Conspiracy Theory: Petroleum Company Edition, Innovative Technology
May 24, 2018 11:03 AM
A cow-orker claims that automobiles could be getting much better mileage than what's currently available, via better carburetors, fuel injectors, etc., but the big oil companies find these innovative companies, buy them up, and pay the inventors to keep their mouth's shut. I tend to discount such theories... for one, I think there are too many smart people to keep quiet, especially once people know that something's possible. Can you give me some supporting evidence on either side of this?
Hybrid engines are a thing. They have vastly better mileage than other kinds of internal combustion engine. You can buy them right now. They have a pretty solid market share that's rising over time, among consumers who do care about fuel efficiency.
Meanwhile, vehicles with low mileage (large SUVs in particular) sell extremely well even though more fuel-efficient cars are available widely.
It's pretty clear that, by and large, consumers aren't that interested in fuel efficiency, while those who do care have solid options.
We can assume that auto mileage is kept low by a vast conspiracy, or by... people not caring. Occam's razor can be applied at your leisure.
posted by Tomorrowful at 11:17 AM on May 24, 2018
Meanwhile, vehicles with low mileage (large SUVs in particular) sell extremely well even though more fuel-efficient cars are available widely.
It's pretty clear that, by and large, consumers aren't that interested in fuel efficiency, while those who do care have solid options.
We can assume that auto mileage is kept low by a vast conspiracy, or by... people not caring. Occam's razor can be applied at your leisure.
posted by Tomorrowful at 11:17 AM on May 24, 2018
There are electric cars that don’t use any gas at all. They’re all over the place. I drive one. I mean, how does your friend’s theory work with Tesla or the Chevy Volt?
posted by mr_roboto at 11:32 AM on May 24, 2018
posted by mr_roboto at 11:32 AM on May 24, 2018
I don't have any specific debunkings to offer, but this is an evergreen conspiracy theory that's been going on for a long time. One variation which actually kinda undermines your friend's version is the "one weird trick automakers don't want you to know" scam, wherein charlatans sell dubious engine modification doodads that are purported to vastly increase engine efficiency and power by swirling the fuel mix or injecting water into the engine or whatever.
These doodads would be staggeringly valuable to automakers if they actually worked, but instead they're sold direct to consumers from the modern equivalent of the small ads at the back of magazines. (It is an old enough grift that they used to be sold from the actual small ads at the back of magazines.) They also frequently violate the laws of thermodynamics.
If these inventions work so well, why don't automakers buy them and put them in all their cars? Sure, oil companies are powerful and might get there first some of the time, but all of the time? Automakers are powerful too, with thousands of expert engineers at their disposal who do nothing all day but try to make engines more efficient. None of them ever came up with one of these so-simple gadgets?
There used to be a similar conspiracy theory about lightbulbs. Supposedly GE had some super-bulb created by an independent inventor locked up in a vault somewhere, which could run for years and years on a fraction of the energy required by a typical incandescent, and they were surpressing it for fear that it could destroy their business model. I haven't heard it trotted out recently, though—it kinda evaporated around the time when LED lighting became a multi-billion-dollar industry. Funny, that.
Of course, none of this is likely to matter to your friend. Conspiracy theories aren't about logic or reason or evidence, they're about comfort.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 11:33 AM on May 24, 2018
These doodads would be staggeringly valuable to automakers if they actually worked, but instead they're sold direct to consumers from the modern equivalent of the small ads at the back of magazines. (It is an old enough grift that they used to be sold from the actual small ads at the back of magazines.) They also frequently violate the laws of thermodynamics.
If these inventions work so well, why don't automakers buy them and put them in all their cars? Sure, oil companies are powerful and might get there first some of the time, but all of the time? Automakers are powerful too, with thousands of expert engineers at their disposal who do nothing all day but try to make engines more efficient. None of them ever came up with one of these so-simple gadgets?
There used to be a similar conspiracy theory about lightbulbs. Supposedly GE had some super-bulb created by an independent inventor locked up in a vault somewhere, which could run for years and years on a fraction of the energy required by a typical incandescent, and they were surpressing it for fear that it could destroy their business model. I haven't heard it trotted out recently, though—it kinda evaporated around the time when LED lighting became a multi-billion-dollar industry. Funny, that.
Of course, none of this is likely to matter to your friend. Conspiracy theories aren't about logic or reason or evidence, they're about comfort.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 11:33 AM on May 24, 2018
Much of the increases in fuel efficiency we have seen over the years are due to using lighter body parts on cars, not due to improvements in engine function. This is why the historical term fender bender has become an oxymoron. Old cars really could bump into a tree or fence and get their fender bent and see no other damage. The same kind of accident today can crush in the entire front end, resulting in thousands of dollars of damage.
So, basic physics seems to apply. As far as I know, there is no magic means to move the same amount of weight faster with less fuel. You can tweak it, but moving mass takes energy. Moving it at high speed takes a lot of energy. Reducing vehicle mass is the easiest means to use less fuel to move a human body from point A to point B.
If you want a "conspiracy" that actually holds water, the US is guilty of artificially keeping gas prices down in comparison to other countries. I have read articles suggesting that this is a significant contributing factor to the poor performance of US vehicles compared to, say, Europe and Japan. This practice denies Americans important information in a meaningful way about the true cost of these things, so we don't bother to adapt and we keep buying inefficient vehicles because we don't really care because it doesn't hit us in the pocketbook enough.
Source: College classes from my degree program. But since Metafilter doesn't have a copy of my transcripts, I will toss in a few supporting citations for your reading pleasure.
The Real Reason U.S. Gas Is So Cheap Is Americans Don't Pay the True Cost of Driving
The United States has always fought to keep gas prices low,
U.S. gas: So cheap it hurts
Cars are no longer getting heavier — and that's made a huge difference.
Cars in the U.S. are more fuel-efficient than ever. Here’s how it happened.
The History of Fuel Economy
posted by DoreenMichele at 11:35 AM on May 24, 2018
So, basic physics seems to apply. As far as I know, there is no magic means to move the same amount of weight faster with less fuel. You can tweak it, but moving mass takes energy. Moving it at high speed takes a lot of energy. Reducing vehicle mass is the easiest means to use less fuel to move a human body from point A to point B.
If you want a "conspiracy" that actually holds water, the US is guilty of artificially keeping gas prices down in comparison to other countries. I have read articles suggesting that this is a significant contributing factor to the poor performance of US vehicles compared to, say, Europe and Japan. This practice denies Americans important information in a meaningful way about the true cost of these things, so we don't bother to adapt and we keep buying inefficient vehicles because we don't really care because it doesn't hit us in the pocketbook enough.
Source: College classes from my degree program. But since Metafilter doesn't have a copy of my transcripts, I will toss in a few supporting citations for your reading pleasure.
The Real Reason U.S. Gas Is So Cheap Is Americans Don't Pay the True Cost of Driving
The United States has always fought to keep gas prices low,
U.S. gas: So cheap it hurts
Cars are no longer getting heavier — and that's made a huge difference.
Cars in the U.S. are more fuel-efficient than ever. Here’s how it happened.
The History of Fuel Economy
posted by DoreenMichele at 11:35 AM on May 24, 2018
Car manufacturers spend billions on research and continue to improve the efficiency of pure petrol engines, for example the new MAZDA SkyActiv-X. It seems unlikely they would not have come across or have been prevented from using a breakthrough design because of an oil company.
posted by JonB at 11:37 AM on May 24, 2018
posted by JonB at 11:37 AM on May 24, 2018
Much of the increases in fuel efficiency we have seen over the years are due to using lighter body parts on cars, not due to improvements in engine function.
And yet in the past thirty years cars have become larger and heavier because consumers want more space and more power and more safety features.
A 1990 Honda Civic Ex weighs 2000 lbs, has 105hp, and gets 25c/32h. A 2018 Civic Ex weighs 2800lbs, has 158 hp, and gets 31/40.
A 1991 Ford Explorer XLT weighs 3841 lbs, has 155 hp, and gets 16/21. A 2018 Explorer XLT weighs 4443 lbs, has 280 hp, and gets 19/27.
Automakers are competing on many features across each market segment. Consumer preference, in the North American market anyhow, leans toward horsepower, 0-60 acceleration times, engine displacement, cabin size, and safety features over vehicle mileage. Adding more cup holders to a car would probably help it sell more than a 10% increase in mileage at a much lower design and engineering cost.
posted by peeedro at 12:32 PM on May 24, 2018
And yet in the past thirty years cars have become larger and heavier because consumers want more space and more power and more safety features.
A 1990 Honda Civic Ex weighs 2000 lbs, has 105hp, and gets 25c/32h. A 2018 Civic Ex weighs 2800lbs, has 158 hp, and gets 31/40.
A 1991 Ford Explorer XLT weighs 3841 lbs, has 155 hp, and gets 16/21. A 2018 Explorer XLT weighs 4443 lbs, has 280 hp, and gets 19/27.
Automakers are competing on many features across each market segment. Consumer preference, in the North American market anyhow, leans toward horsepower, 0-60 acceleration times, engine displacement, cabin size, and safety features over vehicle mileage. Adding more cup holders to a car would probably help it sell more than a 10% increase in mileage at a much lower design and engineering cost.
posted by peeedro at 12:32 PM on May 24, 2018
There used to be a similar conspiracy theory about lightbulbs. Supposedly GE had some super-bulb created by an independent inventor locked up in a vault somewhere, which could run for years and years on a fraction of the energy required by a typical incandescent, and they were surpressing it for fear that it could destroy their business model. I haven't heard it trotted out recently, though—it kinda evaporated around the time when LED lighting became a multi-billion-dollar industry. Funny, that.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 11:33 AM on May 24 [+] [!]
This doesn't seem to be exactly what you're referring to, but in the early 20th century a group of lightbulb makers, including GE, formed a cartel and conspired to limit the lifespan bulbs and keep prices up. It was called the Phoebus Cartel, and was absolutely real.
Real life conspiracies like this go a long way towards explaining why these theories are popular.
posted by dadaclonefly at 12:44 PM on May 24, 2018
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 11:33 AM on May 24 [+] [!]
This doesn't seem to be exactly what you're referring to, but in the early 20th century a group of lightbulb makers, including GE, formed a cartel and conspired to limit the lifespan bulbs and keep prices up. It was called the Phoebus Cartel, and was absolutely real.
Real life conspiracies like this go a long way towards explaining why these theories are popular.
posted by dadaclonefly at 12:44 PM on May 24, 2018
Yeah this theory doesn't really hold up under any sort of scrutiny. Oil companies are big, but the automakers have R&D divisions too, and it's unlikely that the auto companies would play along with this conspiracy. (Otherwise why would they be spending all this money on research into fuel efficiency. Just as a smokescreen?)
There are lots of places where the oil companies don't have a ton of leverage and fuel efficiency is quite important, and yet you don't see technology in use that's very different. The military would be very interested in making internal combustion engines significantly more efficient, for instance. And yet they are not, despite the difficulties created by huge petroleum supply chains.
I think people like this conspiracy theory because it provides a Big Bad that can be blamed for what is pretty clearly a collective-action problem on the part of consumers. Cars could be (somewhat) more efficient than they are, but people aren't really interested in a car that makes significant tradeoffs in pursuit of fuel mileage. Once you get to 25 or 30 MPG, most consumers' interest turns to other aspects of the vehicle, and so that's where the engineers stop optimizing. And modern engines are quite a bit more efficient than those in decades past, when you look at them in pound-miles/gallon (amount of mass moved over distance per unit fuel), or raw thermodynamic efficiency. The additional efficiency of the engines have been used to make vehicles heavier, to permit other features, rather than to make them cheaper to operate. That's not a conspiracy, it's consumer preference—because we can occasionally see it change based on fuel prices.
posted by Kadin2048 at 12:53 PM on May 24, 2018
There are lots of places where the oil companies don't have a ton of leverage and fuel efficiency is quite important, and yet you don't see technology in use that's very different. The military would be very interested in making internal combustion engines significantly more efficient, for instance. And yet they are not, despite the difficulties created by huge petroleum supply chains.
I think people like this conspiracy theory because it provides a Big Bad that can be blamed for what is pretty clearly a collective-action problem on the part of consumers. Cars could be (somewhat) more efficient than they are, but people aren't really interested in a car that makes significant tradeoffs in pursuit of fuel mileage. Once you get to 25 or 30 MPG, most consumers' interest turns to other aspects of the vehicle, and so that's where the engineers stop optimizing. And modern engines are quite a bit more efficient than those in decades past, when you look at them in pound-miles/gallon (amount of mass moved over distance per unit fuel), or raw thermodynamic efficiency. The additional efficiency of the engines have been used to make vehicles heavier, to permit other features, rather than to make them cheaper to operate. That's not a conspiracy, it's consumer preference—because we can occasionally see it change based on fuel prices.
posted by Kadin2048 at 12:53 PM on May 24, 2018
All such schemes I've seen analyses of break the hard thermodynamic limits to heat engine efficiency embodied in the Carnot Cycle.
We haven't exhausted all possibilities for approaching those limits more closely, although that's a pretty hard road -- which none of the schemes ever even take one step along.
posted by jamjam at 1:01 PM on May 24, 2018
We haven't exhausted all possibilities for approaching those limits more closely, although that's a pretty hard road -- which none of the schemes ever even take one step along.
posted by jamjam at 1:01 PM on May 24, 2018
Realistically, companies buy their competition frequently. If it will profit a company to squelch an innovation, they will, so it's not a totally stupid idea. But engines are well understood by many, many people, and if there were truly hidden innovations, I think it would become public.
That said, consumers buy vehicles that are ridiculously sized and shaped. Many people drive great big pickup trucks to and from work, and never use them for anything that might scratch them. If you look at efficient cars you quickly see what shape is efficient, yet many people choose inefficient vehicles because marketing.
In theory, people want safety and efficiency. In reality, people buy comfort and perceived status. My confirmation bias is that the more a vehicle resembles a living room, the less likely the driver is to pay attention to bikes and pedestrians.
posted by theora55 at 1:03 PM on May 24, 2018
That said, consumers buy vehicles that are ridiculously sized and shaped. Many people drive great big pickup trucks to and from work, and never use them for anything that might scratch them. If you look at efficient cars you quickly see what shape is efficient, yet many people choose inefficient vehicles because marketing.
In theory, people want safety and efficiency. In reality, people buy comfort and perceived status. My confirmation bias is that the more a vehicle resembles a living room, the less likely the driver is to pay attention to bikes and pedestrians.
posted by theora55 at 1:03 PM on May 24, 2018
Much of the increases in fuel efficiency we have seen over the years are due to using lighter body parts on cars, not due to improvements in engine function.
What? No. Perfectly wrong. My wife's late-model Outback weighs more than my 1970 Impala. Carburetors can only do so much for efficiency vs fuel injection, and now direct injection adds more efficiency to the proposition. Sheet metal is indeed thinner, but the weight is made up in control systems and wiring.
As to the original question, this is an old conspiracy theory. With the octane-rating of available fuel, you can only get, max, 22% of the energy in the fuel with a carburetor and the Otto cycle. Once you get into computer control and closed loop electronics, that number increases a couple points. With direct injection and turbocharging, the absolute maximum efficiency you might get is 50%, but that's only momentary during the range of operation.
If there were a way to double the efficiency, you think the car companies wouldn't do it and just make twice as powerful engines for the same size?
posted by notsnot at 1:36 PM on May 24, 2018
What? No. Perfectly wrong. My wife's late-model Outback weighs more than my 1970 Impala. Carburetors can only do so much for efficiency vs fuel injection, and now direct injection adds more efficiency to the proposition. Sheet metal is indeed thinner, but the weight is made up in control systems and wiring.
As to the original question, this is an old conspiracy theory. With the octane-rating of available fuel, you can only get, max, 22% of the energy in the fuel with a carburetor and the Otto cycle. Once you get into computer control and closed loop electronics, that number increases a couple points. With direct injection and turbocharging, the absolute maximum efficiency you might get is 50%, but that's only momentary during the range of operation.
If there were a way to double the efficiency, you think the car companies wouldn't do it and just make twice as powerful engines for the same size?
posted by notsnot at 1:36 PM on May 24, 2018
In the past? Sure. Take the Patent Encumbrance of Large Automotive NIMH Batteries [wikipedia]. In 2001, Texaco (now Chevron) went and bought the patents for the major electric vehicle battery technology of the time that was powering the first electric vehicles from GM and Toyota, launched a patent lawsuit against Toyota's supplier (Panasonic), and then set policy on their patent-controlled production of batteries in a way that ultimately killed the electric car from developing into a mass-market item in the early aughts.
That wasn't the first time the oil companies had patents for efficient technologies that could have been implemented much earlier had they not sat on them.
Thankfully, in the late aughts, some dudes in Silicon Valley figured they could get around the patents and make an even better EV than what was previously available by cramming thousands of laptop batteries into a Lotus. Today, there are over half a million fully electric cars on the road in America, compared with just hundreds in 2010. The adoption has been astounding.
So, teleport back 10 years and your co-worker's conspiracy theory actually had some real credence. No, there weren't cars that ran on water or cars with 200mpg gas engines being stifled, but the encumbrance of alternative fuels by the oil companies had certainly been happening. Today, as fully electric cars have become mainstream, hybrids are everywhere and fuel-efficient technologies such as 8-speed transmissions are in everyday sedans, it's pretty difficult to say that fuel efficiency is being suppressed in back-room transactions.
posted by eschatfische at 2:26 PM on May 24, 2018
That wasn't the first time the oil companies had patents for efficient technologies that could have been implemented much earlier had they not sat on them.
Thankfully, in the late aughts, some dudes in Silicon Valley figured they could get around the patents and make an even better EV than what was previously available by cramming thousands of laptop batteries into a Lotus. Today, there are over half a million fully electric cars on the road in America, compared with just hundreds in 2010. The adoption has been astounding.
So, teleport back 10 years and your co-worker's conspiracy theory actually had some real credence. No, there weren't cars that ran on water or cars with 200mpg gas engines being stifled, but the encumbrance of alternative fuels by the oil companies had certainly been happening. Today, as fully electric cars have become mainstream, hybrids are everywhere and fuel-efficient technologies such as 8-speed transmissions are in everyday sedans, it's pretty difficult to say that fuel efficiency is being suppressed in back-room transactions.
posted by eschatfische at 2:26 PM on May 24, 2018
A cow-orker claims that automobiles could be getting much better mileage than what's currently available, via better carburetors, fuel injectors, etc., but the big oil companies find these innovative companies, buy them up, and pay the inventors to keep their mouth's shut. I tend to discount such theories.
Me too, essentially because I have yet to meet one person who says this and is also not fully convinced that the same putative coverup iis still being applied to "over-unity" energy generation machines.
Rubes gonna rube.
posted by flabdablet at 4:18 PM on May 24, 2018
Me too, essentially because I have yet to meet one person who says this and is also not fully convinced that the same putative coverup iis still being applied to "over-unity" energy generation machines.
Rubes gonna rube.
posted by flabdablet at 4:18 PM on May 24, 2018
The problem with the "there are supercars suppressed by the auto industry" theory, is that you can understand car tech; there are plenty of people who know every aspect of what make a car move, and plenty of experimenters working to make various aspects of that movement more efficient.
There are people focused on speed, on carrying capacity, on passenger safety, on terrain use, and plenty focused on "make it go farther with less fuel." Even a super-combo of gimmicks would at least be theorized about, and people would be working to create that combination.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 6:02 PM on May 24, 2018
There are people focused on speed, on carrying capacity, on passenger safety, on terrain use, and plenty focused on "make it go farther with less fuel." Even a super-combo of gimmicks would at least be theorized about, and people would be working to create that combination.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 6:02 PM on May 24, 2018
Startups inventing new efficient technology promote the crap out of themselves. Even if they existed and have been bought out, there would be news articles, press releases, patents... evidence of their existence. Businesses don’t exist in a vacuum.
posted by jeffamaphone at 7:40 PM on May 24, 2018
posted by jeffamaphone at 7:40 PM on May 24, 2018
What...what is the name of an automotive technology company that has been bought by [checks post] an oil company?!
There used to be a similar conspiracy theory about lightbulbs. Supposedly GE had some super-bulb created by an independent inventor locked up in a vault somewhere, which could run for years and years on a fraction of the energy required by a typical incandescent, and they were surpressing it for fear that it could destroy their business model. I haven't heard it trotted out recently, though—it kinda evaporated around the time when LED lighting became a multi-billion-dollar industry. Funny, that.
This happened to me! I had heard this rumor, that you could get industrial bulbs with thicker filaments, back when Google was not quite covering that level of detail (probably in the early days of Google Shopping, so it would have been hard to find). But getting easier every year as I re-remembered to look for them! Unfortunately, California outlawed incandescents right at the moment that Google and the industrial bulb supply could meet in my browser, so I had to give up on the dream. I'm willing to believe they never existed, but I also believe the market was out there for people with Grainger accounts or whatever.
posted by rhizome at 7:55 PM on May 24, 2018
There used to be a similar conspiracy theory about lightbulbs. Supposedly GE had some super-bulb created by an independent inventor locked up in a vault somewhere, which could run for years and years on a fraction of the energy required by a typical incandescent, and they were surpressing it for fear that it could destroy their business model. I haven't heard it trotted out recently, though—it kinda evaporated around the time when LED lighting became a multi-billion-dollar industry. Funny, that.
This happened to me! I had heard this rumor, that you could get industrial bulbs with thicker filaments, back when Google was not quite covering that level of detail (probably in the early days of Google Shopping, so it would have been hard to find). But getting easier every year as I re-remembered to look for them! Unfortunately, California outlawed incandescents right at the moment that Google and the industrial bulb supply could meet in my browser, so I had to give up on the dream. I'm willing to believe they never existed, but I also believe the market was out there for people with Grainger accounts or whatever.
posted by rhizome at 7:55 PM on May 24, 2018
You still can get thick filament bulbs (often refered to as rough service) but they are significantly dimmer than an equivelent wattage regular bulb (like 40W light for 60Ws of power). That's always been the trade off.
posted by Mitheral at 11:31 AM on May 28, 2018
posted by Mitheral at 11:31 AM on May 28, 2018
The lightbulb thing is from the 1920s and there was a bit of truth to it, like most good conspiracy theories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel
It gets a shout-out in Gravity's Rainbow.
posted by Kadin2048 at 8:54 AM on May 29, 2018
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel
It gets a shout-out in Gravity's Rainbow.
posted by Kadin2048 at 8:54 AM on May 29, 2018
This thread is closed to new comments.
Snopes has articles on a few variations:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nobodys-fuel/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/no-sale/
posted by LSK at 11:09 AM on May 24, 2018