Cool, and if it actually does work, awesome...
... Okay... good luck with that...FarleShadow said:
New "Shockwave" Engine Design Solves Energy Crisis
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Why do people keep trying to invent gadgets for the energy-crisis. Do they really think it's because no one has made something decent yet? Hint: It's not that no one has invented the light bulb yet, it's because the world is run by a bunch of oligarchs, sadists and sociopaths.
If you have the drive and are savvy enough to invent something like this, then take it one step further and start creating your own corporation, and your own organization. We need numbers folks, not 1 or 2 engineers every 5 years that get bought out, silenced or ridiculed.
There will never be new technology if someone can't profit off of inefficiency and the ancient Babylonian slave system, where one must constantly work in order to consistently re-purchase items that are designed to break and be inefficient. Modernized slavery through inefficiency.
If you have the drive and are savvy enough to invent something like this, then take it one step further and start creating your own corporation, and your own organization. We need numbers folks, not 1 or 2 engineers every 5 years that get bought out, silenced or ridiculed.
There will never be new technology if someone can't profit off of inefficiency and the ancient Babylonian slave system, where one must constantly work in order to consistently re-purchase items that are designed to break and be inefficient. Modernized slavery through inefficiency.
So, what if this does get implemented? Here's what I see happening.
More efficient engine in a lighter car cuts fuel demand. Fuel consumption and cost drops.
Yay!
But, because fuel costs drop, the real reason why fuel costs are sky rocketing remains. Asia is pulling itself out of third world country status. Which means the people there want and can afford cars. There, as is everywhere else in the world, the price of gas is twice what Americans pay. This is a huge obstacle for most of them to overcome and keep many from buying cars.
This new engine makes fuel costs drop. More Asians now buy cars because they can afford the gas. They consume the gas that we suddenly aren't consuming. Gas prices and consumption go right back to what they were.
This is the same reason why the conservative's push to "drill baby drill" wont solve anything either. Pumping more gas into the system isn't going to lower demand.
Science may stall the outcome, but the end is inevitable. There's just too many people in the world.
I'd like to be proven wrong here and believe there is some hope if someone here can correct me on this.
Edit: I'm not implying Asians are evil or less deserving of cars. The higher the number of people that want something of limited quantity, the higher the price goes. Asia is now in a position to want gas. Which greatly increases the number of people who want gas and so the gas prices go up.
More efficient engine in a lighter car cuts fuel demand. Fuel consumption and cost drops.
Yay!
But, because fuel costs drop, the real reason why fuel costs are sky rocketing remains. Asia is pulling itself out of third world country status. Which means the people there want and can afford cars. There, as is everywhere else in the world, the price of gas is twice what Americans pay. This is a huge obstacle for most of them to overcome and keep many from buying cars.
This new engine makes fuel costs drop. More Asians now buy cars because they can afford the gas. They consume the gas that we suddenly aren't consuming. Gas prices and consumption go right back to what they were.
This is the same reason why the conservative's push to "drill baby drill" wont solve anything either. Pumping more gas into the system isn't going to lower demand.
Science may stall the outcome, but the end is inevitable. There's just too many people in the world.
I'd like to be proven wrong here and believe there is some hope if someone here can correct me on this.
Edit: I'm not implying Asians are evil or less deserving of cars. The higher the number of people that want something of limited quantity, the higher the price goes. Asia is now in a position to want gas. Which greatly increases the number of people who want gas and so the gas prices go up.
The third to last paragraph just falls off the face of the web. I wonder what Greg said?
What does it create? Banana gum?Greg Tito said:
Well it's a little too little to late kind of thing. Wonder if he could get it to work with diseal which is evan more efficent than gas due to not needing a spark (diseal has a lower flash point and so it can ignite under compresion).
As to where the car industry is spending their R&D dollars it's in silly things like battery power (which for the last 10 years hasn't really progessed much) and zero emmision stuff like Hydrogen power cells where the only emmision is water.
Batteries are fail because they can't go very far till you need to recharge the batteries and then they take 12 hours to recharge making a trip to the next town take a matter of days rather than a couple of hours.
Hydrogens draw backs is while the stuff is plentiful it's always attached to something else which takes energy to seperate and then you have to store it somehow which is just as tricky because it's pretty volitile stuff on it's own. However there are already Hydrogen filling points in California and Honda has a family car that runs on a Hydrogen powercell that developes 100kw. GM had a concept a fair while ago that pretty much did the same thing but has never made it to market. The advantage being that it has the same range on a tank that a normal petrol car does and if you plugged it in at home you would get a check from the power company because 100kw is enought to power several houses.
As to where the car industry is spending their R&D dollars it's in silly things like battery power (which for the last 10 years hasn't really progessed much) and zero emmision stuff like Hydrogen power cells where the only emmision is water.
Batteries are fail because they can't go very far till you need to recharge the batteries and then they take 12 hours to recharge making a trip to the next town take a matter of days rather than a couple of hours.
Hydrogens draw backs is while the stuff is plentiful it's always attached to something else which takes energy to seperate and then you have to store it somehow which is just as tricky because it's pretty volitile stuff on it's own. However there are already Hydrogen filling points in California and Honda has a family car that runs on a Hydrogen powercell that developes 100kw. GM had a concept a fair while ago that pretty much did the same thing but has never made it to market. The advantage being that it has the same range on a tank that a normal petrol car does and if you plugged it in at home you would get a check from the power company because 100kw is enought to power several houses.
It's not for HP and Torque. It's to turn a generator which powers an electric engine. Turning a generator doesn't require hp and torque. The great thing about this is: that it turns that generator with amazing efficiency and doesn't need several big, heavy car parts that a traditional combustion engine needs.DTWolfwood said:
In the end it still needs gas. But it uses gas much more efficiently and allows the car to be 20% lighter. The end result is a car with an electric motor that runs on gas. 1/3 to 1/4 as much gas as what a normal car needs to run. No having to plug it in and no severe limitations on how far it can go like what battery run electric cars have.
It says all this plainly in the article so I really doubt you actually read it.
Color me interested in a car that can go 90 miles on a gallon of gas.
The gas in the middle of the device, simply, explodes. Those spiraling curves turn that outward push into a forward push which makes the turbine spin.danpascooch said:
And it doesn't move the car, it moves an electric generator that powers an electric motor. That electric motor moves the car. This device doesn't produce more torque, certainly not enough to get a car moving, but you don't need much torque to get a generator moving and electric engines produce plenty of torque. So you're using gas to move a generator, the generator powers and electric engine, the electric engine moves the car.
It's strange and confusing, I know, but it's a much better system than what we're using now and will result in cars that run on gas like any normal car but can go 90 miles or more on a single gallon of fuel.
There's a point being missed here - or a couple, actually. Firstly, in the video it doesn't mention a reduction in petrol of consumption of 90% - he actually quotes a reduction of 80%.rsvp42 said:
I remain skeptical of this.
The actual efficiency of automobile IC engines can be up to about 25%, and just about the most efficient thermal technologies available (Combined Cycle Gas Turbines - you wouldn't want one of them in your car!) are only about 60% efficient, because any thermal engine has the Carnot limit to worry about (Short story - unless you can raise the temperature of the working fluid high enough so that the condenser reservoir looks like near enough absolute zero, you won't get 100% efficiency). So we could maybe get twice the fuel economy of a good IC engine through other forms of combustion.
That leaves a heck of a lot of weight reduction.
[EDIT} - I just realised what this technology actually is - it's a centrifugal Ramjet. SO I'd be surprised it the efficiencies are actually that high anyway (Not saying it's not worth it for weight reduction, but now I'm thinking it's going to be a materials challenge. There's a reason why gas turbines have separate combustion chambers, and there's a reason why their first stage turbine blades are made of precision engineered, actively cooled nickel superalloys!)
Well, even though they got DESTROYED by Alabama in their bowl game, Go Sparty!
Also, the inventor of an engine to replace the internal combustion engine WOULD be German XD
Also, the inventor of an engine to replace the internal combustion engine WOULD be German XD
Being a bit of a grease monkey, I want to see some power/torque ratios first. I mean, I'm all for making cars more efficient in terms of gas mileage and power transfer, but I'm still a fan of the old internal combustion engine because of the raw power it makes.
But the biggest issue I have is that most people think that electric cars don't burn nearly as much fuel as what an IC engine does. It does, but just not in the same way, and not always from the same sources.
Unless you have the majority of your electric power being sourced from a nuclear facility, or hydro-electrical dams, you probably have either a natural gas or coal fueled power plant. The additional burden placed onto the electric companies for electric cars means they have to burn more fuel. You get that as electricity, instead of as gasoline in your car. Lets face it, in physics, there's no such thing as a free lunch. To move something so far you have to have a set amount of energy put into the system.
I can't remember the source off the top of my head, but I remember the numbers. If you get energy from a natural gas, or coal based electric company in America, and you drive a Nissan Leaf or Chevy Volt, you get 99 or 96 miles per gallon of gasoline respectively, but the excess pollution produced by the electric company is equivalent to roughly 3 gallons of gasoline burned. The Volt only averages 23.5 mpg total fuel displacement, and the Leaf 26 mpg.
Long story, short and ugly, hybrids really make people feel better because they unload the "pollution" burden onto their electric companies which makes them feel like they're saving the world, but it's really just a shell game of pollution production.
But the biggest issue I have is that most people think that electric cars don't burn nearly as much fuel as what an IC engine does. It does, but just not in the same way, and not always from the same sources.
Unless you have the majority of your electric power being sourced from a nuclear facility, or hydro-electrical dams, you probably have either a natural gas or coal fueled power plant. The additional burden placed onto the electric companies for electric cars means they have to burn more fuel. You get that as electricity, instead of as gasoline in your car. Lets face it, in physics, there's no such thing as a free lunch. To move something so far you have to have a set amount of energy put into the system.
I can't remember the source off the top of my head, but I remember the numbers. If you get energy from a natural gas, or coal based electric company in America, and you drive a Nissan Leaf or Chevy Volt, you get 99 or 96 miles per gallon of gasoline respectively, but the excess pollution produced by the electric company is equivalent to roughly 3 gallons of gasoline burned. The Volt only averages 23.5 mpg total fuel displacement, and the Leaf 26 mpg.
Long story, short and ugly, hybrids really make people feel better because they unload the "pollution" burden onto their electric companies which makes them feel like they're saving the world, but it's really just a shell game of pollution production.
Well, if i read this right, it could really use any combustable liquids... Let's run them on vodka... Then if you break down in the complete middle of nowhere, well, you got one solution...FarleShadow said:
OT:
I can see how heavily they took a Tesla(i believe it is tesla's idea) engine and altered it alittle for their purpose. I'm sure Tesla would have been fine with it, but we could give him some credit for it.
There is really no good reason to attach this motor directly to a drive shaft. Hybrid technology has a number of inherent benefits in efficiency, one of the most obvious being the ability to maintain a fixed, optimal RPM range constantly.
Once you've redesigned a car such that you're using a totally different engine, there is zero reason to continue using the same old driveshaft technology to transfer power.
Hybrid technology has a certain inherent superiority for fuel efficiency and this is part of the reason why it's been used in railroad locomotives for nearly a century. The real developments that brought about practical hybrid cars were in battery and electric motor engineering that made a hybrid power source in a compact space feasible.
With those advances now being made, there isn't really any good reason for a car already using a new type of engine to continue using an older, suboptimal way of transferring power to the wheels. You're always going to get more efficiency out of an engine if you can keep it constantly within an optimal RPM range, where it operates most effectively. A direct mechanical linkage to the wheels makes doing that complicated, and you end up wasting a huge amount of mass on transmissions and differentials whose weight you have to burn fuel to drag along with you, which just compounds all the efficiency losses that are already inherent in their design (friction losses, etc.)
tl;dr - connecting the engine to the wheels is part of why reciprocating engine cars are inefficient.
Once you've redesigned a car such that you're using a totally different engine, there is zero reason to continue using the same old driveshaft technology to transfer power.
Hybrid technology has a certain inherent superiority for fuel efficiency and this is part of the reason why it's been used in railroad locomotives for nearly a century. The real developments that brought about practical hybrid cars were in battery and electric motor engineering that made a hybrid power source in a compact space feasible.
With those advances now being made, there isn't really any good reason for a car already using a new type of engine to continue using an older, suboptimal way of transferring power to the wheels. You're always going to get more efficiency out of an engine if you can keep it constantly within an optimal RPM range, where it operates most effectively. A direct mechanical linkage to the wheels makes doing that complicated, and you end up wasting a huge amount of mass on transmissions and differentials whose weight you have to burn fuel to drag along with you, which just compounds all the efficiency losses that are already inherent in their design (friction losses, etc.)
tl;dr - connecting the engine to the wheels is part of why reciprocating engine cars are inefficient.
American industry is suffering a little maybe they need to steal some more nazi scientists!DazBurger said: