From: webdw@cbnews.cb.att.com (bruce.d.woods)
Subject: Re: Carburetors, gasoline, and why I don't recycle
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 18:32:15 GMT

In article <1992Sep02.010828.24870@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu> ejhupper@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Eric Huppertz) writes:
>You see, carburetors have been the subject of much study for decades.
>And there have been several enterprising groups who have developed
>carburetors and engine systems which are hyper-efficient by 
>comparison to today's standards, but only par for the course where
>scientific development is concerned.  I once read an article which
>stated, as I recall, that one such fuel-injection system promised
>to double the effective power of its engine, while extending gas
>mileage to well over 130 (that's one hundred thirty) miles per
>gallon.  On a news program years ago, I saw a group of college
>students who had developed a carburetor that guaranteed at least
>100 miles per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline.


Sure, there have been experimental cars built that get 100 or
more mpg  (one was over 200!).  They are very light, driven at
low speeds, have rock hard tires/suspensions and often coast
with engine off periodically.  Where is documentation to support
claim of 100+ mpg with a practical car?

>
>So where are these miraculous systems?  Are they installed in our
>automobiles, reducing our fuel consumption and air pollution output?
>Of course not.  You know as well as I do where they are:  In the
>vaults of the world's major oil companies.  That's right, build a
>better carburetor and Exxon will beat a path to your door.  I can't
>imagine how rich the developers of these super-effient systems must
>be, now that the oil corporations bought their ideas and stapled
>their mouths shut with platinum stapleguns.

As yes, the giant oil company conspiracy theory - again.  To
make this work of course you would have to have another co-
conspiracy among all the world's car manufacturers AND yet
another co-conspiracy among all the world's racing car builders
and independent designers.  That's real credible!?!?  The
secrets of the A-Bomb and H-bomb only lasted 5 years with all
the machinery of the Federal Government trying to keep it under
wraps; I guess the oil companies must be extremely good at
cloak & dagger stuff!

>
>And speaking of gasoline, don't you think it's a little suspicious
>that there have been virtually no advancements in the quality and
>efficiency of this fuel in the past 25 years?  I'll wager that more
>research money goes into new formulas of Coca-Cola than new formulas of
>one of the world's most needed liquids.  With all the advancements in 
>so many other areas, it sounds fishy to me that such a lucrative 
>substance as gasoline remains at its present level of inefficiency.

Although gasoline isn't the most high tech field, there have
been a few advancements:  now unleaded, lower vapor pressure
to minimize pollution, detergent formula to minimize gum build-
up and cleaner lines and carb/fuel injection systems.  And those
"gouging" oil companies charge less (adjusted for inflation before
taxes) per gallon than at any time since WWII.  They have worked
with the car companies on formulations which burn well and pollute
less than ever.  Of course cars/trucks/buses still pollute but not
nearly as much as just 15 years ago.

>
>So I, for one, will not make an effort to "protect the environment"
>by recycling my little aluminum cans, or buying brand X because it's
>packed in recycled cardboard.  Not until I am assured that the oil
>companies are doing their part: working for the planet rather than
>against it for the sake of some pretty serious bucks.
>
>
I assume "ERIC THE NON-RECYCLER" didn't write this curious diatribe
in jest, but if he did, it's a poor joke and it's on him.  Recycling
is working better all the time and obviously worth the efforts of all.

BDW
Newsgroups: rec.autos,rec.autos.vw,rec.autos.tech