I Beat both Mercedes "MINI Range" and "Toyota Prius"

Many carmakers designed their vehicles with unnecessary frictions, and you paid so many thousands $$$ for saying "That's the way it ought to be designed" by listening to the poor mechanics and your carmakers. Now you can fix the frictions and save your dollars by using my expertise. Mechanics can only do so much, they have fixed-minds.

I am not hungry for your dollars, I am here to help. If you don't need my help then go on spend your dollars at the pumps.

Regards,

Cam.

Many carmakers designed their vehicles with unnecessary frictions (except the hybridges), and you paid so many thousands $$$ for saying "That's the way it ought to be designed" by listening to the poor mechanics and your carmakers. Now you can fix the frictions and save your dollars by using my expertise. Mechanics can only do so much, they have fixed-minds.

I am not hungry for your dollars, I am here to help. If you don't need my help then go on spend your dollars at the pumps.

Regards,

Cam.

What are frictions? If you mean 'friction' losses due to frictyion in automobile engines (bearings and piston rings) are very low. How are you going to reduce/eliminate piston ring and bearing losses?

You seem to have all the characteristics of a 'nut case'.

Hey you idiot,

Why don't you cut your talk and bring an equal car to raise for a 600 miles mark, to see which car will stop for Gas first, and see which one will reach destination without refueling. Shall we?

Touched a nerve did we? How about answering the question? Can't? Not suprised!

Please read this entire post before you attack me for defending Cam.

I think that a lot of people on here are stuck in a paradigm. Cam is right that there are lots of places in an engine where there is unnecessary friction. (Even if his english is not perfect, it is better than any language I've tried to speak that isn't English.) This has actually been proven by many people over the years. One of my engineering professors worked for GM in the 70s and by redesigning piston rings his team was able to raise fuel efficiency in some GM engines by about 4%, which is not trivial. There are loads of places where engineers accept that losses are present, and little is done about it. The internal combustion engine is old technology that we keep improving on, but aside from teh rotary engine, there isn't a radically new type of IC technology. If you look at the wiseman crank, at

you will see solid engineering that proves that there are huge losses due to friction caused by the side to side motion of the crank rod causing a binding tendency between the piston skirt and the cylinder wall. Wiseman invented a way around this and they have documented huge fuel savings. I have a hunch that manufacturing costs are keeping it out of the mainstream. The Coates engines have a rotary valvetrain for higher power and increased efficiency. It is a matter of a manufacturer being willing to take the leap of investing in retooling, being able to sell the public on the idea, and testing the hell out of a technology so they don't get pie on their face when it starts failing at 40k miles or 3 years like the reolutionary multilayered unibody chevy monzas(or was it the Vegas?) that were stiff and light, but rusted in 3 years. The original rotary engine was pretty much given up on by its inventor when mazda took on the program. They couldn't seal it properly in a way that woudl last. And over the years many have tried to build a good rotary valve as an alternative to tapet valves. Rotary valves had sealing problems or flow problems for years. Coates got around that.

There are solutions out there. Some have even been found.

Additionally, it is possible to increase efficiency by changing timing and a few basic operating parameters of the engine. Check into the miller cycle. It is a cycle that uses a different valve opening algorythm to improve efficiency. Mazda toyed around with that in the

90s on more than one car, and the toyota prius uses it. It sacrifices power for efficiency though. In today's horsepower race, that is not the way to go.

So engineers today know about things like the Miller cycle, but in every design solution there are compromises. They choose to bias more towards performance than economy-thus no miller cycle. So some solutions are not used because they come with unpreferable compromises. Some because they are against the paradigm, some because they don't have the proof of longevity, some because manufacturing costs would be too high. There are many reasons that there may be a legitimate way of saving gas that we don't currently have on our cars.

The question is does Cam have the answer? I'd bet the likeliness that he has an original answer that can easily be modified into a newer car is pretty small. Very small. Especially since he claims it is noninvasive. Perhaps it is an already invented, yet not widely known technology that he simply tells you about in the book. Changing the ECU's mapping is not easy or cheap. Installing a wiseman crank necessitates redesigning the entire lower end. Coates valves are a total head replacement. Teflon coatings are not cheap. I just can't imagine an easy noninvasive way of doing it. (But that doesn't mean that someone else hasn't.)

I think that if the Wiseman crank were combined with the coates valves and run with a miller cycle, or run on diesel, we could see efficiencies much higher than we see now. But that is just me dreaming. I'm not trying to sell you any books on it.

If there is one fuel saving technique car manufacturers have to incorporate in engines, it should be on the air filter. It is already used in household vacuum cleaners called a Dyson. No loss of suction, no filters to replace. Maybe, just maybe, they can use it on exhaust pipes too.

Yeah, but you have to empty the dust out of the machine. No hygienic bag.

DAS

For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling