weelliott@gmail.com

Please read this entire post before you attack me for defending Cam.

I think that a lot of people on here are stuck in a paradigm. Cam is
right that there are lots of places in an engine where there is
unnecessary friction. (Even if his english is not perfect, it is
better than any language I've tried to speak that isn't English.) This
has actually been proven by many people over the years. One of my
engineering professors worked for GM in the 70s and by redesigning
piston rings his team was able to raise fuel efficiency in some GM
engines by about 4%, which is not trivial. There are loads of places
where engineers accept that losses are present, and little is done
about it. The internal combustion engine is old technology that we
keep improving on, but aside from teh rotary engine, there isn't a
radically new type of IC technology. If you look at the wiseman crank,
at www.wisemanengine.com, you will see solid engineering that proves
that there are huge losses due to friction caused by the side to side
motion of the crank rod causing a binding tendency between the piston
skirt and the cylinder wall. Wiseman invented a way around this and
they have documented huge fuel savings. I have a hunch that
manufacturing costs are keeping it out of the mainstream. The Coates
engines(www.coatesengine.com) have a rotary valvetrain for higher
power and increased efficiency. It is a matter of a manufacturer being
willing to take the leap of investing in retooling, being able to sell
the public on the idea, and testing the hell out of a technology so
they don't get pie on their face when it starts failing at 40k miles
or 3 years like the reolutionary multilayered unibody chevy monzas(or
was it the Vegas?) that were stiff and light, but rusted in 3 years.
The original rotary engine was pretty much given up on by its inventor
when mazda took on the program. They couldn't seal it properly in a
way that woudl last. And over the years many have tried to build a
good rotary valve as an alternative to tapet valves. Rotary valves had
sealing problems or flow problems for years. Coates got around that.

There are solutions out there. Some have even been found.

Additionally, it is possible to increase efficiency by changing timing
and a few basic operating parameters of the engine. Check into the
miller cycle. It is a cycle that uses a different valve opening
algorythm to improve efficiency. Mazda toyed around with that in the
90s on more than one car, and the toyota prius uses it. It sacrifices
power for efficiency though. In today's horsepower race, that is not
the way to go.

So engineers today know about things like the Miller cycle, but in
every design solution there are compromises. They choose to bias more
towards performance than economy-thus no miller cycle. So some
solutions are not used because they come with unpreferable
compromises. Some because they are against the paradigm, some because
they don't have the proof of longevity, some because manufacturing
costs would be too high. There are many reasons that there may be a
legitimate way of saving gas that we don't currently have on our cars.

The question is does Cam have the answer? I'd bet the likeliness that
he has an original answer that can easily be modified into a newer car
is pretty small. Very small. Especially since he claims it is
noninvasive. Perhaps it is an already invented, yet not widely known
technology that he simply tells you about in the book. Changing the
ECU's mapping is not easy or cheap. Installing a wiseman crank
necessitates redesigning the entire lower end. Coates valves are a
total head replacement. Teflon coatings are not cheap. I just can't
imagine an easy noninvasive way of doing it. (But that doesn't mean
that someone else hasn't.)

I think that if the Wiseman crank were combined with the coates valves
and run with a miller cycle, or run on diesel, we could see
efficiencies much higher than we see now. But that is just me
dreaming. I'm not trying to sell you any books on it.

> You know, that's the problem, they are not.
>
> They are the best that money can buy.
>
> So, if the choice is either you are right and they are wrong, or you are
> wrong and they are right, well, I will go with the latter.
>
> Extreme claims require extreme proof.
>
> j.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

EdV

If there is one fuel saving technique car manufacturers have to
incorporate in engines, it should be on the air filter. It is already
used in household vacuum cleaners called a Dyson. No loss of suction,
no filters to replace. Maybe, just maybe, they can use it on exhaust
pipes too.

EdV

If there is one fuel saving technique car manufacturers have to
incorporate in engines, it should be on the air filter. It is already
used in household vacuum cleaners called a Dyson. No loss of suction,
no filters to replace. Maybe, just maybe, they can use it on exhaust
pipes too.

Edward W. Thompson

On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 13:35:55 -0000, "weelliott@gmail.com"
<weelliott@gmail.com> wrote:

>Please read this entire post before you attack me for defending Cam.
>
>I think that a lot of people on here are stuck in a paradigm. Cam is
>right that there are lots of places in an engine where there is
>unnecessary friction. (Even if his english is not perfect, it is
>better than any language I've tried to speak that isn't English.) This
>has actually been proven by many people over the years. One of my
>engineering professors worked for GM in the 70s and by redesigning
>piston rings his team was able to raise fuel efficiency in some GM
>engines by about 4%, which is not trivial. There are loads of places
>where engineers accept that losses are present, and little is done
>about it. The internal combustion engine is old technology that we
>keep improving on, but aside from teh rotary engine, there isn't a
>radically new type of IC technology. If you look at the wiseman crank,
>at www.wisemanengine.com, you will see solid engineering that proves
>that there are huge losses due to friction caused by the side to side
>motion of the crank rod causing a binding tendency between the piston
>skirt and the cylinder wall. Wiseman invented a way around this and
>they have documented huge fuel savings. I have a hunch that
>manufacturing costs are keeping it out of the mainstream. The Coates
>engines(www.coatesengine.com) have a rotary valvetrain for higher
>power and increased efficiency. It is a matter of a manufacturer being
>willing to take the leap of investing in retooling, being able to sell
>the public on the idea, and testing the hell out of a technology so
>they don't get pie on their face when it starts failing at 40k miles
>or 3 years like the reolutionary multilayered unibody chevy monzas(or
>was it the Vegas?) that were stiff and light, but rusted in 3 years.
>The original rotary engine was pretty much given up on by its inventor
>when mazda took on the program. They couldn't seal it properly in a
>way that woudl last. And over the years many have tried to build a
>good rotary valve as an alternative to tapet valves. Rotary valves had
>sealing problems or flow problems for years. Coates got around that.
>
>There are solutions out there. Some have even been found.
>
>Additionally, it is possible to increase efficiency by changing timing
>and a few basic operating parameters of the engine. Check into the
>miller cycle. It is a cycle that uses a different valve opening
>algorythm to improve efficiency. Mazda toyed around with that in the
>90s on more than one car, and the toyota prius uses it. It sacrifices
>power for efficiency though. In today's horsepower race, that is not
>the way to go.
>
>So engineers today know about things like the Miller cycle, but in
>every design solution there are compromises. They choose to bias more
>towards performance than economy-thus no miller cycle. So some
>solutions are not used because they come with unpreferable
>compromises. Some because they are against the paradigm, some because
>they don't have the proof of longevity, some because manufacturing
>costs would be too high. There are many reasons that there may be a
>legitimate way of saving gas that we don't currently have on our cars.
>
>The question is does Cam have the answer? I'd bet the likeliness that
>he has an original answer that can easily be modified into a newer car
>is pretty small. Very small. Especially since he claims it is
>noninvasive. Perhaps it is an already invented, yet not widely known
>technology that he simply tells you about in the book. Changing the
>ECU's mapping is not easy or cheap. Installing a wiseman crank
>necessitates redesigning the entire lower end. Coates valves are a
>total head replacement. Teflon coatings are not cheap. I just can't
>imagine an easy noninvasive way of doing it. (But that doesn't mean
>that someone else hasn't.)
>
>I think that if the Wiseman crank were combined with the coates valves
>and run with a miller cycle, or run on diesel, we could see
>efficiencies much higher than we see now. But that is just me
>dreaming. I'm not trying to sell you any books on it.
>
>> You know, that's the problem, they are not.
>>
>> They are the best that money can buy.
>>
>> So, if the choice is either you are right and they are wrong, or you are
>> wrong and they are right, well, I will go with the latter.
>>
>> Extreme claims require extreme proof.
>>
>> j.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
I do not disagree with what you have posted except that improvement in
fuel efficiency is a 'hot selling' item for all manufacturers and if
there is an economic means to incorporate fuel efficiency measures
then manufacturers would do it simply to give an 'edge' over
competitors. There is no global conspiracy or collusion between auto
manufacturers and oil companies to keep the automobile fuel
inefficient.

The reciprocating internal combustion engine is the best we have at
present. The Wankel engine is interesting but has not (yet) realized
its initial promise (high power to weight ratio plus efficiency).
Other auto fuel economy schemes, such as hybrids, are very
questionable when overall fuel economy is concerned. The hydrogen
cell again is interesting but is not fuel efficient when all factors
are taken into consideration (if there is sufficient non fossil fuel
available it may be useful but not otherwise at least taking present
technology into consideration).

Returning to the claims of CAM's, they are simply preposterous. My
understanding is that by non invasive means he claims his 'invention'
will very significantly (not marginally), increase the fuel
consumption of modern autos. If that was true he would not need to
come to a NG such as this for advice on how to market his 'invention'.
Auto companies would be queuing at his doorstep.

I am suprised that so many who subscribe to this NG have given his
claim credibility, it deserves nothing but derision.

Edward W. Thompson

On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 13:35:55 -0000, "weelliott@gmail.com"
<weelliott@gmail.com> wrote:

>Please read this entire post before you attack me for defending Cam.
>
>I think that a lot of people on here are stuck in a paradigm. Cam is
>right that there are lots of places in an engine where there is
>unnecessary friction. (Even if his english is not perfect, it is
>better than any language I've tried to speak that isn't English.) This
>has actually been proven by many people over the years. One of my
>engineering professors worked for GM in the 70s and by redesigning
>piston rings his team was able to raise fuel efficiency in some GM
>engines by about 4%, which is not trivial. There are loads of places
>where engineers accept that losses are present, and little is done
>about it. The internal combustion engine is old technology that we
>keep improving on, but aside from teh rotary engine, there isn't a
>radically new type of IC technology. If you look at the wiseman crank,
>at www.wisemanengine.com, you will see solid engineering that proves
>that there are huge losses due to friction caused by the side to side
>motion of the crank rod causing a binding tendency between the piston
>skirt and the cylinder wall. Wiseman invented a way around this and
>they have documented huge fuel savings. I have a hunch that
>manufacturing costs are keeping it out of the mainstream. The Coates
>engines(www.coatesengine.com) have a rotary valvetrain for higher
>power and increased efficiency. It is a matter of a manufacturer being
>willing to take the leap of investing in retooling, being able to sell
>the public on the idea, and testing the hell out of a technology so
>they don't get pie on their face when it starts failing at 40k miles
>or 3 years like the reolutionary multilayered unibody chevy monzas(or
>was it the Vegas?) that were stiff and light, but rusted in 3 years.
>The original rotary engine was pretty much given up on by its inventor
>when mazda took on the program. They couldn't seal it properly in a
>way that woudl last. And over the years many have tried to build a
>good rotary valve as an alternative to tapet valves. Rotary valves had
>sealing problems or flow problems for years. Coates got around that.
>
>There are solutions out there. Some have even been found.
>
>Additionally, it is possible to increase efficiency by changing timing
>and a few basic operating parameters of the engine. Check into the
>miller cycle. It is a cycle that uses a different valve opening
>algorythm to improve efficiency. Mazda toyed around with that in the
>90s on more than one car, and the toyota prius uses it. It sacrifices
>power for efficiency though. In today's horsepower race, that is not
>the way to go.
>
>So engineers today know about things like the Miller cycle, but in
>every design solution there are compromises. They choose to bias more
>towards performance than economy-thus no miller cycle. So some
>solutions are not used because they come with unpreferable
>compromises. Some because they are against the paradigm, some because
>they don't have the proof of longevity, some because manufacturing
>costs would be too high. There are many reasons that there may be a
>legitimate way of saving gas that we don't currently have on our cars.
>
>The question is does Cam have the answer? I'd bet the likeliness that
>he has an original answer that can easily be modified into a newer car
>is pretty small. Very small. Especially since he claims it is
>noninvasive. Perhaps it is an already invented, yet not widely known
>technology that he simply tells you about in the book. Changing the
>ECU's mapping is not easy or cheap. Installing a wiseman crank
>necessitates redesigning the entire lower end. Coates valves are a
>total head replacement. Teflon coatings are not cheap. I just can't
>imagine an easy noninvasive way of doing it. (But that doesn't mean
>that someone else hasn't.)
>
>I think that if the Wiseman crank were combined with the coates valves
>and run with a miller cycle, or run on diesel, we could see
>efficiencies much higher than we see now. But that is just me
>dreaming. I'm not trying to sell you any books on it.
>
>> You know, that's the problem, they are not.
>>
>> They are the best that money can buy.
>>
>> So, if the choice is either you are right and they are wrong, or you are
>> wrong and they are right, well, I will go with the latter.
>>
>> Extreme claims require extreme proof.
>>
>> j.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
I do not disagree with what you have posted except that improvement in
fuel efficiency is a 'hot selling' item for all manufacturers and if
there is an economic means to incorporate fuel efficiency measures
then manufacturers would do it simply to give an 'edge' over
competitors. There is no global conspiracy or collusion between auto
manufacturers and oil companies to keep the automobile fuel
inefficient.

The reciprocating internal combustion engine is the best we have at
present. The Wankel engine is interesting but has not (yet) realized
its initial promise (high power to weight ratio plus efficiency).
Other auto fuel economy schemes, such as hybrids, are very
questionable when overall fuel economy is concerned. The hydrogen
cell again is interesting but is not fuel efficient when all factors
are taken into consideration (if there is sufficient non fossil fuel
available it may be useful but not otherwise at least taking present
technology into consideration).

Returning to the claims of CAM's, they are simply preposterous. My
understanding is that by non invasive means he claims his 'invention'
will very significantly (not marginally), increase the fuel
consumption of modern autos. If that was true he would not need to
come to a NG such as this for advice on how to market his 'invention'.
Auto companies would be queuing at his doorstep.

I am suprised that so many who subscribe to this NG have given his
claim credibility, it deserves nothing but derision.

EdV

>
> I am suprised that so many who subscribe to this NG have given his
> claim credibility, it deserves nothing but derision.

Cam was only asking for suggestion on how to market his product, such
that it would look like a scam.
Why would I put down someone who came to this NG for some friendly
advice?

It is car related and deserves a fair response, there's much more off
topic threads here (alt.autos.toyota) but I don't complain.

EdV

>
> I am suprised that so many who subscribe to this NG have given his
> claim credibility, it deserves nothing but derision.

Cam was only asking for suggestion on how to market his product, such
that it would look like a scam.
Why would I put down someone who came to this NG for some friendly
advice?

It is car related and deserves a fair response, there's much more off
topic threads here (alt.autos.toyota) but I don't complain.

weelliott@gmail.com

I was not giving him credit. At the end I think I made my skepticism
of his claims clear. Maybe I didn't make them clear enough. I was
merely trying to point out that it is possible to make engines much
more efficient than they are, but it is very often not practical. I
have heard people complain that they think that there is a conspiracy
to keep these fuel saving inventions off the road, but I don't buy
that. Often times the more promising ones are bought and benched.
However, it is not to appease the oil companies as is often claimed,
but instead because of economics, longevity, emissions, or safety
considerations. Mass producing, testing, and backing up an engine that
you have made more efficient is more complicated than it seems.

I agree but also disagree with you that fuel efficiency is a hot item.
It is only hot in terms of competition amongst manufacturers, but not
in terms of trying to maximize the possibilities. Any large
manufacturer today has the knowledge, technology, and capability to
build cars capable of over 60 miles per gallon without using a complex
hybrid drivetrain. However, the compromises might not be acceptable.
Crashworthiness might suffer. Acceleration would definitely suffer.
Payload would definitely suffer. Thus marketing those cars would be
tough. You may say that the prius is proof to the contrary since it
has a wait list. (Does it still?). However, I'd guess that the prius
makes up less than 0.5% of cars on the road, and if we were to reach
say 2%, the market would be saturated. It is a well engineered car,
but definitely not for everyone. So fuel efficiency is a marketable
item, but you only have to be more efficient than your competitor, and
the counter to that is you have to offer comparable performance. That
is the big sticking point-performance. We are making cars today that
are much much more powerful than cars were in the eighties, and use
about the same fuel. The technology has improved. However, the focus
has not been on using less gas, but on going faster. The public is no
longer receptive to cars that take 13 seconds to hit 60 like many cars
did 20 years ago. The blistering pace of the mid eighties pony cars
can now be bested or at least accomplished with an economy car. I
remember when GM stuck the 275 horse V8 into the camaro in 93. That
was basically a mildly detuned Corvette engine, and made the car much
faster than anything else for that much money at the time. It was huge
bang for the buck. The 0-60 was I think 5.7 seconds. Now Honda accords
and Hyundai Sonatas are not much slower than that. Stock minivans can
take integras at the drag strip. The race for power is not overt as
much as a slippery slope, but it has slowly led us to ridiculously
powered cars by 80s standards. The public won't settle for slow cars
any more.

