A Car That Runs on Fumes

Recently I watched a fellow on YouTube rig up his small truck with something similar to a gas-bong he had made from a red gas can and plastic tubing to his air intake.    The theory is that air flows through bubbles in the gas – causing strong enough fumes to run the vehicle, as opposed to running the vehicle on direct gas liquid – thereby reducing the amount of gas needed for driving.  As he moved the camera around the engine compartment to explain what he had done, I could see in the background that he lived in a remote area with trees and fields all around.  And in the middle of all that nature was unmistakably a mobile home.  Presumably his.  Immediately I assumed this wasn’t Andrew Carnegie.

But that’s not the point.  Well, it is kind of – but my point is the exact opposite.  This fellow had seen other videos on YouTube where people had run their lawnmowers and cars on the same technique – so he tried it on his own truck.  And when he got positive results – ie, pulled the fuel pump fuse and actually ran the truck on fumes – he just wanted to share that with everyone else.  So he grabbed his camera and posted his own video.  He said other people he knew were getting up to 200 miles per gallon in their cars using this same method.  I’m sure the horsepower is cut drastically but a little more ingenuity like a bump switch connected to a canister of nitrous oxide could give you the little boost whenever it’s needed.

And that’s still not the point.  My point is that all of the materials used by this poor, uneducated but kind hearted man were available 50 years ago.    And in all those 50 years not one engineer, not one educated scientific minded person came forward with this “out of the box” idea.  Why did it take the people paying the high prices of gasoline to come up with this?  One answer: necessity.  They can’t pay $4 for a gallon of gas when they live 30 miles or more away from their employment.  So again we see that necessity is the mother of all invention.

But back to the engineers and so-called experts, because I’m really becoming annoyed with them.  Oh yes, certainly the greedy oil companies and execs deserve to be lam”basted” – or just “basted” over an open fire – but right now I’m pretty content with just knowing that scenario is probably going to happen to them in the afterlife.   So I want to focus on the demi-gods we call “experts.”

More specifically I want to talk about those people that I call quantifiers.  A quantifier is someone who takes any science and uses the observations found n that science to “quantify” and errantly “validify” the science itself.  In other words, any science is based on observable facts, facts that can be recreated under the same circumstances by anyone else.

For example, electricity is a science, and so is gravity.  We can quantify the amount of electrons that flow through a copper wire by knowing the length of that wire, the circumference of that wire, and the make-up components of the generator producing the current.  And it doesn’t matter if the engineers at General Electric do it or engineers in Timbuktu – they all get the same results.  That makes it a “valid” science.  Everything in it comes from known observations and is mathematically calculated to a tee.

Gravity is no different.  We can determine the gravity quotient on earth mathematically, as well as just about every other planet we can see through telescopes by determining their interaction with other bodies of mass.  The math of gravity is extremely finite and right on the money.  There’s no question about that.

But….  and this is a big but….  the math behind observations of any science can not be used to qualify any possible source (or origin) of that science.  That’s a big sentence.  Let me break it down.  Gravity is awesome.  For all we know it has been around for as long as man has been around.  That’s been a little while now.  Heck, I’ve been here for 56 years.  And all the way to this point the only things we know about gravity is that it exists and we can reasonably calculate what it can do.  But we don’t know what causes it.  Let me say that again: we don’t know what causes it.  So in essence we are just like the apes in that “Planet of the Apes” movie where they all stand around and praise and pray to a nuclear missile because they can’t possibly comprehend how it works.  So in the timeline of the true technological scale we are really still in our diapers!

So to all the scientists and engineers who are so confident in your numbers and quantifications let me just say this:  Stop it!  Stop poo-pooing those young people whose insights on gravity are NOT baseless and could very well explain the origins of it.

THINK!  The current definition of the origin of gravity is that it is caused by “a body of mass.”  DUH!  That is not a definition!  It is only an observation!  So when you were told 50 years ago in the sixth grade that magnetism and gravity were not the same thing – guess what?  Your teacher was wrong.  And continuing to preach  that same misinformation is hampering technology – and you should know that.  When you shoot down these young minds they become discouraged and just go away.  It doesn’t matter what you own beliefs are.  If they come to you for advice – whether you agree with them or not – give them the insight to find the answers themselves without simply shining them off – which only causes them to think they are just foolish and their efforts are futile.  At least accept the possibility – regardless of the your own calculated odds – that you just might be wrong.  And when it comes to correlating the observable mathematics from any science with that science’s origin I can tell you that you are absolutely wrong.  Without a doubt.

Magnets are a body of mass.  Ergo, by the very definition of gravity – magnets are the origin of gravity.  But so are bowling balls, ergo, bowling balls cause gravity.  But so are marbles, ergo, marbles cause gravity.  The scientists’ bodies themselves are bodies of mass, ergo, scientists cause gravity.    The amazing thing, and one that boggles my mind over and over, is that posterity and the future will bring evidence that all of these origins of gravity are true.  And the people 200 or 300 years from now are going to think of our scientists as absolute egotistical fools who allowed us to waste decades of technology.  Me and the guy with the gas-fume truck already think that.

About johnallenrichter

I am an aspiring Poet and adorer of life, a conqueror of nothing. However I am a champion curator of truth and friendship and hold both of those things most dearly to my heart. Welcome to my mind's eye. I hope you will enjoy what you may find and please know that you have a friend here. View all posts by johnallenrichter

3 responses to “A Car That Runs on Fumes

  • johnallenrichter

    I forgot to mention in the last paragraph that all atoms are magnetically charged by interaction with neutrinos. In other words, “Atomic weight” is not so much “weight” as it is a magnetic index. A collection of phosphorous atoms will have different weights on the earth and moon, but their magnetic index to all other atoms will be the same. Therefore, all atoms attract each other by varying strengths of magnetism. Every “collection” of atoms, like a “body of mass” – will have it’s own unique and conglomerate magnetic – or gravitational – index. Our bodies are bodies of mass that are attracted to other bodies of mass. Namely, in our case, the earth. So when I say the scientists themselves are a cause of gravity – it’s true. As is every other known atom in our world.

    Another thing that alters planetary gravity – in my opinion – is the heat in the center of any planet. Heat cancels atomic magnetism. Heck, it cancels all magnetism at a certain temperature. So the strength of any planets’ gravity comes from its’ cooled outer crust and not it’s total size or mass. Most people won’t understand the significance of that. But any diligent astrophysicist might see that as a reason for calculation errors on the expansion of the universe. I do. The heat of the center of any planet can be due to different factors. Reverse the equations to solve for that.

  • Margie

    Very insightful article. Enjoyed it and must say I agree.

  • Margie

    Very insightful.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: