Like Tree0Likes

On engines, fuel, energy, and a reality check

Reply
Old 05-30-2011, 11:58 PM
  #81
Registered
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: West Palm Beach, Fl
My Boats: 1979 Formula 255 Liberator...My 4th Formula
Posts: 3,051
Default

I have to say that I love this kind of discussion. There are "think tanks" around the country that political and government officials look to for ideas and thoughts on current events...most of which are concerned with geo-political, enviromental and economic effects of world events.

I wish I knew there were "think tanks" that deal with the subject matter discussed in this thread....maybe there are...maybe not. I hope that there are groups of people that are working the emperical research on energy issues that effect our lives today as well as those of our children and grand children...we owe it to them.

I wish for future generations a time like we enjoyed 40 + years ago when energy was abundant and cheap and we didn't "suck up the seat covers" every time some A- Hole in the middle east made a derogatory remark towards us.
sprink58 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2011, 03:20 AM
  #82
Registered
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
My Boats: '83 Sea Ray SRV-260 DA
Posts: 141
Default

I enjoy it, too. There is no reason at all why like-minded individuals of various backgrounds can't come together and discuss some really engaging, meaningful material that all can relate to, and form their own "think tank".

I have a few more of these "odd" technological concepts that I still wish to introduce for everyone's consideration. I'll prepare a small summary with some links to various references and websites sometime this evening.

I would be keen to read everyone's thoughts, positive or negative, including those of our resident engineers. It won't necessarily concern anything of a conspiratorial nature, just concepts and ideas that were ignored by a society "that has always done things the same way" and couldn't see the advantages of switching.

While building some new engine or carburetor is out of the question for 99% of us, some of these smaller innovations can easily be constructed and tested in the garage, then usefully applied to one's daily life.

Stay tuned.
JP-8 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2011, 07:31 AM
  #83
Registered
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Bay City, MI
My Boats: Saber 28
Posts: 1,386
Default

There are a few things here that seem obvious to me, figured I would point them out if they havent been already.
First is that in any internal combustion engine an good portion of the energy (ie fuel) used is lost as heat. I have no idea what percentage it is but i would guess pretty high.
Second, is that any vehicle is subject to aerodynamic and rolling drag. You could probably make a vehicle that overcomes a lot of both, but it wouldnt be practical to most (room, asthectics, etc).
Third is cost, just look at high performance engines. Making more HP per volume is basically making them more efficient, but look at the cost involved. Manufacturers have to produce things people can afford.
I am not an engineer or anything, so keep that in mind, and sorry if this has been pointed out already.
I am certain though, that something new will come along at some point. It all comes down to when it becomes economically viable. Right now the sheer cost of changing the infrastructure to a new fuel source woudl be astronomical. How many gas stations are in the US and worldwide? Multiply by cost to change to different fuel delivery gear and systems=gigantic $.
hotjava66 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2011, 12:55 AM
  #84
Registered
 
On Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Houston
My Boats: 2005 42 Fountain, 1998 Marlago 35 FS, 2007 Sea Ray 230 Fission
Posts: 3,479
Default

You know the intrigue of conspiracy remains very entertaining on this thread as well as on the media.

Several of you are just missing the point and not being very realistic. If one of these outlandish claims were really true it would be being produced. Somewhere. As the engineer said earlier, he and his colleagues would LOVE to come up with something revolutionary and if they did they could retire as millionaires. Read the history of Microsoft. Bill Gates and Paul Allen did come up with a revolutionary system and they are now two of the world's richest men. JP-8 are you saying the typewriter industry failed to suppress them? Why? The typewriter market was I am sure a lucrative one until COMPUTERS came along. Read the history of Seymour Cray and other computer pioneers. No one supressed them because they could not. In fact, IBM was buying up many of the early inventions and producing them themselves because of cost savings or a new product category. (They just missed the boat and didn't buy Gates and Allens MS DOS system and the rest is history.)

This type of thinking is why people go to Mexico for cancer treatment when they are told in the US they are incurable. Some quack in Mexico says no you're not, just give me your $millions and I'll cure you. And you know what their success rate is? That's right, its zero. But a lot of rich Mexican quacks exist because of this "conspiracy" thinking. And Americans and Brits and others go over there every day. Why on earth would some POS dirty a$$ clinic in Mexico be able to cure your cancer when MD Anderson, Sloan Kettering, Mayo or Mallinkrodt cannot??? That is just insane. Like an engine that gets 200 mpg. I think the ceramic engine has a chance at high mpg because less of the gasolines' energy is given off and wasted as heat.
On Time is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2011, 03:01 AM
  #85
Registered
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
My Boats: '83 Sea Ray SRV-260 DA
Posts: 141
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by On Time View Post
You know the intrigue of conspiracy remains very entertaining on this thread as well as on the media.

Several of you are just missing the point and not being very realistic. If one of these outlandish claims were really true it would be being produced. Somewhere.
I once adhered to that very same line of reasoning. Indeed, if a particular technological innovation really delivered on all of its claims, it stands to reason that eventually, implementation would trickle down into some form of mainstream use. That has happened in quite a few technological sectors. However, there are many areas of technology to which the aforementioned line of reasoning never applied.



Quote:
Originally Posted by On Time View Post
As the engineer said earlier, he and his colleagues would LOVE to come up with something revolutionary and if they did they could retire as millionaires.
No doubt about it, the potential profits would be staggering. The inventors of such technology stand to make many billions of dollars, not to mention the investors, etc.

The problem is that it would ultimately result in a massive loss of revenue (control) for the energy industry and all of its related branches.

Naturally, a change in the status quo wouldn't be popular among those with a vested interested in keeping things as they are. They haven't really had much difficulty in maintaining their dominance either. All they have to do is keep abreast of any little podunk inventors that figure out how this all works. First they offer to buy them out. If that doesn't achieve the desired outcome, then a more direct approach is taken.

Really, it all boils down to a relatively small group of decidedly powerful individuals, whose desire to control and manipulate the greater number is as resolute and unyielding as the day is long.

This situation extends far beyond the energy business.


Quote:
Originally Posted by On Time View Post
Read the history of Microsoft. Bill Gates and Paul Allen did come up with a revolutionary system and they are now two of the world's richest men.
Gates and Allen were rather clever with the MITS Altair 8800 and the BASIC programming language. That got their foot in the door rather effectively. Beyond that, they weren't particularly innovative.


Quote:
Originally Posted by On Time View Post
JP-8 are you saying the typewriter industry failed to suppress them?
They never had any intentions of the sort.

Quote:
Originally Posted by On Time View Post
Why? The typewriter market was I am sure a lucrative one until COMPUTERS came along.
Ever seen an old UNIVAC or ENIAC? Before the days of CRT monitors, a computer system relied entirely on typewriter technology as its means of user interface. This continued on into the mid 70's.



Quote:
Originally Posted by On Time View Post
Read the history of Seymour Cray and other computer pioneers. No one supressed them because they could not.
There isn't really a need to suppress computer technology. Its the software that would present the threat.

Apple and Microsoft were scared to death of Commodore's Amiga line of computers because they not only used superior hardware, but their software was able to take full advantage of it. They shot themselves in the foot with lazy marketing and the death of Commodore's CEO didn't help much either.

Texas Instruments' TI-99/4a computer was another example of a really amazing little machine that still has its uses today.


Quote:
Originally Posted by On Time View Post
In fact, IBM was buying up many of the early inventions and producing them themselves because of cost savings or a new product category. (They just missed the boat and didn't buy Gates and Allens MS DOS system and the rest is history.)
DOS (first called CP/M) was really invented by Gary Kildall of Digital Research.

This special edition of "The Computer Chronicles" goes into detail about the lesser known side of the DOS story.

[YOUTUBE]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VipwFeJ1KMU
[/YOUTUBE]


Quote:
Originally Posted by On Time View Post
This type of thinking is why people go to Mexico for cancer treatment when they are told in the US they are incurable. Some quack in Mexico says no you're not, just give me your $millions and I'll cure you. And you know what their success rate is? That's right, its zero. But a lot of rich Mexican quacks exist because of this "conspiracy" thinking. And Americans and Brits and others go over there every day. Why on earth would some POS dirty a$$ clinic in Mexico be able to cure your cancer when MD Anderson, Sloan Kettering, Mayo or Mallinkrodt cannot??? That is just insane.
I originally had no intention of broaching this subject, but since it has come up, I'll post my findings.

I've lost two family members to cancer in recent years. It was because of this that I endeavored to learn as much as I could about the disease, and its treatment. I only wish I had known of the following before they passed. I know that they would still be here had they been able to benefit from these alternative options. The videos below sum up the reality of the subject rather neatly:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGsSEqsGLWM[/YOUTUBE]


[GOOGLEVIDEO]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5528328984547372206#docid=89185154 81465736414[/GOOGLEVIDEO]


[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iY7g-IU0Jlg&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]



Quote:
Originally Posted by On Time View Post
Like an engine that gets 200 mpg. I think the ceramic engine has a chance at high mpg because less of the gasolines' energy is given off and wasted as heat.

I agree that a large amount of potential energy is wasted as heat. The Bourke engine addresses that issue with simple elegance.

Last edited by JP-8; 06-10-2011 at 03:52 AM.
JP-8 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:35 PM.


Copyright 2011 OffShoreOnly. All rights reserved.