Google to invest $10m in development of energy efficient cars

27 Jun 2007 10:43a.m.

benjamin wrote:

harry, by quoting & agreeing with it,, you are claiming it to be true. & modifications in australia are only illegal if not certified,, & i'm quite certain that a carby replacement would have no problem getting a cert,, much like an lpg conversion etc. lets send it to myth busters,, no need,,, busted! ok write what you like here now,i cant be a**d checking it, you still cant deny, petrol needs replacing, & it is well over due, even if you got 1000mpg,(lets get into the new millennium, 1600km/3.78l) we still have limited petrol at our disposal & need to find a replacement!

27 Jun 2007 08:23a.m.

harry wrote:

Benjamin I did not claim @00mpg for the pogue Ford motor Co Canada did They allso claimed one could slow down to 5mph in top gear and excellerate away with full power and smother running.The two built by mechanics were in Australia Where modifications are illegle.I last saw these in 1990 when I left Australia But they do work In the1960s it was claimed internal combustion petrol engines were 86% efficient obviously this was not correct as modern engines use half the fuel as older ones

26 Jun 2007 10:30p.m.

benjamin wrote:

harry,, i know the properties of petrol, as a liquid is isnt flammable, thats why it needs to be vaporised entering a combustion chamber, & why direct injection is more economical than carbys, & why your car runs better when it gets up to temperature, or why your can pour petrol over a match & the match wil die, but drop a match into petrol.. you can still only get so much efficiency out of a piston engine, it is technology that is over 100years old, & is well due for replacement, you have SEEN a working example? did you test it yourself? why arnt YOU driving one now? because it doesnt really work! 90mpg is reasonable efficiency, but it isnt 200mpg as you claimed the pogue to do in canada

26 Jun 2007 08:27a.m.

harry wrote:

I have seen a similar copy of the pogue carburetta working on a late sixties Ford falcon it achieved fuel consumption in the 90 mpg range Based on a copy of the patent plans whic I supplied There was another built with about the same results .Diesel engines are more eficient than petrol but put petrol in a diesel motor you will blow it to bits.Get a tin can of petrol let it get covered in frost then pour some into a sardine tin and try to lightit Then on a hot day throw a tablespoon of petrol into a large pile of sticks wait 30 seconds and throw in a match yuo will get a free haircut That is the power of petrol as a gas I was referring to Teslas experiments not theorys

24 Jun 2007 09:39p.m.

benjamin wrote:

LOL,, no, LMAO!! your a retired mechanic, & you cant see that a carby will only allow an engine to be so efficient! you should know better,, it takes more than just that! (according to ford... thats why they released it & produced millions of economical engines,, & dont blame the government,, thats paranoid) the fact you have investigated telsa's theorys (remembering that theory's dont necessarily work) proves to me, that you aggree, petrol is long over due for replacement, & we should be replacing it any which way possible.

24 Jun 2007 07:07p.m.

harry wrote:

Benjamin the pogue carburetta according to Ford motof company Canada was a success I have read the report. Tesla had around 2500 patents to his credit most being clasified Military and no longer allowed to be revealled .Like he once said everyone could have a device approx 3 cubic feet in sise that would enable them to tap the earths magnetic field and have an unlimited supply of free energy.People who have tapped into this since have all disappeared

23 Jun 2007 11:17p.m.

benjamin wrote:

dude,, pogue carburettor, tested,, failed, an urban legend, never worked, (its a carburettor, not an efficient engine) telsa, sure, figured out essentially what we know as generators, or alternators, oh yeah, but they need to be propelled by something like a motor! for uranium U235 is used for power(same for bombs) U236 is the by-product(waste) power stations dont process U235 for bombs, they use the same material! they just react different, fission for power fusion(much more powerful, harder to control) for bombs. learn about new technology, your old cars will soon be obsolete.

23 Jun 2007 08:22a.m.

harry wrote:

Benjamin I am a retired mechanic,ever heard of the pougeu carburetta.Ford Canada tested it and got 198 and 202 mpg. This was achieved by turning petrol into a gas. Heard of Nicola Tesla He made petrol and electricity as we know it redundant before 1900 ever heard of magnetic motors nearest thing to perpetual motion put them on a wheel like the spokes on a bicycle spinning as it turns then they pull and push. Governments controll populations by controlling the cost and availability of energy and nuclear power stations are the most efficient way to process uranium for weapons so you can call it a byproduct rather than waste if you like

22 Jun 2007 11:09a.m.

benjamin wrote:

ok, sorry for the typo, they HAVENT found anything to do with it,, you cant make a nuclear explosive with nuclear waste!!(& then the quantity of waste depends on if it is fission or fusion) & my point is, using power from an grid, is less polluting than driving 10million fossil fuels cars around!!! therefore,, not a waste of time!! still more energy efficient, & still if oil runs out,, we can still generate power by other means, to fuel cars, electric cars!,, do you know anything about this,, or did you read a comic book written by texico?

22 Jun 2007 08:01a.m.

harry wrote:

Yes Bemjamin they have found something to do with waste from power stations, they make bombs with some of it and dispose the rest some into the oceans.15 years ago it was claimed by scientists that the world does not have enough mony to properly dispose of all nuclear power stations and their waste. However the point I was trying to make is millions of electric cars without clean power stations is a waste of time