No, it reduces consupmtion by 90%. This means that however much was used is now reduced to 1/10th. Think of it not as how much is wasted, just how much is put out versus the fuel put in. In this way we see that the previous 10 units of petrol for 1 unit of power is now reduced to 1 unit of petrol per 1 unit of power.thaluikhain said:Assuming that it works at all?
Reduces petrol consumption by 90%? IE, 10 times more efficient than what we have now?
According to this article, current engines are only 15% efficient...doesn't this mean that this engine is 150% effective? Um...
The hell with what they think. If these things are any good, the Chinese will crank them out no matter how many patents get violated. And then sell them to us.BabySinclair said:20 to 1 it gets bought by OPEC or a major car company and never sees the light of day
But a wind turbine is hit by wind perpendicularly to the turbine, from what I read in the article it sounds like this ignites gas while it's sitting between two of the raised ridges.Wicky_42 said:Ok, that's pretty cool. Why hasn't this idea been come up with before - I mean, where are the car companies' research funds going?! If it works well enough, it could be pretty sweet, and might even make alternative fuels easier to deploy - hydrogen, for example.
No, the curves in the channels create vectored emissions. Think of how a wind-turbine works, or a water turbine. Similar idea.danpascooch said:This doesn't make any sense... how do they direct the force of the ignited gas to only one direction? Wouldn't the explosion provide an equal torque clockwise and counterclockwise thus keeping the turning stationary?
It's about powering hybrid vehicles - the idea being you use it as a generator (he says 25kW, apparently suitable for a utility or goods vehicle though I'm not sure of that) to burn your fuel more efficiently than a traditional engine does, for the purposes of generating electricity that would then be used to drive the electric motors that actually make the vehicle go. Not as a direct driver of the wheels itself. I think an aspect of this system is that it generates little torque - problematic if you're trying to shift a heavy vehicle, but fine for spinning magnets in coils!Greg Tito said:I'm not a mechanical engineer, but I suppose it's possible that a drive shaft could also be attached to this engine to eventually transfer the energy to the wheels of a car. What's not clear is whether this shockwave engine will produce enough torque to start a heavy car moving from 0 mph, but hopefully the reduced weight of the vehicle would make that possible.
I wouldn't write it off yet, I'm sure it does in fact work, I just think the Escapist article didn't explain it properlyBruiser80 said:In addition, where is the compression of the fuel-air occurring? Spark/glow plug?danpascooch said:This doesn't make any sense... how do they direct the force of the ignited gas to only one direction? Wouldn't the explosion provide an equal torque clockwise and counterclockwise thus keeping the turning stationary?
Implementation in 3 years? Try 10-20.
Yeeeeah I get your point.BlueSinbad said:Because "Secretly" these big companies don't want to make it, because that would mean the oil companies blahblahblah wouldn't make as much money etc...BLAHBLAHBLAH ya know what I mean? The rich people want to stay rich.Jamous said:Very cool. Just out of interest, why has nobody done it before, I mean, with the huge push to waste less energy it just seems to make sense... :S
I won't take that bet!BabySinclair said:20 to 1 it gets bought by OPEC or a major car company and never sees the light of day
It depends on its efficiency with how long it goes without sufficient wear to impede its use. If the new engine lasts too long the car companies won't let it out. They make money every time an engine needs new parts. It's a secondary source of revenue. Either the customer will buy the parts to get it repaired or flat out buy a new car. In both cases the company makes more money. They don't want you to keep the same car for 15-20 years. If it has problems which drives you to buy a new one after 7 they are very happy. The new engines they are rolling out that last longer were invented decades ago but only coming out now because they have too. Combustion wears the engine and the more inefficient the better in their opinion. That said, if it lasts only as long as a regular engine then they will fight for it assuming it can be made inexpensively.Istvan said:Because obviously car companies would have no motivation to sell cars that use 90% less fuel than their competitors, and it's not like opec nations wouldn't mind cutting production to maintain current prices and have their oil reserves last 10 times longer.BabySinclair said:20 to 1 it gets bought by OPEC or a major car company and never sees the light of day
HA! Fusion....you actually believe there is any sort of future in that...thats cute.FarleShadow said:cursedseishi said:As do you then, bub. The article makes nothing of implying it will solve the crisis. It is, however, saying that its going to help get hybrid cars more efficient, and with the higher price of gas, that means a lot.
As for alternative energies, that isn't just solar or wind, its a broad term used to describe anything besides the use of current coal and oil methods. But hey, if we can't use oil, and alternative energy is a joke, I guess we could run off your inflated ego and sense of worth, that should buy us a few years at least.
Or nuclear, or fusion when they get it to work, or Geothermal, etc, etc. Or we could pedantically argue with someone who already agrees that the engine is a fine idea, but dislikes fantastic claims like the one IN THE TITLE OF THIS ARGUMENT. Tada!
No, the gas is in the centre of a spiral of channels, so its expansion out through the parallel spirals generates angular motion.danpascooch said:But a wind turbine is hit by wind perpendicularly to the turbine, from what I read in the article it sounds like this ignites gas while it's sitting between two of the raised ridges.Wicky_42 said:Ok, that's pretty cool. Why hasn't this idea been come up with before - I mean, where are the car companies' research funds going?! If it works well enough, it could be pretty sweet, and might even make alternative fuels easier to deploy - hydrogen, for example.
No, the curves in the channels create vectored emissions. Think of how a wind-turbine works, or a water turbine. Similar idea.danpascooch said:This doesn't make any sense... how do they direct the force of the ignited gas to only one direction? Wouldn't the explosion provide an equal torque clockwise and counterclockwise thus keeping the turning stationary?
So you're saying the expansion forces it to hit the turbine perpendicularly at a high speed? That actually makes a lot of sense, I'm sure pistons waste a lot of energy by traveling in two different directions, so this might really be a major breakthrough.Wicky_42 said:No, the gas is in the centre of a spiral of channels, so its expansion out through the parallel spirals generates angular motion.danpascooch said:But a wind turbine is hit by wind perpendicularly to the turbine, from what I read in the article it sounds like this ignites gas while it's sitting between two of the raised ridges.Wicky_42 said:Ok, that's pretty cool. Why hasn't this idea been come up with before - I mean, where are the car companies' research funds going?! If it works well enough, it could be pretty sweet, and might even make alternative fuels easier to deploy - hydrogen, for example.
No, the curves in the channels create vectored emissions. Think of how a wind-turbine works, or a water turbine. Similar idea.danpascooch said:This doesn't make any sense... how do they direct the force of the ignited gas to only one direction? Wouldn't the explosion provide an equal torque clockwise and counterclockwise thus keeping the turning stationary?
They said it solved the energy crisis, not the environment crisis. As in, he's talking about gasoline usage, we only have a finite amount and we consume it much faster than it takes to renew, so by the huge amount this reduces the usage of gas, it will help solve energy crisis. Not once did it say anything about helping the environment, and saving the world. Those are two completely different battles.FarleShadow said:I'm sorry, but I'm getting more annoyed about every little invention that 'solves the X crisis' while still using oil.
No people, recycling or Shockwaving isn't saving the world, its just not screwing it up as fast. End of!
Because this is a video game site.Daystar Clarion said:Why did I see the word 'engine' and automatically think of something you base a game off of and not what you use to power a car?