Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

"Wayne Dobson" <noname@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:0tGWj.3529$DZ6.2734@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| travisgod@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
| >> On modern cars, its LESS than idling. They typically shut fuel flow
| >> OFF on deceleration until the engine speed drops down to idle speed.
| >> So going downhill (in gear) uses zero fuel. Going downhill in neutral
| >> requires the engine to idle, so that would in fact use MORE fuel than
| >> coasting in gear.
| >
| > Your stupidity doesn't QUIT, does it?
| >
| > What if gravity is insufficient to overcome compression losses?
|
| It will still have contributed something to keep the engine ticking
over,
| thereby requiring the less use of fuel.  Or was it a trick question? 
That
| was too easy.  Another one!  Try to make the next one an actual
challenge.


Watch this space:
  http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Engine.gif
-- 
This message is brought to you by Androcles
  http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

|
| > In THAT CASE, you are better off ****fting to neutral and letting the
| > engine consume at idle.
| >
| > The engine speed will NOT DROP TO IDLE SPEED, you freakin moron,
| > because the engine is DIRECTLY coupled to the driveline via either the
| > clutch in a manual or the converter lockup (another clutch) in an
| > automatic.
|
| How can it be directly coupled when in neutral?
|
| -- 
| Wayne Dobson
| AKA "Dobbie The House Elf"
|
|