$100 million spent should have produced a flying car. Don't you think.
RE: Supercharged, turbo of which you do not have the number for, BUT given Dr Moller's track record of Pats motor redesigns.. I am going to take it on faith the math works. That it will propel the craft as stated
In post 966 you said your goal was to increase the stock price. And that Moller said $500,000 would get the car finished and certified. What investors have trouble digesting is all the news reports showing that Moller claims to have spent $100 million developing this flying car but now only $500,000 is needed to complete it AND get certified.
$500k is chump change when you are listed on the stock market. Being listed on the stock market is like having a bank in your office. There is no excuse for Moller not having the money.
$500,000 at 1 cents per share = 50 million shares.
$500,000 at 5 cents per share = 10 million shares.
$500,000 at 25 cents per share = 2 million shares.
Now I know there are dynamics that drive up and down a stock price like dumping to many shares at once but this should not be a problem if no more than 5 million shares are sold to investors at 5 and 10 cents a share. I don't see money as being Moller's problem because it had the money, the $100 million. It had the awareness. All the media exposure. All of these avenues are exhausted and belief is at hellish low.
Thus it's a technology problem. This whole FAA thing about requiring a tether and monitoring test flights is hogwash. Moller can build an "inexpensive" metal building and test fly it in there 24 hours a day as the FAA does not control the airspace within enclosed structures "as conveyed on their web site".
Also I don't see the problem with taking 1 rotary engine with this turbo charger and attaching it to a simple steel frame and showing that it can lift 3,120 pounds / 8 engines = 390 pounds per engine. This demonstration would not cost more than $10,000. Plus the additional horsepower required to lift the flying car to at least 5,000 feet since power is reduced by 14%. The required horsepower shown in my Post# 1011 at 155 hp will need to be increased to 155 x .14 = 21.7 hp + 155hp = 177 hp to account for this atmosphere pressure reduction. And even more additional hp required for for miscellaneous forces.
Now I have not seen where a turbocharger has increased power more than 100%. And if so not very efficiently due to exhaust backpressure. The specs show 90hp engine. So 90 x 100% = 180hp is the mathematical absolute max power that the engine can get. Most of these turbo chargers produce a net of 50% increase which would put Moller's turbocharged engine at 90hp x 50%= 45hp + 90hp = 135hp. I also understand that there can be other contraptions that may increase hp but you are talking more weight and thus more fuel and thus more operating expenses for marginal percentage gains. Plus there is a limit in power in a gallon for fuel.
I think that showing the public that at least a 155hp but ideally 177hp can be produced along with its fuel consumption to show economic feasibility is the best way to raise the stock price. Forget the flying car for now, focus on one engine.
Other than this simple hp presentation, Moller may need to seek out other technologies in order to excite the public about the stock. Sometimes after 20 years of dealing with the same technology (rotary engines), it may be time to move on to a new engine. Chasing mathematically or economically unfeasible dreams has or will put Moller Int. in the poorhouse.
