I would think there's too much airflow under the trailer to allow for drafting.

__________________
1989 300 SEL that mostly works, but needs TLC

This thread cracks me up, whenever someone has this "great" fuel mileage idea I laugh so hard. Trust me, if any automobile manufature could produce a car that got substantially better fuel mileage than there counterparts they would bring that "magic pill" to the market as fast as possible to garner a larger share of the market and make more money. Common sense here.
Chris

__________________
94 E320 with:
18" ///AMG Monoblock II's,AMG Gen II front bumper, H&R spings,500E sway bar, Bilstein sports, Eisemann Exhst, K&N,E500 Headlamps, Crystal Clear Corners, Avantgard Grill ...and more stuff to come! oh yeah 241k miles!!


My Car WOO HOO...... Now SOLD
New car.... 2001 Jaguar XJR!!!!

These things do seem to have a placebo affect on people. After someone spends $29.95 on something they want it to work, and they start paying more attention to their driving. So they get better mileage, no thanks to the device. After a while they forget about it and their mileage goes back to normal. If everyone spent the same money on tune-ups and new air filters we would be better off.

Motorcyclists looking to shave time off of a long trip will do this, but the more learned ones will spot an independent trucker in a truck stop and buy his chicken fried steak + maybe a pack or 2 of cigs.

__________________
'91 300-SEL

I don't remember the numbers on exact mileage,but I know of two designs that work.The best kept secrets are kept in plain view and made to seem rediculous.I've never bought any plans or worthless gizmos myself.And saying a 300 mpg car is impossible is ignorant.A hybrid electric car with a gas or diesel engine powering an onboard generator can be built from readily available parts and plans that can achieve in excess of 100mpg at 30% engine effiency.You don't need 100% or more effiency,which are both impossible,to build ultra effecient cars.I can only say I know of two designs that work giving around 70% effiency.Try to tell me it's impossible.Just like not that long ago it was impossible for a heating furnace to be more then 60 some % efficient,Right?Everyone knew it was impossible to get better efficiency from a furnace.And the people who claimed they could do better were nut cases.Huh.And all of a sudden 85% efficient furnaces or better were a reality.I'm not making outragous claims of anything at all impossible.Hey,don't most people KNOW you can't run a diesel on SVO and expect it to last?And as far as patent rights go.Before the patents ever run out the owner of the patent can copyright it and have all patent records removed from public access.Right?Go ahead and ridicule me for two designs that I know work.Then when they someday do surface,remember what I said.Every one used to know space travel was a great fantasy,but went against the laws of physics also.Perpetual motion machines are most likely impossible.But why is 70% fuel efficiency impossible?Why so closed minded?Traveling faster then the speed of sound was know to be impossible.Only a few years ago,almost everyone knew a non hybrid car could never be built that woud be practicle and get more then 90 mpg.Everyone knew that if it was possible,the car makers would jump at the chance to build them.Just like everyone knows it now right?So I guess the VW Lupo is just another urban legend also?Doesn't that cars engine already exceed those laws of physics about fuel to air ratio and effiency?

Does anyone here remember the 2.2 turbo gasoline engine Smokey Eunick built,tested,proved worked and recieved media coverage of?Didn't he get around 45% effiency with only slightly modified parts?And then it even got media coverage about how Chrysler Corperation slapped him with a multi million dollar lawsuit in order to shut him up?And then not another word was heard.And this is a well respected race engine builder and engineer.Goes against the laws of physics,doesn't it?So I guess that's another fuel system I know of that actually works.But most believe to be completly impossible.
And early oil refining was done with alcohol style pot stills.No molecular cracking done there.Just simple distallation with the end products being propane,RAW gasoline,kerosene(then known as coal oil),oil and tar.Molecular cracking to increase gasoline production begane durring WW II with chemical and mineral catalysts.It takes a catalyst of some type before it is considered molecular cracking as far as I have ever been able to find out.
But I guess I'm just another ignorant fool who doesn't know anything.
I don't begine to know everything there is about anything.A person would have to be perfect for that.I'm far from stupid or ignorant.But believe me or not,I know I'm right on this.And most scientists worth their degrees now admit they shouldn't say anything is impossible.Just highly improbable.The experts used to be certain that no engine could be designed with better effiency then the 12% efficient steam engines of the time.And along came Rudolf Diesel with his 25% efficient compression ignition engine.Like I said before,tell me it's impossible.

Utoh...it's obvious you KNOW TOO MUCH. Worse than that, you've failed to keep your FORBIDDEN KNOWLEDGE quiet. By now, THEY will have noticed this thread. We are all in DANGER for having read it, but you especially, for stating THAT WHICH MUST NOT BE MENTIONED Even now, I fear it's too late. There's a plain white van suspiciously sitting parked down the street. In trying to warn you, I may have waited too long to save myself, but you still might have a chance.

Remember...



























...shiney side out.

[IMG]http://www.digitalfox.com/digitalfox/john******kerry/foilhat_files/foil5.jpg[/IMG]

__________________
1989 300 SEL that mostly works, but needs TLC

I hate to do this, but it's time for Thermodynamics 101. According to the second law of thermodynamics, there is an upper limit on the amount of work that any device can extract when operating between a high temperature source and a low temperature sink. This is called the Carnot Efficiency and can be calculated as follows:

Eff = 1 - TL/TH

where TL is the absolute temp of the low temp sink and TH is the absolute temp of the high temp source.

Accomplishing this efficiency would require a "reversible heat engine" which is a theoretical device that is completely reversible (no heat loss, no friction, ideal transfer of thermal energy to mechanical energy). No practical device approaches this limit, certainly not an internal combustion engine.

If you put numbers in this equation (and assume about 70F ambient temperature) you will find that 70% efficiency can be achieved with a high temperature source of about 1300F. Therefore, it is possible to have a 70% efficient engine without violating the second law of thermodynamics. So I will not tell you it's impossible.

However, the "engine" required to accomplish this does not exist. The internal combustion engine can be approximated by something called the "Air-Standard Otto Cycle" which can be thought of as an ideal internal combustion engine. The efficiency of this cycle is significantly lower than the Carnot Cycle due to the fundamental design of the engine. In addition, real engines have significant additional losses (i.e., every BTU of energy removed by the cooling system). The current state of the art for actual internal combustion engines is around 30%. Much of this limitation has to do with the nature of the Air-Standard Otto Cycle. Another significant limitation is the maximum temperature that current materials can withstand. Obtaining a significant improvement will require a change to the fundamental design of the engine. This has lead to proposals such as ceramic engines with no cooling. By way of comparison, a state of the art power generation stationary combustion turbine can achieve efficiencies in the range of 50%. This requires operation at the extreme limits of the materials and some fairly exotic designs. We are talking about installations that will spend (literally) millions to increase efficiency by a couple of percent.

The bottom line is that no-one on the planet has an actual practical device (engine) of any type that will convert thermal energy (at these temperatures) to mechanical energy with anything close to 70% efficiency. Very little of this limitation is due to the combustion process, which is the only part of the process that the mythical "100 mph carburetor" could improve.

Sorry for the rant, but it annoys me when I hear statements that directly contradict undergraduate physics presented as fact. This nonsense has been around forever, and I don't think we need to propagate it any further.

I believe you are right with you'r numbers.Which it why Smokey's engine used ceramic coatings on the pistons.What is being ignored here though is the ammount of unburned hydrocarbons leaving the engine,which is the main reason for catalytic converters.And if I remember correctly,wasn't a mostly ceramic engine actually built and tested back in 82?Increased thermal effiency requires lower tempratures to achieve the same overall effiency.There is more then just thermodynamics involved.If I remember correctly,Smokey's engine reached a maximum coolant temprature of something like 140 degrees F.
But I guess I'm wasteing my time here because the currant known laws of physics are infallible now.All the past misconceptions in physics have now been discovered and corrected.All science is now perfect.And there are NEVER more then one set of equasions to be considered to solving a problem.And it's also known that increased efficiency doesn't supply more usable power that can be better utiliesed with higher gearing resulting in lower engine rpm's,resulting in less fuel being used.You don't have to have increased heat to be able to better utilize the heat being generated.I agree with the general laws of thermodynamics,which I have studied on several occasions over the last 25 years.But I don't agree with all the assumptions made concerning those laws.No I can neither prove nor disprove them.But some of those conclusions don't seem to make sense when all factors are taken into consideration.



But this is where I quit.Everyone now knows all know laws are absolutly perfect.Mankind has become infallible in his sciences.It is impossible to build an affordable engine that can better utilise the fuels being used.It's impossible to use more of the fuel entering the combustion chambers,and decrease the ammount of unburned hydrocarbons in any kind of practical application.And all mathamatical theories concerning this have now been proven by practical application of those former theories.Opps,I guess that hasn't been done yet.But the experts know their theories must be 100% correct.I don't claim to be an expert on anything.Which is why I always try to learn more.And I already admitted my numbers may be off some.But my origional points remain that most,if not all the mileage boosting gadgets advertiesed are junk technolodgy.And science is not perfect.And secrets are kept from the worlds population about better technologies every day.But it seems I'm the only one here who is guessing the technology that can greatly increase fuel effiency is being kept secret until the auto manufacturers feel they can make the greatest profits due to demand for super efficient cars.And any manufacturer looking to get their car on the market before general consensus agrees the maximum profit potential has been reached,would be ruined,discredited,and bankrupted just like the Tucker car company was for building his vastly superior car.The tucker automobile was decades ahead of the compitition.Even though they could build cars just as good,they didn't want to because they didn't see a potential for maximum profits for safer and more efficient cars.You believe what you want to.Keeping technolegy from the public has been done before.And science facts have been supressed before to keep the public ignorant of the potential bennifits.And no,I'm not a conspiricy kook.I'm just an inquiring mind who has had access to some little known technology,and questions what are the real reasons past and preasent for supressing new knowledge.But you just keep on believing that you've been told the truth,the whole truth,and nothing but the truth.I have nothing more to say.

I'm getting a headache.

No-one is saying that incremental improvements are not possible, or that we have reached the limits of this technology. Improvements in internal combustion engine efficiency will continue until something better comes along. There are many trade-offs in the design of a modern engine. The cost-benefit of improving efficiency is always changing, and the state-of-the-art in engine controls and materials continues to move ahead. It is inevitable that efficiencies will increase as fuel prices increase. Design concepts such as hybrids are not new ideas, they have been around for many years, but they were not developed for production until they had a market. Companies are going to protect their intellectual property, even if they are not using it at the moment. I think everyone understands that there are new technologies out there that have not yet been commercialized. No-one is trying to bury useful technologies for some nefarious purpose.

However, we are talking about incremental improvements to the same basic 100 year old design, not doubling or tripling efficiencies with a single new concept. I think it's safe to say the internal combustion engine is a mature design, and that design improvements are well into diminishing returns. Historically, one of the biggest limitations has been materials. The ceramic engine concept (another idea that's been around forever) has just not reached the point where it is practical to implement. Maybe fuel prices will get to the point where it is cost-beneficial someday.

With regard to the laws of physics, we are not talking about unproven cutting edge theory here. These are fundamental laws which have been well established for a couple of hundred years now. Anyone who's designed any type of "heat engine" has bumped up against these limitations. For some reason, there seems to be an endless supply of "inventors" who believe they have found a loophole in these laws. There must be a whole department in the pattern office just to weed out these wing-nuts. Of-course, when industry tells them to get lost they assume that they are the victim of some vast conspiracy to silence them. Everyone seems to know someone who knows someone who had the solution to the worlds energy problems until they were silenced by "them." Classic urban legend.

