Big Oil companies? This may be the most logical explanation for why this idea has gone on for so long without funding.

But there is another possibility.

Not Silly Enough:

Maybe the inventor is not going far enough with implausibilities -- if you look long enough through the patent application, you can find a few things that are tinged with a grain of truth. This could be a problem.

Consider the EEstor. Interestingly, the EEstor is an invention that (if only it worked, which it has never been demonstrated to do in its many years of "development") screams "safety hazard". A super capacitor charged to 3500 volts with enough energy capacity to blow up a city block would require many prototypes to be tested. Also, the basic concept is questionable to dissmissable -- rational people say, "Gee, this seems unlikely to work as advertised: there is nothing in the patent application that adequately explains why this super-capacitor should be about 100 times better than the existing ones." Yet despite these screamingly obvious issues, the inventor has long claimed that they will go straight to production without first building any prototype. Thus, there would be no need to demonstrate that the technology works before roping in investors. What could be better for the inventor: $millions in investment, without there being any requirement that the thing works at all.

To many people, this would seem impossibly ludicrous (who would invest in such an idea?) but to Kleiner Perkins, one of the largest VC firms in the world, this seemed just fine -- being located in Silicon Valley, perhaps the capacitors with which they were familiar were the ones built into integrated circuits, and they said, "Hey, how could one of those fly-speck-sized things hurt anyone??" So they invested in EEstor, as have the investors in Zenn cars, indirectly. Years later, the concept has not been demonstrated to work. But no one is in jail. So the scheme worked: Make the story SO ludicrous that people are afraid to ask reasonable questions, for fear of appearing unable to understand the concept.

So, getting back to the current invention... the inventor seems to be employing a similar technique, when he says "You should have no problem with understanding this approach if you know basics of physics!" There are, in fact, numerous "problems" with the concept from the physics standpoint, (as there were with EEstor). Maybe though, there are not quite enough ludicrous assertions to attract Kleiner Perkins types.

How about adding in HHO to the mix. This could be the engine that enables the 1000 mpg potential of HHO to come into fruition. HHO is a technology that has never been demonstrated to work (as an engine efficiency improver), and has completely unsupportable pseudophysics/pseudochemistry behind it. So it could be the thing that sends the current invention right over the top in terms of ridiculousness -- thus making it a good candidate for VC investment.

The EEstor idea of going into production with no prototype is so ludicrous that it worked to get investment. Maybe the current inventor just needs to be even crazier to garner the big bucks. My suggestion would be to promote this, with HHO unit attached, as a 2000hp, 5000 mpg engine: better-than-Bugatti-Veyron performance with the economy of a bicycle. That's a selling proposition that is simple and direct enough to appeal to VC types.

Are you saying that torque in diesel is ideal so one cannot find mechanical advantage that is better than in diesel?

No.

There is a more obvious solution to the fuel usage problem then tossing loads of money and wishful thinking. Just change the fuel source and match the engine to it.

That is use a cleaner, cheaper, more abundant fuel source and redesign the vehicle engines to optimize it instead of wastefully pursuing the quest for more mile per gallon of gasoline.

I have a Mazda B2600 I converted to full propane operation that has run consistent mid 20's on propane that is less than half the price of gasoline and it weighs 3950 pounds.

I don't need any emissions crap on the vehicle I don't need loads of electronics to make it work and with the slight mechanical changes to the engine it has better fuel mileage and power than it ever did running on gasoline.

With a more aerodynamic vehicle body, less weight, and a more modern and custom tailored engine and drive train set up there is no reason a vehicle similar to this couldn't push well into the mid 30's and higher fuel mileage number while running on LNG or LPG.

Its just a thought from someone who plays with what is already available plus cheap and easy to work with.

Indeed today's engines are relicts of XIX century and should not be allowed on roads and streets. There is solution to problems created by emissions from cars and trucks it is called GUN-ENGINE. The gun-engine combines operation of gun with diesel engine. It has many parts like those of diesel, but it is different because it detonates fuel in such a way that no existing engine can withstand. The detonations do not act on work piston, but rather on ad additional piston that floats over work piston on a compressible air pocket. Detonation moves the additional piston like bullet in guns. The movement squeezes the air pocket, so replication of tremendous pressure of explosion over work piston meets horizotal crank and that boost torqee over 100 times over that of diesel. This has potential to save 99% of fuel, but inventor achieved only 95% fuel saving. Isn't that simple? You do not need to be a rocket scientist to understand that! Do you? Would it run on snake oil? The inventor did not try that, but if you have a bottle he would try!

I am so with you on this one.....

The Gun engine has not even been demonstrated on YouTube, which probably means its the next big CON!!

GA for your post.

I'm Very Interested In Hearing Some Half-Baked Theories

As an ill-informed pseudo-intellectual with a particular interest in the unverifiable, I'm always on the lookout for some partially thought out misinformation. So, if you have an uninformed solution to a dilemma that doesn't actually exist, don't bother double-checking your information. I'm all ears.

However, I must warn you: If you want to convince me of anything, you better be prepared to back up your claims with rumor, circumstantial evidence, or hard-to-make-out photographic proof. I may also need friend-of-a-friend corroboration or several signed testimonials all written in the same unmistakably spidery handwriting. I'm a quasi-critical-thinker. Things have to add up more or less in my head before I let myself be taken in by some baloney story.

Take Atlantis, for example. When I first heard about this lost civilization, I was suspicious to say the least. But then someone made a good point: Prove that it didn't exist. I was hard-pressed to find a comeback to that.

