This Facebook page a friend sent me made me angry

danshawen

danshawen

Valued Senior Member
See:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10201677077718343&fref=nf

Why can't GM, Ford, Chrysler, etc. do it too? Well for one thing, there's the obvious safety issue of having a vented plastic canister of fuel under the hood. All such an arrangement would need would be for a redneck to light up a camel and lean against the grille, and KABOOOOOM!!!! Hood blows off, gas can blows up and ignites, spilling burning liquid gas all over the engine compartment…. Get the picture?

When the weather gets cold, will this thing start the car? When the gas has set around in the can long enough for the more volatile parts to evaporate, will it leave the motorist sitting there grinding the starter until the battery dies?

If these rednecks had any sense, they'd remove their large gas tank and put in two smaller ones. One would be connected as per usual (a fuel pump, injector, etc.). The other one would suck air like he demonstrated, but only when an air inlet was open, only when the engine was already running, warmed up & etc.. This could be done relatively safe, just not by some bozo copying a design from a lawnmower or a chainsaw or something.

I'd also like to see "Redneck" try his experiment with a full load of tree trunks in the back of his pickup, with the air conditioner on high, headlights and four-ways on, blowing the horn and driving uphill on a freeway at rush hour.

"Stupid" is a word that just doesn't do them justice, besides being an insult to stupid people, who are usually smarter.

The lengths some people will go to not to fix the carburetor in their lawnmowers…

What do people here think? He got nothing but "likes" on Facebook, which frankly scares me.
 
[video=youtube;wxfo-w0ptEo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxfo-w0ptEo[/video]


Using water would be better for it can't explode.
 
The problem with the hydrogen from water systems is that they can tend to be a bit unpredictable... and again, wreck havoc with modern ECM's. You, literally, have to override your engine's fuel monitoring system, or else it'll just dump more gas in to keep the mixture in a state it considers stable... thus defeating the entire purpose.

Obviously, this voids ANY sort of warranty you may have ever had.
 
I never owned a car and only drove it a few times. I feel less masculine knowing that others know all these car engine acronyms and functionality =/
 
ECM = Engine control Module, essentially, the "main computer" of the car. This controls the gas mixture, how much air/fuel enters the engine, monitors engine function, reports errors (Check engine light), and generally keeps a modern engine going... it's also what makes modern cars so expensive to fix XD

It's why I like my 1990 Pathfinder - if something goes wrong with the engine... generally you can open the hood and SEE IT because it's mostly mechanical :D
 
Kittamaru said:
ECM = Engine control Module, essentially, the "main computer" of the car. This controls the gas mixture, how much air/fuel enters the engine, monitors engine function, reports errors (Check engine light), and generally keeps a modern engine going... it's also what makes modern cars so expensive to fix XD

It's why I like my 1990 Pathfinder - if something goes wrong with the engine... generally you can open the hood and SEE IT because it's mostly mechanical :D
Click to expand...

Are not autos considered 'antiques' after 25 years of age? Yours would be right on the bubble. I only parted with my beloved 1993 Toyota T-100 just last September because 4 vehicles really seemed like overkill for a two person household.

Then we had the winter of record snows and the second 4 x 4 would have been much utilized. Instead, we went and purchased a Kubota RTV1100WXH with a blade and a dump box and we have been making good use of it.

Back to the subject of this thread and running vehicles on fumes, was it not the case that the fuel companies suppressed more efficient carburetors and fuel injection for as long as they could or is that just urban legend? In my observation, it does not matter how efficient we become at anything, the supply will always be manipulated to favor those who produce and control it. Every holiday weekend, fuel prices rise in response to demand. This demand is entirely predictable yet the companies refuse to foot the bill for having more capacity on hand. It is far more cost effective for business just to pass the buck and whenever natural disaster strikes, the outcomes are once again good for business.

Extremely foolish and dangerous experiment, I would agree, but it does raise the question of just how much more fuel efficient vehicles are capable of becoming.
 
It is almost an antique/classic car... but, well... Sheila was my Grandfathers truck. He bought her a year after I was born to have something more capable and safer for when he was looking after me. We've got some serious history... and she was my first car as well. She saw us both through several blizzards where no amount of snow or ice was able to stop her, and she has only ever been stuck once, and even then it was only for as long as it took to shift into 4x4 Low Gear and crawl back out. She has weathered several rear endings with nothing more than a scratch in the paint on her bumper... and for an old truck, she has respectable power and get 17 MPG city and about 21 MPG highway. She's easy to work on, a pleasure to drive, and so very capable, both on and off the road.

I'm ashamed that she's sat for four years while I tried to scrape up the money to get her fixed up (over 20 years in the PA road salt took a toll on her all steel body, and because of a hole leading into the passenger cabin she didn't pass inspection) - we're working to get her fixed up and cleaned up now so my little brother can have her as his first vehicle. Solid steel cabin on box-frame design makes her one of the strongest and safest vehicles on the road... I wouldn't want him learning to drive in anything else :)

once he's got his own car, I plan to put the time in refurbing her and save her for our kids to learn in.
 
youreyes said:
I never owned a car and only drove it a few times. I feel less masculine knowing that others know all these car engine acronyms and functionality =/
Click to expand...

No need to feel less masculine, Eyes. it's a small man indeed who needs a vehicle to compensate for his vesicle. I don't think anyone here is suggesting otherwise.

Hey! I love your new avatar. A shapeless sea - very descriptive.

Cosmic in post #3 about using water, and Zade in #7: "the fuel companies suppressed more efficient carburetors and fuel injection for as long as they could or is that just urban legend?"

Yes and yes. I've been hearing all my life that cars could run on water, but Big Oil doesn't want us to know, so have bought the patents and suppress the knowledge. I am also pretty sure I've seen threads on SciForum confirming so, and not in the conspiracy theory section. Can anyone refer us to those posts, please?

So not to sidetrack the discussion, but to move on to what the discussion should really be about
 
danshawen said:
See:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10201677077718343&fref=nf

Why can't GM, Ford, Chrysler, etc. do it too? Well for one thing, there's the obvious safety issue of having a vented plastic canister of fuel under the hood. All such an arrangement would need would be for a redneck to light up a camel and lean against the grille, and KABOOOOOM!!!! Hood blows off, gas can blows up and ignites, spilling burning liquid gas all over the engine compartment…. Get the picture?

When the weather gets cold, will this thing start the car? When the gas has set around in the can long enough for the more volatile parts to evaporate, will it leave the motorist sitting there grinding the starter until the battery dies?

If these rednecks had any sense, they'd remove their large gas tank and put in two smaller ones. One would be connected as per usual (a fuel pump, injector, etc.). The other one would suck air like he demonstrated, but only when an air inlet was open, only when the engine was already running, warmed up & etc.. This could be done relatively safe, just not by some bozo copying a design from a lawnmower or a chainsaw or something.

I'd also like to see "Redneck" try his experiment with a full load of tree trunks in the back of his pickup, with the air conditioner on high, headlights and four-ways on, blowing the horn and driving uphill on a freeway at rush hour.

"Stupid" is a word that just doesn't do them justice, besides being an insult to stupid people, who are usually smarter.

The lengths some people will go to not to fix the carburetor in their lawnmowers…

What do people here think? He got nothing but "likes" on Facebook, which frankly scares me.
Click to expand...

Quite.

What he seems oblivious of is that he is simply replacing the carburettor or fuel injection by his home made device. He's burning just as much fuel as before. The laws of thermodynamics prevent him from getting any more miles to the gallon by his home made device than he gets from the engine run as normal. In fact he will get less and his engine won't work properly under all load and speed conditions, as that is what a properly set up carburettor or injection system goes to grat lengths to perfect.

A total waste of time.
 
exchemist said:
Quite.

What he seems oblivious of is that he is simply replacing the carburettor or fuel injection by his home made device. He's burning just as much fuel as before. The laws of thermodynamics prevent him from getting any more miles to the gallon by his home made device than he gets from the engine run as normal. In fact he will get less and his engine won't work properly under all load and speed conditions, as that is what a properly set up carburettor or injection system goes to grat lengths to perfect.

A total waste of time.
Click to expand...

In the original video he claims to get something like 200 mpg. So, you are saying, he is deluding himself?
 
there's just way too many hillbilly concepts out there on youtube claiming zero point energy tapping sources and limitless resources...and they dont supply any legible proof whatsoever. Is like Rassmussen claiming all the proof is there that rebels took down the civilian plane over Ukraine, but when it comes to showing the actual "proof" in internationally recognized court, he goes silent. Same with this hillbilly, much ado for nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top