[SnS_12]

I was just browsing through the internet on lost inventions and came across this article of a guy named Tom Ogle from Texas.

In the 1970s, he developed a new type of carburetor that pressurized gasoline into a vapor and injected it into the firing chambers. After installing it in his Ford Galaxie, the car was measured to get 113 miles per gallon.

Tom said the 100 mpg returns he was seeing on his then standard 4,000 pound car was only the beginning of his newfound fuel efficiency. Tom felt confident that on the smaller, lighter cars, then only popular in Europe, he could get nine times as much.

That means in today’s light-weight automobiles we could be driving around getting up to 900 miles per gallon. And even gas guzzling Hummers and giant SUV’s Tom never lived to see might be more efficient than today’s best hybrid cars.

But after some licensing setbacks, Ogle died in 1981 and took the design of his carburetor to the grave with him.

I am sure there would be many such inventions that sadly never saw the light of day

You can read the full article on the following link :- http://fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/e...s/?page_id=787

[VCheng]

This "magical" carburetor is a well-known hoax, and in a long line of such hoaxes. What was the old saying about a fool and his money being soon parted?

[Sutripta]

Originally Posted by SnS_12

Ogle died in 1981 and took the design of his carburetor to the grave with him.

No doubt killed by Big Oil/ existing car or carburetor manufacturer/ military-industrial combine/ secret government agency.

Would expect BHPians to exhibit a bit more scepticism.

Regards
Sutripta

[autonarr]

I for one do think it's plausible. There is a well researched documentary titled "Who killed the electric car" by Chris Paine which got a lot of people thinking on similar lines:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsJAlrYjGz8

[VCheng]

Originally Posted by autonarr

I for one do think it's plausible. There is a well researched documentary titled "Who killed the electric car" by Chris Paine which got a lot of people thinking on similar lines:

What killed the electric car was the lack of range and refueling infrastructure, in comparison to its competition, not any conspiracy. Tesla cars just might change this, but it remains to be seen. Fuel Cell vehicles are another technology that may prove to be disruptive to existing platforms, but the same issues of infrastructure support apply.

[WildInstincts]

What killed the electric car or other alternate technologies was we are not desperate as yet. When fossil fuel depletes, we will find our acts together and make a sincere effort. Desperate times would call for desperate measures.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by arunphilip

Fissile refers to nuclear material, and atomic-cars are far far away!

Atomic cars would have a near infinite high mileage. Obviously, the powers that be and the current establishment can't let that happen. Think of the loss in fuel tax revenue alone! So yet another brilliant invention that will not materialize.

Jeroen

PS: I have a bridge for sale. nice location, beautiful view, going very cheap. PM me if you are interested.

[Nissan1180]

Well this thing does not seem to be a hoax. There are organizations in the US which are working on such products.
I am quoting from the following site:

Many people assume that the Ogle fuel system was "bought up and buried", but FARM SHOW learned that a Seattle firm -- Advanced Fuel Systems, Inc. -- bought the manufacturing rights. Although company spokesmen say they had high hopes when they bought it from Ogle, they now concede that the carburetor won't work. "It'll burn off the higher fraction in the oil and get phenomenal mileage but what's left in the vaporization chamber turns into thick black oil. You can run mileage tests and impress lots of people but, as a day to day fuel system, it's just not feasible," says Advanced Fuel Systems engineer Warren Brengman. Instead of the Ogle carburetor, the newly-formed company is coming out soon with a new "throttle body ignition system" that they say is a practical way to increase gas mileage by as much as 50% with computer control of engine temperatures and fuel injection.

What I understood from this link is that this carburettor fed the engine with fuel vapors instead of the liquid, and we all know that crude oil is a mixture of different hydrocarbon. Once the lighter hydrocarbons got used up, you ended up with black oily residue in the tank because the heavier hydrocarbons can vaporise only when heated up. The idea was great, just that companies have felt that it would not be suitable for a daily drive vehicle.

[SS-Traveller]

Before that, there was also the Pogue carburettor...

http://www.project.nsearch.com/profi...retors-history

[alpha1]

Originally Posted by Nissan1180

Well this thing does not seem to be a hoax. There are organizations in the US which are working on such products.
I am quoting from the following site:

What I understood from this link is that this carburettor fed the engine with fuel vapors instead of the liquid, and we all know that crude oil is a mixture of different hydrocarbon. Once the lighter hydrocarbons got used up, you ended up with black oily residue in the tank because the heavier hydrocarbons can vaporise only when heated up. The idea was great, just that companies have felt that it would not be suitable for a daily drive vehicle.

