The winnipeg carborator. . . 130mpg in the 1930s(?). That person got murdered.
It was an addon to the carborator that vaporized gasoline before it entered the engine cyclinders. Another way to lower cost and save food prices.
36-40, M
View 26 more replies »
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@jehova Well,. you do say "allegedly". And LeopoldBloom has already said he died in 1985.
If it was really was such a marvellous invention that genuinely improved the cars of the time the car makers would have soon used it - though if that had happened it would not surprise me if they had bought the rights in total for a modest fee so Pogue would never really have benefited from it.
Instead the claim which I assume was Pogue's own for it, is so outrageous no-one could have taken it so seriously they'd want Pogue killed, even if they really were so inhumane as to think cold-blooded murder a striaghtforward business tool.
As described the device was not even doing anything the normal carburettor did not do, though he may simply have invented a more efficient form of that.
If it was really was such a marvellous invention that genuinely improved the cars of the time the car makers would have soon used it - though if that had happened it would not surprise me if they had bought the rights in total for a modest fee so Pogue would never really have benefited from it.
Instead the claim which I assume was Pogue's own for it, is so outrageous no-one could have taken it so seriously they'd want Pogue killed, even if they really were so inhumane as to think cold-blooded murder a striaghtforward business tool.
As described the device was not even doing anything the normal carburettor did not do, though he may simply have invented a more efficient form of that.
jehova · 36-40, M
@ArishMell i say alledgedly bc it had been reported as "under suspicious circumstancess", bc given standard oil's reach at the time, of course there was market manipulation (unreported\ignored), fuel economy was not even a consideration at the time (gas was cents per gallon; originally), and "cold blooded" murder as you phrase it is common by industry standard, especially in america and especially early in the automobile industry; look it up. Finally gasoline was originally derived from hemp so market manipulation using "morals" as the rationale was the common practice.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
That is exactly what the carburettor does!
The carburettor evaporates the petrol before it enters the cylinders.
It would be interesting to know exactly what the "Winnipeg Carborator" really was, but the claim suggests merely an extra... carburettor. Maybe a bit better than others available at the time, but nothing novel.
The fuel consumption claim is totally unbelievable. Cars then were very heavy and inefficient. Even modern cars, much lighter and with far better engines and fuel systems, rarely manage >50mpg, with petrol. At best this carburettor might have gained a few more m.p.g. if better than its contemporaries, but not a fourfold leap.
Besides, increasing the fuel efficiency of an engine can also increase the useable power so any small improvement is soon thrown away by lead-footed drivers!
In the 1970s, motorcycle enthusiasts' magazines carried advertisements for something described as an "injector"; but its own photograph suggested merely a carburretor. I also encountered a spurious claim for a new engine type that on examination was no more than an ordinary rotary-vane machine. I did not follow up the accompnaying claim about whatever was its fuel source.
Many private inventors have claimed assorted wonder gadgets to improve the efficiency of internal-combustion engines, or even more wildly to have developed new engine types or run engines on water (steam-engines?).
These have fallen by the wayside simply by not working. They were often based on weak knowledge of basic physics or merely re-inventing the known, as probably with that so-called "carborator". Though it has not stopped wild tales about ideas disappearing because the oil companies bought them to suppress; or even about the inventors "disappearing". Well, yes, disappearing back into obscurity.
If it was that easy the car manufacturers would have exploited them long ago. Instead, vehicle improvements come only by slow evolution taking vast amounts of research and development time and money by professional engineers and scientists. Hence where we are now, with very precisely-controlled injection and ignition systems, and properly tuned and catalysing exhausts; developed over many years; but still not capable of better than around 60mpg for modern Diesel cars; less for petrol.
Some of that is to meet increasingly stringent emission laws in many countries, but also to increase efficiency hence lower fuel consumption. Obviously fuel consumption and the "green" aspect are linked, but even the least "green" buyer can still care about the fuel cost!
What many seem to forget is the simple physics they should have learnt at school. This shows that any vehicle has a limiting fuel-consumption minimum even with the impossible 100% overall efficiency. That chap in 1930s Winnipeg can't have considered that, by his wild claim. Either that or he built a very lightweight "special" he could test in ways that did return figures wholly unrealistic for normal vehicles, roads and loads of the time.
A tragedy the inventor was murdered, of course; but I see no reason to link that and his claimed invention. Not even in a country ruled by its oil industry and by a car industry more interested for decades in style than technical improvement.
The carburettor evaporates the petrol before it enters the cylinders.
It would be interesting to know exactly what the "Winnipeg Carborator" really was, but the claim suggests merely an extra... carburettor. Maybe a bit better than others available at the time, but nothing novel.
The fuel consumption claim is totally unbelievable. Cars then were very heavy and inefficient. Even modern cars, much lighter and with far better engines and fuel systems, rarely manage >50mpg, with petrol. At best this carburettor might have gained a few more m.p.g. if better than its contemporaries, but not a fourfold leap.
Besides, increasing the fuel efficiency of an engine can also increase the useable power so any small improvement is soon thrown away by lead-footed drivers!
In the 1970s, motorcycle enthusiasts' magazines carried advertisements for something described as an "injector"; but its own photograph suggested merely a carburretor. I also encountered a spurious claim for a new engine type that on examination was no more than an ordinary rotary-vane machine. I did not follow up the accompnaying claim about whatever was its fuel source.
Many private inventors have claimed assorted wonder gadgets to improve the efficiency of internal-combustion engines, or even more wildly to have developed new engine types or run engines on water (steam-engines?).
These have fallen by the wayside simply by not working. They were often based on weak knowledge of basic physics or merely re-inventing the known, as probably with that so-called "carborator". Though it has not stopped wild tales about ideas disappearing because the oil companies bought them to suppress; or even about the inventors "disappearing". Well, yes, disappearing back into obscurity.
If it was that easy the car manufacturers would have exploited them long ago. Instead, vehicle improvements come only by slow evolution taking vast amounts of research and development time and money by professional engineers and scientists. Hence where we are now, with very precisely-controlled injection and ignition systems, and properly tuned and catalysing exhausts; developed over many years; but still not capable of better than around 60mpg for modern Diesel cars; less for petrol.
Some of that is to meet increasingly stringent emission laws in many countries, but also to increase efficiency hence lower fuel consumption. Obviously fuel consumption and the "green" aspect are linked, but even the least "green" buyer can still care about the fuel cost!
What many seem to forget is the simple physics they should have learnt at school. This shows that any vehicle has a limiting fuel-consumption minimum even with the impossible 100% overall efficiency. That chap in 1930s Winnipeg can't have considered that, by his wild claim. Either that or he built a very lightweight "special" he could test in ways that did return figures wholly unrealistic for normal vehicles, roads and loads of the time.
A tragedy the inventor was murdered, of course; but I see no reason to link that and his claimed invention. Not even in a country ruled by its oil industry and by a car industry more interested for decades in style than technical improvement.