I was thinking yesterday after I posted my post about a story that Doc
Holloway-president of SAE in 1997 or so- told me. Some Nascar race
team was testing at a track and they miraculously instantly gained a
few miles per hour over the previous days performance, which is a huge
gain. It baffled them until they realized that they had forgotten to
fill the differential and had been running almost completely dry. The
thick gear lube was worth that much losses. (If you have ever tried to
squeeze a bottle of that stuff to force it into a transmission, a
light bulb is probably lighting off over your head.) So it could be
that Cams idea centers around changing all your lubricants to a much
lower viscosity fluid. This would improve efficiency at the sacrifice
of component life. Not the kind of trade-off I would want in my car.

Have a good day,
Bill
>
> I do not disagree with what you have posted except that improvement in
> fuel efficiency is a 'hot selling' item for all manufacturers and if
> there is an economic means to incorporate fuel efficiency measures
> then manufacturers would do it simply to give an 'edge' over
> competitors. There is no global conspiracy or collusion between auto
> manufacturers and oil companies to keep the automobile fuel
> inefficient.
>
> The reciprocating internal combustion engine is the best we have at
> present. The Wankel engine is interesting but has not (yet) realized
> its initial promise (high power to weight ratio plus efficiency).
> Other auto fuel economy schemes, such as hybrids, are very
> questionable when overall fuel economy is concerned. The hydrogen
> cell again is interesting but is not fuel efficient when all factors
> are taken into consideration (if there is sufficient non fossil fuel
> available it may be useful but not otherwise at least taking present
> technology into consideration).
>
> Returning to the claims of CAM's, they are simply preposterous. My
> understanding is that by non invasive means he claims his 'invention'
> will very significantly (not marginally), increase the fuel
> consumption of modern autos. If that was true he would not need to
> come to a NG such as this for advice on how to market his 'invention'.
> Auto companies would be queuing at his doorstep.
>
> I am suprised that so many who subscribe to this NG have given his
> claim credibility, it deserves nothing but derision.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

weelliott@gmail.com

I was not giving him credit. At the end I think I made my skepticism
of his claims clear. Maybe I didn't make them clear enough. I was
merely trying to point out that it is possible to make engines much
more efficient than they are, but it is very often not practical. I
have heard people complain that they think that there is a conspiracy
to keep these fuel saving inventions off the road, but I don't buy
that. Often times the more promising ones are bought and benched.
However, it is not to appease the oil companies as is often claimed,
but instead because of economics, longevity, emissions, or safety
considerations. Mass producing, testing, and backing up an engine that
you have made more efficient is more complicated than it seems.

I agree but also disagree with you that fuel efficiency is a hot item.
It is only hot in terms of competition amongst manufacturers, but not
in terms of trying to maximize the possibilities. Any large
manufacturer today has the knowledge, technology, and capability to
build cars capable of over 60 miles per gallon without using a complex
hybrid drivetrain. However, the compromises might not be acceptable.
Crashworthiness might suffer. Acceleration would definitely suffer.
Payload would definitely suffer. Thus marketing those cars would be
tough. You may say that the prius is proof to the contrary since it
has a wait list. (Does it still?). However, I'd guess that the prius
makes up less than 0.5% of cars on the road, and if we were to reach
say 2%, the market would be saturated. It is a well engineered car,
but definitely not for everyone. So fuel efficiency is a marketable
item, but you only have to be more efficient than your competitor, and
the counter to that is you have to offer comparable performance. That
is the big sticking point-performance. We are making cars today that
are much much more powerful than cars were in the eighties, and use
about the same fuel. The technology has improved. However, the focus
has not been on using less gas, but on going faster. The public is no
longer receptive to cars that take 13 seconds to hit 60 like many cars
did 20 years ago. The blistering pace of the mid eighties pony cars
can now be bested or at least accomplished with an economy car. I
remember when GM stuck the 275 horse V8 into the camaro in 93. That
was basically a mildly detuned Corvette engine, and made the car much
faster than anything else for that much money at the time. It was huge
bang for the buck. The 0-60 was I think 5.7 seconds. Now Honda accords
and Hyundai Sonatas are not much slower than that. Stock minivans can
take integras at the drag strip. The race for power is not overt as
much as a slippery slope, but it has slowly led us to ridiculously
powered cars by 80s standards. The public won't settle for slow cars
any more.

