Directory:Ram Implosion Wing:Data

Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 14, 2016 at 9:33 pm.

  • 4 errors has been found on this page. Administrator will correct this soon.
  • This page has been imported from the old peswiki website. This message will be removed once updated.

Ram Implosion Wing Data Reports

See related directory for general information:

Independent Test Results

Kent Andersen <pesn type=
- no joy"></pesn>

The tests on the Implosion wing failed in multiple tests -- and over a few thousand of miles of tests and re-adjustments (by inventor) shows fuel decrease in economy on the autoscan computer. I am inclined to belive that the wing is not what is claimed. (February 15, 2006)

Jim Reeves

Aug. 23, 2004

"I wrapped the wing with duct tape. Tested it today. The van historically gets 20 mpg. With the wing, it got 28."

- - - -

Image:Jim reeves RIW replication mounted 180.jpg

Monday, August 23, 2004 10:30 PM


The test was today 8/23/04.

I attempted to control conditions under the following:

Filled up at my local gas station, let the pump handle cut off automatically.

Got on I-475 about ½ mile from the gas station.

Drove south using cruise control set on 65 for 22 miles. (I-75 at the Byron exit)

Turned around and came back to the same gas station.

Filled up again letting the pump handle cut off automatically.

Mileage traveled 45, gallons used 1.6

This is a very limited first test…more to follow.

My wife drives this van to work 2 to 3 days per week, mostly interstate travel. Averages 20 mpg.

I feel sure there are changes that will result in improvements since the construction is based on visual photos posted by Patterson.

I’ll keep you posted on any improvements.


Image:Jim reeves RIW replication crop 200.jpg
Independent Tests Reported by Robert Patterson

Vor-Tec Solutions Presents Ram Implosion Wing - includes list of testimonials toward end of page.

RIW Data from Patterson - six independent test runs so far.


click the "edit" button to ad your results.


More Rigor to Avoid Exaggeration

Some of the data collected is over far too small of a sampling size, prone to a large error margin. This is sloppy science. One cannot go 20 miles and then refill the tank and expect accurate results.

To get accurate measurements you need to do such things as:

# Go at least 200 miles.

# Have a control drive without the device over the same terrain and same conditions, as close to identical as possible.

# Repeat the experiment at least once -- including the control.

# Use the same gas station, gas, and pump, with nozzle in same configuration.

The "triple mileage" claim will probably be shown to be an exaggeration that Robert will be eating.

It is better to under-state than over-state.

The more solid your test procedure, the more people will believe your results and buy your concept.

Choose a road that is not heavily traveled. Choose a time when you are least likely to hit delays in traffic.

Drive the path twice without the wing. Keep fastidious record of your mileage and gas for both round trips. Use the same gas station and same pump.

Now put the wing on and travel the same road twice using the same procedure.

That would be much more convincing data, and that would be on the border of scientific. Would barely cut "scientific." If you wanted full scientific rigor, do that times 100.

Do it on another car. Do it with the wing in different positions. Have it done independently.

Then people will pay attention, big time.

Get test done by e.g. federal aero-labs

Email Correspondence from J.D., Monday, August 23, 2004. Posted with permission.

"We should probably get someone to do a basic simulation on this.

"It might be worth contacting Dan MacBolen with his Chevy suburban, to get some data on his results and to have some local technical people structure and validate his tests. His claim of 26 mpg in a gasoline powered suburban, is quite good (and believable, vs. Patterson’s claims of 590 mpg!) – the best I’ve seen is around 20, at speeds below 55mph.

"I'm sure that the Univ. of OK in Tulsa or the Weapons Center Engineering team has some scientists that would be glad to spec and validate Dan's tests

"You should also get someone at one of the federal aero-labs like NASA AMES in CA,. to do an analysis of the basic 'wing' design for estimated drag reduction, and potential for improving overall vehicle efficiency."

Temperature Effects Tank Volume

A very important fact the should be taken into consideration in all these tests and is the temperature of the gasoline.

Gasoline in underground storage tanks is generally cooler than ambient temperatures and expands after it has been pumped. That is why you are advised not to fill a tank to the brim but stop pumping when the pump kicks out automatically. Otherwise the fuel in the over filled tank will expand and leak out the overflow.

If you read the calibration certificate usually posted on gas pumps you will notice that the pumps are calibrated for volume at a specific temperature.

To be most accurate, the test set-up should include an accurately calibrated tank and the temperature of the fuel in the tank should be rigourously monitored.

(Source: Rob Polley )


Another idea I had is to add multiple (i..e at least 100-200) short ribbon streamers to the vehicles surface to see how the streams act in the airstream at various speeds with and without the wing. This would be a VERY interesting experiment with Robert's in car positionable wing. -- djandruczyk (Jan. 5, 2006)

Volunteering to Test

Walt Rosenthal

From: "Walter Rosenthal"


Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 12:59 AM

Subject: Ram implosion vortex wing

Dear Sterling:

I read your articles about Robert Paterson's ram implosion vortex wing and would like to help validate it by building one and installing it on my '95 dodge van.

Please tell me how to contact him for permission and construction details.


Walter Rosenthal

- - - -

[See Walt Rosenthal Device Testing Services]

See also

Directory:Ram Implosion Wing

- Directory







There was an error working with the wiki: Code[1]

There was an error working with the wiki: Code[2]

There was an error working with the wiki: Code[3]There was an error working with the wiki: Code[4]