mpgfreedom / fuel freedom international

RodneyWright · **Posted:** Mon Aug 28, 2006 11:14 pm

Sooooo... Anyone been asked about being a supplier/buyer for the magic pill that increases fuel mileage and reduces emissions? I had someone ask me about it today. I personally believe most of these products are junk. I've searched the web and most places want you to watch a video...haven't done that yet. Testimonials don't work for me; show me. So, my question is has anyone been approached about this or even know what it is? From what I've read it's supposed be a "organic compound" to add a "micro" coating to the combustion area to "improve" mileage.

any takers on this???

Richard Casto · **Posted:** Tue Aug 29, 2006 12:19 am

Questions ...

* Is this a suppository or is it taken orally?
* Is the pill full of acetone?

Wes Eargle · **Joined:** Mon Oct 27, 2003 9:47 am **Posts:** 3683

Rodney, that's weak sauce. These guys are beating the laws of thermodynamics by having >100% efficiency. That's frickin manly right there. Not even Chuck Norris (or Carnot for that matter) can disobey that. Giddyup.

MikeWhitney · **Joined:** Wed Aug 20, 2003 9:15 pm **Posts:** 4724

This thread needs a picture of Mr Fusion:

You can buy one on ebay and make your DeLorean fly:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Back-to-the-Future- ... dZViewItem

RodneyWright · **Posted:** Tue Aug 29, 2006 9:18 am

Richard Casto wrote:

Questions ...

* Is this a suppository or is it taken orally?
* Is the pill full of acetone?

LOL....I'm thinking it's your choice! Don't know what it is, can't find any info on it. The MSDS states the contents of the pill as proprietary.

Wes Eargle wrote:

Rodney, that's weak sauce. These guys are beating the laws of thermodynamics by having >100% efficiency. That's frickin manly right there. Not even Chuck Norris (or Carnot for that matter) can disobey that. Giddyup.

Damn, I've already signed up to get my free energy. Just think, I don't have to buy gas again for my car.... ever!

I'm thinking about developing an under water lawn mower....any one want to chip in for R&D?

George Bright · **Posted:** Tue Aug 29, 2006 8:59 pm

Years ago Smokey Yunick worked on an engine with a ceramic coated combustion chamber. It has less heat lost through the walls but there were other problems created by the ceramics. It also did not end up much more efficient.

Wes I think the guys at Steorn are working on some odd properties of magnetics that my Dad and a friend of his worked with about 30 years ago. They had an electric motor that was aout 70% efficient. Three things were against them funding, energy was very cheap then, and my Dad's friend died of a heart attack suddenly. They do have some patents though. Jim had the magnetics and Dd had some on the switching sytem used.

Wes Eargle · **Joined:** Mon Oct 27, 2003 9:47 am **Posts:** 3683

70% efficient is unpossible. If any heat is in the engine (and it all energy transformation involves heat) I call shenanigans.

MikeWhitney · **Joined:** Wed Aug 20, 2003 9:15 pm **Posts:** 4724

Wes Eargle wrote:

70% efficient is unpossible. If any heat is in the engine (and it all energy transformation involves heat) I call shenanigans.

Why isn't that possible? George was talking about an electric motor.

Anyone know the "typical" efficiency ranges for electric motors vs piston gas engines?

Wes Eargle · **Joined:** Mon Oct 27, 2003 9:47 am **Posts:** 3683

Why? Because anything greater that 50% efficient gives physicists boners and makes them grab a palm full of lotion and reach for the Kleenex box. Anything more? It would be on CNN and Bernard Shaw would come out of retirement; the Shah of Iran would be resurrected and world hunger would be solved. Older brothers would stop smacking younger siblings. The Pythagorean theorem would become the Pythagorean law.

Shenanigans.

MikeWhitney · **Joined:** Wed Aug 20, 2003 9:15 pm **Posts:** 4724

Wes Eargle wrote:

Why? Because anything greater that 50% efficient gives physicists boners and makes them grab a palm full of lotion and reach for the Kleenex box. Anything more? It would be on CNN and Bernard Shaw would come out of retirement; the Shah of Iran would be resurrected and world hunger would be solved. Older brothers would stop smacking younger siblings. The Pythagorean theorem would become the Pythagorean law.

Shenanigans.

wikipedia.org wrote:

Brushless motors are typically 85-90% efficient whereas DC motors with brushgear are typically 75-80% efficient.

Are they not talking about Power In/Power Out = Efficiency? I get that combustion engines are limited to something like 59% (Carnot Cycle?) efficiency but I didn't think any such limit applied to electric motors.

Pete Guthrie · **Posted:** Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:53 am

freedom fuel america has been on tv b4, with their bio-diesel kits available to public,, so, yes, i have heard of them

Wes Eargle · **Joined:** Mon Oct 27, 2003 9:47 am **Posts:** 3683

MikeWhitney wrote:

wikipedia.org wrote:

Brushless motors are typically 85-90% efficient whereas DC motors with brushgear are typically 75-80% efficient.

Are they not talking about Power In/Power Out = Efficiency? I get that combustion engines are limited to something like 59% (Carnot Cycle?) efficiency but I didn't think any such limit applied to electric motors.

I think that your frame of reference is too small. Where did the e- come from? Don't make the same mistake that the Prius drivers that apply the smug bumper stickers make -- their carbon impact is as equally high or higher than a "normal" car.

MikeWhitney · **Joined:** Wed Aug 20, 2003 9:15 pm **Posts:** 4724

Wes Eargle wrote:

MikeWhitney wrote:

wikipedia.org wrote:

Brushless motors are typically 85-90% efficient whereas DC motors with brushgear are typically 75-80% efficient.

Are they not talking about Power In/Power Out = Efficiency? I get that combustion engines are limited to something like 59% (Carnot Cycle?) efficiency but I didn't think any such limit applied to electric motors.

I think that your frame of reference is too small. Where did the e- come from? Don't make the same mistake that the Prius drivers that apply the smug bumper stickers make -- their carbon impact is as equally high or higher than a "normal" car.

If you go back and re-read this thread all you will see is that I'm asking you why you claim that George's statement that an electric motor can not be more than 70% efficient. I thought you knew something that I did not.

So in the usual terms of Eout/Ein, electric motors can be and are 90% efficient on a regular basis.

Now, if you want to move onto another topic of point-source pollution / energy conservation / etc, I'd be happy to do it. (Edit to add - I'm talking about the Law of Conservation of Energy of course)

How large is your frame of reference? You know that ALL energy to be found on this planet once came from the sun, no? How efficient was the plants in prehistoric times at photosynthesis?

THSCC Forums

mpgfreedom / fuel freedom international

Who is online