I was thinking yesterday after I posted my post about a story that Doc
Holloway-president of SAE in 1997 or so- told me. Some Nascar race
team was testing at a track and they miraculously instantly gained a
few miles per hour over the previous days performance, which is a huge
gain. It baffled them until they realized that they had forgotten to
fill the differential and had been running almost completely dry. The
thick gear lube was worth that much losses. (If you have ever tried to
squeeze a bottle of that stuff to force it into a transmission, a
light bulb is probably lighting off over your head.) So it could be
that Cams idea centers around changing all your lubricants to a much
lower viscosity fluid. This would improve efficiency at the sacrifice
of component life. Not the kind of trade-off I would want in my car.

Have a good day,
Bill
>
> I do not disagree with what you have posted except that improvement in
> fuel efficiency is a 'hot selling' item for all manufacturers and if
> there is an economic means to incorporate fuel efficiency measures
> then manufacturers would do it simply to give an 'edge' over
> competitors. There is no global conspiracy or collusion between auto
> manufacturers and oil companies to keep the automobile fuel
> inefficient.
>
> The reciprocating internal combustion engine is the best we have at
> present. The Wankel engine is interesting but has not (yet) realized
> its initial promise (high power to weight ratio plus efficiency).
> Other auto fuel economy schemes, such as hybrids, are very
> questionable when overall fuel economy is concerned. The hydrogen
> cell again is interesting but is not fuel efficient when all factors
> are taken into consideration (if there is sufficient non fossil fuel
> available it may be useful but not otherwise at least taking present
> technology into consideration).
>
> Returning to the claims of CAM's, they are simply preposterous. My
> understanding is that by non invasive means he claims his 'invention'
> will very significantly (not marginally), increase the fuel
> consumption of modern autos. If that was true he would not need to
> come to a NG such as this for advice on how to market his 'invention'.
> Auto companies would be queuing at his doorstep.
>
> I am suprised that so many who subscribe to this NG have given his
> claim credibility, it deserves nothing but derision.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Dori A Schmetterling

Yeah, but you have to empty the dust out of the machine. No hygienic bag.

DAS

For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling
---
"EdV" <systmengr@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194362801.857963.97380@d55g2000hsg.googlegro ups.com...
> If there is one fuel saving technique car manufacturers have to
> incorporate in engines, it should be on the air filter. It is already
> used in household vacuum cleaners called a Dyson. No loss of suction,
> no filters to replace. Maybe, just maybe, they can use it on exhaust
> pipes too.
>
>

Dori A Schmetterling

Yeah, but you have to empty the dust out of the machine. No hygienic bag.

DAS

For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling
---
"EdV" <systmengr@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194362801.857963.97380@d55g2000hsg.googlegro ups.com...
> If there is one fuel saving technique car manufacturers have to
> incorporate in engines, it should be on the air filter. It is already
> used in household vacuum cleaners called a Dyson. No loss of suction,
> no filters to replace. Maybe, just maybe, they can use it on exhaust
> pipes too.
>
>

EdV

Well, there's a dust collector in a dyson so they wont be scattered
back into the house. For car use, the dust can be dumped under the
car, whats important is that the dust dont get inside the engine.
Anyway, its a silly idea, and not cost effective. Air filters are
cheap.

On Nov 10, 3:00 pm, "Dori A Schmetterling" <i...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> Yeah, but you have to empty the dust out of the machine. No hygienic bag.
>
> DAS
>
> For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling
> ---"EdV" <systme...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1194362801.857963.97380@d55g2000hsg.googlegro ups.com...
>
> > If there is one fuel saving technique car manufacturers have to
> > incorporate in engines, it should be on the air filter. It is already
> > used in household vacuum cleaners called a Dyson. No loss of suction,
> > no filters to replace. Maybe, just maybe, they can use it on exhaust
> > pipes too.

EdV

Well, there's a dust collector in a dyson so they wont be scattered
back into the house. For car use, the dust can be dumped under the
car, whats important is that the dust dont get inside the engine.
Anyway, its a silly idea, and not cost effective. Air filters are
cheap.

On Nov 10, 3:00 pm, "Dori A Schmetterling" <i...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> Yeah, but you have to empty the dust out of the machine. No hygienic bag.
>
> DAS
>
> For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling
> ---"EdV" <systme...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1194362801.857963.97380@d55g2000hsg.googlegro ups.com...
>
> > If there is one fuel saving technique car manufacturers have to
> > incorporate in engines, it should be on the air filter. It is already
> > used in household vacuum cleaners called a Dyson. No loss of suction,
> > no filters to replace. Maybe, just maybe, they can use it on exhaust
> > pipes too.