I emailed hp2g a while back:
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 07:03 PM
To:
team@hp2g.com
Subject: mpg-e versus mpg
I'd like some clarifciation of some of your figures and statements.
First, you claim the Mustang is capable of 110 mpg-e. Then, on your test results, how do you account for the figures on the Vegas trip? You're claiming 144 mpg actual at 70 mph and loaded to 4895 pounds??!! You have to be kidding.
Elsewhere, you were quoted or stated on some interview that the average gas engine is 8-10% efficient, and you could increase that number to 38% or about 3.8 to 4.8 times. While most find that to be unachievable, your above test data is claiming closer to an 800% gain.
As well, you should know that 25-30% is a closer number for the efficiency of a modern gasoline engine. Some has surmised that, with extreme measures, 68% could be obtained.
So, are you claiming to have proven the laws of thermodynamics breakable?
I noticed that you were essentially laughed off the ecomodder forum....perhaps because you had no answer to their tough questions. I'm assuming you'll treat me the same. Prove me wrong.
R..
Of course, the 3 second to 60 mph number that you stammered out is also absurd. You should know that that car, at that weight, would need over 600 hp to achieve a time that quick. Maybe 4.5 seconds.......
here's the ridiculous reply, which rambled on about Edison, etc, but didn't address my questions.
R......: I am only in business management. I know nothing about physics, electro-magnetic energy, engineering, thermodynamics or anything that you and the other scientific "experts" with your knowledge and calculators know. I only know what I see. And I have seen this engine do exactly what we say it does. I don't know "how" it does it. I leave that to the inventor. I just know it does. I guess everyone once thought that the earth was flat and that a massive global warming was science fiction. The problem is not with our engine or its fuel economy or other performance statistics. The problem is that people don't allow themselves to think "outside the box". That is sad. They try very hard to make everything fit inside their own comfortable understanding because they're comfortable that way and because everyone else thinks that way and there's strength in numbers. Imagine what our world would be like if Columbus and the other explorers didn't ever make the trip because they were afraid, like everyone else, that they would fall off the earth. Or what if those who created and perfected flying machines never did their work because they believed the conventional, scientific and aerodynamic wisdom that such machines could never work. Henry Ford thought outside the box, so did Einstein, Edison, and Walt Disney. And then there's probably the greatest "outside the box" thinker and believer of them all, Jesus. If they had the right to be different, to defy the "laws" of science, why can't we. And who on this planet has the right to tell us that we can't think and achieve things that are beyond scientific "reasoning". We don't "reason" here at HP2g, LLC. We think "what if" and "why not" and "yes, it can be done". That's why the HP2g exists and why it performs the way it does. It does not operate and is not "limited" by conventional scientific or engineering thought and principals. The "proof" for the inside the box skeptics will come. Until then, we will keep working, keep thinking, keep dreaming, keep experimenting and keep achieving. Thank you for your interest in the HP2g.
not even internet based scams. This reminds me of the TV drama (possibly CSI) that told a story of two brothers who ran a scam in an office in one of the Twin Towers. Soo much faux drama 
.
Today
Other popular topics in this forum...