So bear with me please.Okay.So there are multiple factors involved in figuring the overall efficiency of an engine.I already stated that I agree with the basic princaples of thermal dynamics.What I've done a poor job trying to explain though is this.I'm not nessasarily disputing the thermal efficiency factor.But what most people seem to overlook is the efficiency of the combustion itself.If I remember correctly.Around 45% of the exhaust emissions on average are unburned hydrocarbons.Of course this is right out of the cylinder before fresh air is added and the mix is exposed to the high temps created in the catalytic converter to try burning off most of the remaining hydrocarbons.We agree that the average engine has about 30% combustion efficiency because it's true.And I believe the thermal effiency is about the same.Okay.Now consider that thermal efficiency remains nearly the same or slightly better by introducing better materials like ceramic coating on the pistons and sodium filled stainless steel valves for heat resistance as Smokey Eunick did in building his engine.As far as thermal efficiency goes,I believe his engine reached about 38% thermal efficiency.All well within reason by cost effectiveness and thermal laws.Correct?The factor most ignored though is the unburned fuel these engines waste.By creating a better vaporization and burn pattern in the combustion within the cylinder.Smokey acheived somewhere near 70% complete combustion of the fuel.That doesn't in any way contradict the laws of physics now does it?Not when they can get more then 85% + combustion efficiency with modern furnaces.Due to the natural tendancy of cracked oil molecules trying to recombine to their origional long chain state.Which by the way is the reason for varnish deposits left behind by the evaporation of old,stale fuel.With the cracked modern gasoline plus addatives.I don't believe there is any practicle way to achieve the high efficiency seen if furnaces burning fuel that is more in it's pure state.but why do people find it so hard to believe in 70% combustion efficiency.Droplets of fuel,no matter how small,can't burn as efficiently as true fuel vapors.Which is the fundamental reason for the 30 or so % combustion we commonly see today.If you had a source of raw gasoline available.And a good method of mostly vaporizing that fuel in a combustion chamber designed for as little flame pattern obstruction as currantly possible.Shouldn't it then be possible to obtain the same combustion efficiency as a modern furnace?Yes,yes and yes.Now with increased combustion efficiency,there isn't a need to use as much fuel to get the same amount of usable energy.And therefore while you would get an increase in thermal tempratures,they wouldn't be unmanagable if you made the same kinds of changes as were made to Smokey's engine.You don't have to break any thermal laws to get substancial combustion efficiency.With the cracked oil added to modern gas.I don't think it's possible to get more then around 70% efficiency due to the tar/varnish residues that woud be left behind in both the fuel system and combustion chamber.That would create as much as,or more problems then the partially burned hydrocarbons now commonly left behind as carbon buildup.I'm sorry if I offended anyone earlier.But I got quite frustrated by being ridiculed like some kind of gullible sucker who falls for the most likely impossible pipe dreams being sold to the unwary public.
It's just that I know first hand on the one fuel system that does work.And he never got his patent.He drove the old truck for many thousands of miles with only two changes made.The rear end gearing.And the carburator he designed.And averaged slightly better then 100mpg.He the took the engine apart to inspect for damage because of his extreemly lean fuel mixture.No where near the commonly accepted absolute of 13.5:1 -14.5:1.and when he knew it would work he applied for a patent.Never did get a reply from the patent office.Instead he got a vague but threatening letter from one of the big three auto makers(no way will I say who) on a day I was helping him and his family do some recarpeting and painting in their house.I know this one from first hand experience and can guarantee it's not a friend of a friend urban legand.The other one I know of is second party,who I trust the source.

I hope with the way I explained the seperate aspects to be considered that are involved in the seperate factors of efficiency have shown you the practicle,and very possible gains that can be made to modern engines without extreem re-engineering needed.It's entirely possible to greatly increase combustion efficiency,without much altering to thermal efficiency in any way.
And I'm sorry this is long,but if you've read it word for word,you should be able to see that it's something that can,and has been done.There are other set ups that have gotten short term coverage in the media,and the inventors claim consperisie.There's sometimes worked also,but not without engine damage because their systems create 90 some percent vaporization of the fuel.Leaving tar/varnish residues that destroy their engines.These are the examples held out to the public as proof all such systems are impossible.These guys didn't do enough research as to what the limits are for vaporizing modern fuel,and paid the price with their reputations and dignaty.I hope you now understand why it's possible to build super high efficiency engines.And why the systems that failed were so easily used to confuse the public about the viability of this very real technology.

If you wish to be taken seriously, you might try posting verifiable information, rather than relying on "you'r" (sic) memory, what you believe, and guesses.

Oh, and if you're going to edit "you'r" (sic) messages for spelling errors, you might try actually correcting your spelling errors. Or are you guessing until you believe "you'r" (sic) correct?

__________________
1989 300 SEL that mostly works, but needs TLC

You have to remember to also include what is cost effective for the car manufacturers to produce. Sure you can get more efficient engines, energy wise, but is it cost effective? Will they last as long? What will it cost to fix them? I remember long ago some major manufacturer producing an all ceramic type combustion engine that was somewhere over %60 efficient. Problem was it was a little more delicate than aluminum or cast iron blocks. They could not make it basically stay together in the real world and it was not exactly cost effective either.

Now to the big manufacturers and quieting people up! Well remember Tucker? The big boys do not like to be beaten by anyone, let alone some small backyard guy building anthing that is better, more cost effective, more effiecent than there highly paid Engineers can think of. Also believe what you want but the oil companies and the car companies have big ass lobbying teams and lawyers and each other to make sure they all remain rich for a very long time. The oil companies have a big stake in car engines and cars in general not getting the best economy they can. Think about it, what would 300 MPG efficient vehicles due to the big oil companies? What would happen if we all of a suddent found a way to be more effiecient and our dependance on oil dropped significantly? Someday it will, but not today and not until someone steps up to the plate about a new design or even an old one and gets it out there. Hopefully soon as the Internet would be a great way to do it without the big boys stomping on it too fast. And yes there are all kinds of stories about the big Auto guys buying people to keep them quite or forcing patents away from them. No one want to be made to look bad, especially the big guys. But alas who can actually prove these rumors true? Not likely unless someone has the key to the safe where the secrets are hidden!!!!!

__________________
~Jamie
_________________
2003 Pewter C230K SC C1, C4, C5, C7, heated seats, CD Changer, and 6 Speed. ContiExtremes on the C7's.

1986 190E 2.3 Black, Auto, Mods to come soon.....

Hey Craig:
Please dont flee from the boards in disgust. We need as many reasonable people here as possible. I could learn a lot from you, and you can help me remember stuff that I haven't seen in years.
Rick & Connie: You are, of course, entitled to your opinions as we all are, but for goodness sake please don't misquote science and make it out to be fact. You don't know physics (Craig has a very healthy recollection of PHYS 101....I had forgotten half of the stuff he summarized but he is dead on correct about the thermodynamics of engine efficiency) and you definitely don't know chemistry or really much about how an engine works for that matter. You're saying that you don't dispute thermodynamic limitations when in reality you have absolutely no clue about thermodynamics. How the heck can you make your arguments when you literally have no idea what the science of thermodynamics actually is?
I'm not going to even attempt to try and explain how stuff works to you, Rick & Connie, cuz I'll bet that you won't even consider it to be possible. I'm part of the establishment (ie people who actually understand the science and accept thermodynamic barriers as reality). 70% efficient engine? Absolutely! Achieved through carbueration and gearing? NFW! Add in some ceramic cylinder sleeces, and throw a crock pot in the back seat....still NFW! It's going to take quite some time and a [B]hell[/B] of a lot of money and many, many breakthroughs in engine technology to get close to 70% and I have no doubt that it will eventually happen. Call me crazy!!
Sorry everyone. This is going to be the catalyst for another 2000 word essay on conspiracies, but I couldn't help it.
BOTH of you need to get some sleep and stop internet surfing so darn late!
Brian

__________________
Brian
1995 E320 wagon

Just trying to keep things interesting.