But if Atlantis really did exist, then where did it go? It couldn't have just disappeared without an unreasonable explanation. I was about to give up on the whole matter when suddenly it hit me: It probably washed away, and it's too deep underwater for scientists to find it. All it takes is a little supposition mixed with critical theorizing and you can easily stumble on a tenuous half-truth that really makes you think.

Over time, I've also learned that slapdash research is key before jumping to any conclusion. While I've always postulated the existence of gnomes, it wasn't until I researched the topic on AskJeeves.com that I realized it's a well-documented medical condition.

As important as research is, it's all about common sense in the end. If you can't cool your apartment by leaving the refrigerator open, how's it keeping all that produce fresh? Think about it. If you can't really read the world's great works of literature in only five minutes using a system peddled on TV, how do you explain that gentleman on the infomercial who aces those tests? Would extraterrestrials travel millions of light years just to abduct a non-trustworthy human for their series of intrusive tests? Yes.

And there's a reason liars like James Randi have never been anally probed.

Now, if you have a half-baked theory that you'd like to disclose, please be so kind as to skirt around the issue. I'll only listen to your elaborate webs of presumption and hearsay if you promise to veer unexpectedly and pointlessly off course at every opportunity. Prose density is part of what makes a half-baked theory fascinating.

Only last week, my friend Janet gave me a book that teaches how, through a diet of salmon and romaine lettuce, you can shave 20 years off your appearance. However, before we got to the hard-core salmon-and-lettuce, face-lifting theory, I was taken through a series of anecdotes, solicited testimonials, and long-winded circular logic proving the author's qualifications by citing the medical establishment's fear of his simple brilliance. It was an eye-opener.

I encourage people endowed with a gift for half-baked theories to inform as many unsuspecting strangers as possible. That's how I'm most interested in being exposed to shaky new ideas. At the bus station, on the street corners, wherever strikes your fancy. If you don't have the courage to approach people in this way, I recommend a stiff drink or a lifetime of crippling mental illness.

Only then will we continue to safeguard the free exchange of erroneous fallacy so vital to maintaining a freethinking, uneducated society. Thank you. http://www.theonion.com/articles/im-very-interested-in-hearing-some-halfbaked-theor,11179/

" .. ill-informed pseudo-intellectual .." I knew there where others out there like me.

Well written + Funny + Great use of sarcasm = A great post. GA! Ffej

Thata what you get when you post stupid, idiotic rubbish on CR4.....you get an honest and funny reply/critic......

Don't knock it!!! There are worse things around.....

By the way, if you react negatively to criticism, then either don't post, or do some research first so that what you are writing is true......its that simple.

Purveyors of Snake oil abound on the web...perhaps the inventor could improve the performance with the addition of this elixir?

Regards Woody

I Think we've all missed the key phrase

The gun-engine runs on imaginary fuel

the efficiency is only limited by your imagination

of course the downside is you can only take imaginary trips

I hear H14 has an opening for some one with just this kind of vision

Why don't you all just get those kits to convert your engines to run on water and be done with it?

Hybrids ARE: 1/2 Steeping the Solution, Why is FORD so Cautious about All Electric Cars? A Waste of Enginering to make a Subtract Some of its Cylenders, at higher Speeds. The only time an Engine should be on a car is for Desprate Emergancy. Motors Can Do It All.

I Built A Brigs & Stratin (lawn mower engine to drive an Altenator, to charge batterys, in the field. on a 2 wheeled cart.) Worked Great.

Here are a few mechanical/physical quandaries I have.

100 time the torque of a diesel. Is that for an engine of equal displacement or an engine 100 times larger? Diesel engines are known for higher torque but they also have a greater displacement volume per unit of power put out. Given equal displacement and working conditions a gasoline/LPG/LNG engine has superior torque over the diesel every time.

How do the cylinder heads, pistons, connecting rods and crank shaft stand up to that level of force with out being blown apart crushed or destroyed? There is a physical limit to how large each item can be before it just does not fit or simply becomes so massive its not practical to work with.

If it used 15 - 20 times less fuel how come the purported Geo metro is only getting 450 MPG instead of around 650 - 900 MPG? Those little runt cars can get around 45 MPG if driven conservatively already so a 15 - 20 times improvement should be getting far more than 450 MPG.

These are but a few of the questions I have that just don't fit into the reality and physical constraints of materials relating to how internal combustion engines work regardless of who's theoretical energy cycle is used.

---------------------------------------------------------------

By the way bwire your #15 post made me almost pee myself laughing this morning!

IF anyone is interested ...the patent application is here

Even if a patent is greanted, that does not mean that it will work.

The patents office is full of thousands of patents of things that have either never been built, or even if they were built, simply did not work.

I will wait until after the patent is granted to see a working engine being demonstrated on YouTube or similar, before I will even start to believe it.......

I'm much more of a skeptic. I won't accept a YouTube video as anything but advertisement propaganda. If the engine works half as well as the claims then Scientific American, The Sciences, even Car and Driver magazine would leap at the chance to do a real independent evaluation of a machine that can get 200 mpg with a Geo-Metro. None of those magazines would likely respond to any claims that didn't have credible backing. Ideally they and I would like to see a university approved performance analysis. But....

Good point, well put.

But I still feel that if EVEN a YouTube video was available, that would be a small start.

Maybe then the reputable magazines would jump in, but with NOTHING but a patent applicsation.....well anyone can do that......its still tantamount to a Con for me....and will probably stay that way forever.......

.....and I am sure that I am not alone, there are fewer suckers out there on the internet than there was even a year ago!! Time is running out!!!

Honestly, i agree. youd be better off with gasoline of a four cylinder multifuel engine, depending on the size of your vehicle and what you want to do with it.