Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 11:55:47 -0600
Reply-To: Stan Wilder <wilden1-1@SBCGLOBAL.NET>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Stan Wilder <wilden1-1@SBCGLOBAL.NET>
Subject: Re: Fuel ponderings
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Given that everybody cares about fuel consumption.
One way to get better fuel economy is to Ceramic Coat your piston tops,
skirts, undersides, ceramic coat your combustion chambers, exhaust ports,
exhaust valves and your entire exhaust system.
You'll have hotter burning combustion chamber, cooler running pistons,
heads, valves, better fuel burn at higher temperatures, more horse power and
less emissions. You'll have an overall cooler running engine producing a few
more horse power.
That said. Exactly how much improvement in fuel economy?
I got to give it to you just like the manufactures print on new car window
price stickers ............. Mileage may vary because of your driving
habits.
Cost for all this would be $446.00 per engine.
Remove the Exhaust system and the cost would be $236.00
Stan Wilder
Engine Ceramics
214-352-4931
www.engineceramics.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Rodgers" <inua@CHARTER.NET>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 9:36 AM
Subject: Fuel ponderings
> Given that the engines in use today in vehicles are heat engines, and
> the fuels that are used to provide that heat have specific values of
> BTU's per pound, how does one increase fuel efficiency, i.e., increase
> the miles per gallon on fuel?
>
> Reduce vehicle weight is one way.
> Reduce friction.
> Streamlining for the vehicle.
> Better fuel metering.
> Congress legislating that it be so??
>
> What else???
>
> Is it really possible to get more BTU's from a pound of fuel than a
> pound of fuel has?? What good does better mixture control and
> vaporization actually do? Given better mixture control and vaporization,
> can fuel efficiency actually be increased beyond where it is now, just
> on that basis?
>
> The whole business about fuels and fuel efficiencies is about energy
> exchange without energy loss. Is it possible??
>
> Given E = MC2, - the potential for large energy release from a tiny bit
> of matter - we have so much "potential" energy in the form of solid
> matter that it is mindboggling, yet even with Einstein's equation we
> cannot tap that energy in a truly controllable way The rock simply
> sits there or there is a big "Bang". Doesn't seem to be any "In between"
> point where we can meter off a bit of all that energy as we need it. I
> suppose one might consider an atomic pile as a controlled metering, but
> it is really a a controlling of natural radiation being emitted from a
> radio active substance. Not quite the same as deliberately "cracking"
> an atom of inert solid matter in a controlled way to siphon off a
> specific amount of it's energy.
>
> I really would like to be able to stick my banana peel and a beer - can
> and all - into the power generator on my Vanagon and fire up the "Flux
> Capacitor".
>
> There it is............this mornings pondering at coffee!
>
> Regards,
>
> John Rodgers
> 88 GL driver
| 
