hmmm when someone posts a story about smokey yunich that leans towards your point of view it is excellent, yet when an engineer asks you very poignant questions, you bloviate and say your not going to respond. No offense but you seem to only want to "discuss" what serves you. everything you have offered in nothing but cut and paste ie smoke and mirrors.

Smokey took the time to talk with me for a hour,a complete stranger on the phone,we talked engines and rigging in detail(I wanted him to do a couple engines for my "M" boat) Real Cool Guy to talk with, RIP Smokey.

http://www.fireballroberts.com/smokey_yunick1.htm

I honestly didn't (and still don't) know that much about Yunick or his innovations, so I naturally welcome any enlightenment that happens to come my way on the subject.

Sprink was completely correct when he stated that the Bilderberg group had a hand in it. I originally decided not to broach that particular subject because of its connotation with most folks.

And I can easily appreciate ECeptor's apprehension. These engineering concepts and ideas contradict every reference point that has been established in science and physics for the last hundred years. It is very much a taboo subject to talk about in those circles, and anyone who is well versed in the standards just won't tolerate the consideration of anything different. Even by those persons who don't feel particularly loyal to the established rules of understanding.

That is, it is wrong to believe in the existence of an alternate method or explanation of anything that is generally accepted.

To promote anything contrary might well lead one into the darkest areas of the "fringe" sciences which will ultimately garner one the label: "conspiracy theorist" for giving them any credence.

The internal dialog to such a thought process (which applies to every area where there is the potential for disagreement or controversy) would go something like this - "Now now...we don't want any sudden bursts of critical thinking which might affect a different perspective of observation. You just go jump in the same box as everyone else and do everything that you see them doing....I know, I know, it sounds stupid and counter productive, but just trust me on this, and there won't be any problems. Oh, by the way, don't try and talk to them about anything they are unfamiliar with, these folks don't like change."



An understandable, valid statement. And yes, I do want to discuss these ideas with others, not be told it's all impossibly stupid, and that I shouldn't bother myself with trying to understand it any further. Even bringing any of it up might at once appear misguided, but that is sort of the point in this case.

I don't really follow you on the smoke and mirrors thing, though. I'm not trying to fake anything, nor lead people astray. If you mean to imply that the articles and papers I have posted are not to be trusted, I suppose one could say that about any piece of material used to prove a point about an arcane subject that didn't come from a well-known source.

The reason why I dared mention any of this here is because this technology would be remarkably useful for boaters. I also want to encourage folks to research these possibilities for themselves.

I don't chase conspiracy just to be entertained. I will listen to points of view from different sources to educate myself as to what others may be thinking. These types of discussions are necessary to stimulate everyone's thinking.

A great example of this is the Edison~Tesla controversy at the beginning of the 20th century. Edison said that all electrical service had to be Direct Current even if the distribution of it required massive transformers every few blocks and powerlines that looked like overhead 4" diameter vines strung from pole to pole. Tesla developed the idea of Alternating Current as a more efficient way to produce and distribute electricity. Thank God Tesla's idea won that debate or we would have a real cluster fouk for a power grid.

I think we need to take a long open minded look at our energy needs and finding ways to maximize the efficiency of what ever fuel source we use.

I am a capitalist and like to see true entreprenuers succeed. However I think it's time for more of us to ask why in order to get solid answers to simple questions about how we utilize our resources.

The answer "Because that's the way things are done" doesn't cut it with me.

I honestly think that compressed natural gas should be our primary (but not exclusive) fuel for transportation in the US. We sit on the worlds largest natural reserve of natural gas yet we still go half way around the world spending our money and fighting wars to insure that we can get our energy needs from people that hate our guts anyway. I equate this to the old saying "Running past dollars to pick up nickels".

I also think that solar energy is the next big paradigm shift in providing electrical power to fuel the energy needs of our homes and factories. I predict that someone is going to get very wealthy over the next few years as this shift takes place. I also predict that the staus quo will not take this change easily and will go down kicking and screaming.

What a shame.

Solar energy?? we cover half of Florida with panels!! Not going to happen plus you need backup power,Thorium reactors would be the logical next step.

I must disagree with your opinion of engineers, designers, systems, quality, test and the other disciplines that bring a product forward. As Eceptor stated documentation is really what we do. We document everything because that's the proof.
ed

You haven't a clue about what really happens. Your comment prove that. All the time we dream up off the wall crazy **** and then we sit down and try to make it work. Sometimes we know it won't work, but we test it just in case. But, our testing is in real labs...calibrated ones with real test engineers running the test. And the test results must be repeatable.

Hell, just last night a small group of us engineers emptied 3 bottles of vodka in one guys back yard as we had a brainstorming "engineering meeting" slash let the steam out and get drunk BBQ. So much for hiding behind the establishment and not being creative, eh? :drink:

But, at the end of the day a design must work in reality. It must work all the time, for all customers, for all conditions. It must be cost effective, it must be marketable, it must be reliable and durable, it must be manufacturable. You should thank God every day that airplanes, cars, bridges and buildings are designed and built by people who care about such things and don't just "hope" or "wish" it would work.

Again and for the last time, JP-8, what is your profession? What training and experience do you have with engines? I'm curious...and I promise not to comment on your answer.

:ernaehrung004:

I agree mostly. CNG is a great fuel source for American light transportation. It's got a long history of use and research plus it's backed up by science and testing. Based on the numbers I've ran it is feasible also. But, the hard lump is the infrastructure upgraded needed to support it. Utah and Oklahoma have made moves in that direction, but there is no significantly large usuage vs gasoline. If I lived in a city with a decent number of CNG filling stations, I would have converted my truck to CNG or bought the CNG Honda as a commuter.

But, I do not think making it exclusive is realistic. Different applications, situations and regions will have different optimal and feasible solutions.

"Whether the actual amount is 1.1 trillion barrels or 500 billion does not matter
for policy deliberations over the foreseeable future. Any number in this range is very
large. For example, the midpoint of this range is 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
To better grasp the magnitude of this midpoint estimate, consider that current U.S.
demand for petroleum products is 20 million barrels per day. If U.S. oil shale
resources could be used to meet a quarter of that demand, 5 million barrels per day,
the recoverable resource would last over 400 years! In the face of such a long recovery
period, it is appropriate to recognize the futility of trying to develop accurate estimates
of recoverable resources. How and how much oil shale is eventually developed
depends less on today’s technologies than on the performance of technologies available
a hundred or more years hence."
400 Years!!!!!!!!!!!!


Here:http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG414.pdf

I'm referring to the attitude towards the possibility of over-unity, perpetual motion, and a greater than 60% efficient engine. Soon as you start bringing those notions up in the classroom, you get a piece of chalk tossed in your general direction.

I don't doubt for a second that you personally are a very brilliant individual. They don't hand out masters degrees, and I am not trying to point fingers at you or your profession for the stagnation of the establishment.

I also know that if something works "too good", it often won't bring in enough revenue in repairs, spare parts, etc.

Such reasoning is understandable from a sales perspective, but planned obsolescence, or intentionally maintaining a certain level of efficiency just because it is better for business or regulation is something I can't support, and this is happening more and more.


I agree wholeheartedly that once a design has been ironed out, it must go through rigorous critique and refinement to be successful, no arguments there.

My faith in God is strong, and I do thank him every day for every bridge that holds my burden, and every safe arrival to my destinations. I have not traveled by airplane in many years, and never will again, if I have the choice.

I don't mind and would actually be interested in your comments, to be honest.

I work in web design and computer repair. Not interesting, but an adequate living.

My mechanical experience is based largely on what I've learned from pre-1960's engineering books (purposefully read books from those eras), and first hand experience in building a few engines.

Steam engines (of the stationary variety) fascinate me immensely, and I spend a great deal of time pouring over old technical manuals, vintage steam/electrical engineering correspondence courses from the early 1900's (wish these were still around), vintage Popular Mechanics, Popular Science, Electrical Experimenter, Scientific American, late 19th-early 20th century physics and science texts, and also dabble in the study of natural/alternative medicine using early 1900's electrical devices and methods.

I highly recommend both of scientist/physicist Dr. Gustave Le Bon's fantastic books if you're interested, ECeptor:

I hold these two books in highest regard.

Book 1

Book 2

And yes, I am a musician (my sound is similar to that of Vangelis), but not yet ready to go professional.

That's about everything worth noting.