Oil industry suppressed plans for 200-mpg car

They increase efficiency because they can run much hotter than steel components this increasig the thermodynamic efficiency of the engine. Unfortunately, although they tolerate heat well, the don't have any of the other materials characteristics needed for a reliable engine (like they tend to crack and break pretty easily.)

That ten minutes to go 0 to 30 mph, isn't accurate for merging into interstate traffic. About two seconds into the merge, the eighteen wheeler booster kicks in and it's 0 to 80 in 3 seconds.

"Seems pretty ridiculous. He clearly would have made more money on his invention than as an oil refiner."

He would have ended up in a concrete coffin, never to be heard from again. The oil Billionaires wouldn't have allowed his interference. Don't be naive.

Ah - that makes sense (ie. Shuttle Columbia) - thanks for the info.

Ah, OK! It turns out that I have the same sensitivities as you regarding outlandish claims and violations of the laws of thermodynamics and physics!!

Once upon a time, I went through the math on the otto cycle (I said "carnot cycle" earlier - WRONG! I meant otto cycle!) and found that it was 35% efficient at best. Also went through the diesel cycle and came up with 45% efficient. As you state, the cycle efficiency has nothing to do with how much of the energy was extracted from the fuel of choice - it was based on the physics of the cycle itself. Once upon a time, I could do the calculations as a matter of course - haven't done it in YEARS - a clear case of "use it or lose it" here - (memory is perfect- it's the I/O which is shot - LOL) - sigh!

BTW, an interesting site for folks who want to look at the various engines and cycles is at http://www.rawbw.com/~xmwang/GUIdemo.htm. It's got some decent "action graphics" illustrating each.

Regarding the CCV engine - hmmmm! Roger your coments about light car and underpowered; the engine was not commercially successful, as I recall, DUE to it's lack of performance, and I thought this was in great part due to the relatively long time it took for the "stratified charge" process (that "preburning" chamber I mentioned) to work. The main point here is that there WAS something to be derived from a process which supported more efficient combustion which, in turn, released more energy from a given "burn".

I'm definitely NOT talking about increasing the efficiency of the cycles involved, nor violating laws of physics; in fact the ONLY thing I'm espousing here is a means to get more of the energy out of a given volume of petroleum-based fuel than is now being done. Here, again, I've "lost" the math, but there is an amazing amount of energy in gasoline, and this is why inefficient use of the fuel still gets decent results in current systems.

Even if an otto cycle is 35% efficient at best, 35% of X is less than 35% of (X + "delta"), "delta" being the additional energy available in the fuel which is not currently being extracted. Perhaps my tongue got in front of my eyeteeth and I couldn't see what I was saying - or typing - *SMILE* - and it didn't come out correctly! My contention is nothing more than "vapor burns more efficiently than droplets of liquid, more efficient burning allows release of more energy, and more energy released yields more miles per gallon." Too simple, right? I don't see "perpetual motion" or violations of laws of thermodynamics or physics here.

Thanks for taking the time to describe "where you are coming from" in this discussion. I absolutely understand, and even concur with, your position, as I stated in opening sentences of this post. I still wish a vapor-based "carburation" (right word?) system would be developed, but the times it has been tried, petroleum companies have apparently either bought the innovators out or strong-armed them (rumor of a guy in houston who was murdered over this issue because he wouldn't sell - please note I said "rumor" - I do not consider myself susceptible to conspiracy theory panics - LOL!).

Even if an otto cycle is 35% efficient at best, 35% of X is less than 35% of (X + "delta"), "delta" being the additional energy available in the fuel which is not currently being extracted

Two losses from total energy that could possibly be attributed to mixing are incomplete burning - not all fuel has a chance to burn before the power pulse is past (and this is true whether the fuel is in vapor or fine droplet form), and heat of vaporization. The heat of vaporization is a nit, and the only ways to get more complete burning are to lean out the mix or run the engine slower. Leaning out the mix too much causes detonation, not good for power or engine life, and running the engine slower doesn't fit with traffic too well. I guess you could have a 12 speed gearbox, but the cost of this would probably outweigh any fuel savings over the life of the car.

I guess that running the engine on O2 rather than air would speed up the kinetics of the flame front, but this would get kind or pricey, and who would want to drive around in a car with a tank of lox and a tank of gas? Not me.