The fuel (gaoline) anyway vaporizes in the carb venturi even if I feed it in liquid state.
There is nothing magical that will happen if I feed the fuel in vaporized state.

Also this has got absolutely nothing to do with the fractions of crude oil. No one uses crude oil as a fuel. The gasoline that we use has NIL component of the heavy black oily tar residue that you are so scared of.

[SnS_12]

Well, we can call it a hoax, as maybe the government and people who never wanted this invention to become public want us to think that it is hoax.

But, as Nissan1180 said in this post, there are organizations in the US which are working on such products.

On a different note there is another interesting lost invention, which fascinates data storage experts to this day.

In the late 1990s, a Dutch electronics technician named Romke Jan Berhnard Sloot announced the development of the Sloot Digital Coding System, a revolutionary advance in data transmission that, he claimed, could reduce a feature-length movie down to a file size of just 8KB.

Jan Sloot presented his Digital Coding System to a bunch of investors who eventually took him to the Philips headquarters, where he showed his invention to Philip's CEO Roel Pieper. The demonstration on the top floor of the Philips headquarters involved playing 16 movies at the same time from a box containing a 64KB chip, attached to his laptop - no hard drive.

Roel Pieper took Jan Sloot to the headquarters of Computer Associates in the States where he was told "you are going to be the richest man on earth"

But two days before the source code was to be handed over he was mysteriously found dead in his garden. The source code has never been found by the security agencies assigned to try and recover it, but the box was apparently previously opened by Philips without Jan Sloot's permission ... stolen?

The story has been written in a book ("De Broncode" translate The Source code) by a journalist who was present during much of the demonstrations and followed everything closely.

[apachelongbow]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

atomic cars would have a near infinite high mileage. Obviously, the powers that be and the current establishement can't let that happen. Think of the loss in fuel tax revenue alone! So yet another briljant invention that will not materialize.

Atomic cars mean nuclear fuel, the establishment will not allow nuclear material to be freely available in cars, else it would be an excellent place for terrorists to make atomic bombs!!

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

Atomic cars mean nuclear fuel, the establishment will not allow nuclear material to be freely available in cars, else it would be an excellent place for terrorists to make atomic bombs!!

I suggest you google "how to make an atomic bomb" One, you will be surprised about the information available with lots of details. Two, you will quickly find out that the nuclear material you would use to power a car is unsuitable to make an atomic bomb. Maybe a dirty bomb, but not one that can cause a nuclear explosion. You cant refine it to become "bomb grade" either.

If it is possible, you need to be much more concerned. The amount of nuclear material that gets lost each year, globally, is considerable. I'm talking about the materials as used in nuclear power generation. It's total volume is tracked minutely and every year there is a short fall!

also, the nuclear car concept died a quite death many decades ago. Nobody had even heard of terrorist then. This was the time without security checks anywhere. Some of us (like me) are old enought to remember.

So, I would say definitely a conspiracy against the nuclear powered car.

Jeroen
PS: No takers yet, on my bridge for sale! Hurry!

[sudev]

@Jeroen - More description please of your bridge. I am in market for buying one!! Just have not found the bridge meeting my needs.

End of the day all efficiency claims have to come to the market to establish efficacy to cost parameters.

@Professori sir, if I C engines today operate at 20% efficiency would'nt it mean max mileage in a friction less engine be restricted to some top figure??

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by sudev

@Jeroen - More description please of your bridge. I am in market for buying one!! Just have not found the bridge meeting my needs.

End of the day all efficiency claims have to come to the market to establish efficacy to cost parameters.

@Professori sir, if I C engines today operate at 20% efficiency would'nt it mean max mileage in a friction less engine be restricted to some top figure??

Yes, depends upon engine design... but going to ideal
Lets take a spark engine first
1-(1/(R^Y-1))
R is compression ratio, and Y is specific heat capacity of gas

So with 11 compression ratio(very high for gasoline) you have max possible thermal efficiency of around 60%

Going to diesel

From Wikipedia

• In the Diesel cycle used in diesel truck and train engines, the fuel is ignited by compression in the cylinder. The efficiency of the Diesel cycle is dependent on r and γ like the Otto cycle, and also by the cutoff ratio, rc, which is the ratio of the cylinder volume at the beginning and end of the combustion process:[4]

The Diesel cycle is less efficient than the Otto cycle when using the same compression ratio. However, practical Diesel engines are 30% - 35% more efficient than gasoline engines.[7] This is because, since the fuel is not introduced to the combustion chamber until it is required for ignition, the compression ratio is not limited by the need to avoid knocking, so higher ratios are used than in spark ignition engines.