I think that's pretty slimy tactics. But since I watched, I'll comment.
This car is not a breakthrough in anything. It's the culmination of every compromise available and every performance matching that can be done to an EXISTING very traditional system. Do that for 30 years and you'll easily go from 800 mpg to 2700. Nothing to see in that.
If, however, you really want to see a commercial product that the masses will accept and that can make a difference, you simply tweak that process a bit. Instead of tweaking existing technology, you find major step advances and put those together, working the bugs out as you go. For example, if you want a genuine 200-300 mpg, privately owned, 4 passenger car that runs on gasoline, you eliminate all the energy losses by other means.
Today's internal combustion (IC) engines lose 70% of their output as wasted heat. 35% is lost as internal friction which is removed by the radiator. Possibly as much as 35% is lost as exhaust heat and pressure. An arguable 25% of the remaining 30% is lost in the drive train gearing and rolling friction, and about 6% to parasitic loads. After these, you're left with 20 of your initial 100 hp (assumed) to move the car. From this, you now subtract another 2-20 hp for wind resistance, depending on what speed you are moving. What you're left with is between 8 and 20 hp to move the mass. How did anyone ever thing this system was worth refining?
Assuming you still want to use gasoline... Instead, let's eliminate the exhaust pressure by making compression variable so more exhaust pressure can move the piston before it exits. This also captures most of the waste heat too because expanding that gas more cools it internally. This is being partially done by Coates Intl. by using a spinning ball-valve in the head. It has another benefit:
Removing the valve train would cut lots of friction Gain = 15 hp. But the major friction (and wear) is solved by removing the piston skirt friction. A German company (no link AFAIK) placed dual counter rotating crankshafts behind dual con-rods and then removed the skirt because piston travel is now perfectly linear. This would yield another 20 hp.
Now, let's boost the intake only when needed to make extra demand power. The gain here is that we can use smaller engines to make the same peak power. Gain = maybe 15 hp.
Now, let's 'gear it' by running a steady speed generator which then powers efficient wheel specific motors. Gain - 10 hp and tons of torque.
Now, lets add that up. We now have a smaller 20 hp engine that loses only 6 to friction and it's running a car that's 1,000 lbs lighter (same size though) and has increased torque starting at 0 mph. Adding the efficiencies is tricky but I estimate it could reach in excess of 300 mpg maintaining a 60 mph cruise on a semi-aerodynamic body. Town driving and speed changes would drop that to under 200 but it's certainly good enough to justify going after it.
To reach even higher efficiencies, you could alternatively use the Stirling engine I designed and get another 80-110 mpg. Besides being more efficient that any IC engine, it uses the full energy of the fuel (97% anyway) in a steady constant 'torch' type setup. This now allows you to use virtually any fuel. :)
And then... if you are ok with tossing out personal ownership and gasoline, you can switch 75% + of commuter and errand traffic over to Skytran. They use antonymous 2 seat, maglev pods on a power-pole mounted rail (no new footprint) to go from point-to-point at very high speeds, all powered by the grid. When considering the entire system (mine to movement), this yields over 1,000+ MPGe. Silent and under 10% the cost of car travel, this could eliminate over a trillion in national infrastructure and social costs each year.
So you see, there's no reason to sensationalize or compromise like the car above or relate it to some cancer suppression conspiracy to make a point. We just have to get to work and do it.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: