It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Our technology, somewhat lacking

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 07:28 PM
Motor Vehicles, they've been around since the 1800's and don't seem like they have really changed that much. They still utilize the piston driven combustion engine, gasoline, etc.... the only difference is the incorporation of electronics, etc.

Why after so long are we still driving these obsolete vehicles for personal transportation? Seriously, every time I drive my car I wonder why we still drive them as they are relatively old in design, pollute like crazy, etc... I am sure it has to do with oil, the industry collapsing without vehicles.

Sorry, just wanted to express my opinion, however retarded it may be.

posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 07:39 PM
i think its more just that no one is really trying to push the technology

posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 03:19 PM
Technology is being held back, oil keeps our world moveing at this point in time, other alternatives have been discovered but not commercialised yettill theoil runs out thenits onto the next money wagon..

posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 04:36 PM
The first real production car, the Ford Model-T, was built during 1908 and 1909. 1909 was the first year they came to the market. That is not the 1800s.

Many of the first cars became death traps. Although they were made of metal, they were much more likely to flip, have trouble stopping, and leave the driver with minimal control. Safety, horsepower, and design became the driving (excuse the punn) factors for cars. Power was needed for farming and industry, safety was needed for everyone, and design was needed to make them more of a capitalistic dream for consumers.

Efficiency is a hard game to play. Sound, heat, vibration, motion, and light all channel energy away from your combustion reaction. Look at that list? What item on that list does the car NOT produce? There-in lies the problem. We like our cars to rapidly lose energy, but don't think that we should have to take the hit in gasoline consumption. You can go out and get hundreds of miles to the gallon right now. Sure, you'll have to spend thousands on a carburator probably 3 feet across, but you can do it... I know they use efficient carburators on tanks, but they require so much power that the efficiency drops to nearly nothing.

Just for the record, oil technology advances quite rapidly these days. Plastics are mostly made from oil. In fact, here's a list of items:

Why do you think oil is such an enormous industry? Because Big Oil makes half of the stuff people use during their lifetime. And as far as non-oil based synthetics go, they can be difficult to make and more importantly they can be extremely costly (which the world is not willing to pay for).

I do advocate lower oil consumption. I do believe in energy efficiency. I also believe that these technologies take time and have to become popular in capitalistic societies. You can wish all you want for cars that get 200 miles to the gallon, but unless you're willing to pay an extra $50,000 for that car, you might as well start looking for a better way to support your cause. Personally, I'm still confused on the best way to approach this issue.

[edit on 17-7-2004 by Protector]

posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 06:30 PM
I have wondered about this some myself. It seems for a long time there wasn't a need or want to innovate the main means of propulsion (internal combustion engine). Only recently have gas prices and gas shortages really been a concern for most people. There have been innovations, but had problems or were unreliable. Automobile companies are out to make a profit and if something they are putting into the market doesn't sale because it may have problems, they will resort back to what works. What works has been based on the same principles for over a hundred years.

Only recently have we seen a need for something better, and manufactures are seeing this with the success of the new hybrid cars. Hopefully before long they will do away with the camshaft and control the valves with computers and have all the other systems run off the alternator. If you look back though fuel efficiency was never really much of a problem or even a thought for most when going out and purchasing a car, and still often isn't thought about. People want cars that are comfortable, powerful, big, and all the amenities. How many people you see looking to buy a new car willing to give some of those up and pay about the same price? No people want the most they can get for their money and fuel efficiency isn't one of them. There are some very fuel efficient vehicles out there compared to most.

Can look at it like this, it is an industry sort of stuck to remain the same. Think of all the mechanics out there, they know how to work on what's out there. Say one car manufacturer comes out with something very different, how many peopel want a car that no one knows how to work on or parts if something breaks. If they did come out with an engine that ran off of something other than gas, how are they going to be able to easliy obtain it while on the road.

[edit on 17-7-2004 by Carrion]

posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 09:36 PM
You guys must all be americans if you think regular cars are the pinacle of transportation.

New transportation since the invention of the internal combustions engine include:

Elevators cable run verticle transportation.
Maglev Trains ultra low air resitant maglev and mag propelled train that travel rather fast.
Jet Engines Making super sonic travel not just a military thing but possible on commercial airliners.
Hybrid Engines That use some gas but also a great deal of conserved energy and batteries.
Solar Cars Light weight electric cars that recharge via sunlight.
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars
Light Rails Electric trains that run on an electrified rail or cable.
Water Engines They decay fast, but run on only water.
Nuclear Virtually endless energy used commonly in Naval Ships but easily applicable to Cars and Planes.

There are more but you get the point. The question is... why do YOU drive a car? If you live in a rural area then you can't beat the price and energy density of a car. So its your best CHOICE. Or if you lived in a city you could easily live off of some of the above listed methods like I do.

If you want another type of vehicle you can make one...water engines run a few thousand above conventional combustion engines. People complain about nuclear power...but if it wearnt for social pressure you could easily make a one time purchase of a nuclear car for about $100,000 that would last longer than you do.

The tech is there, its been growing for years...but many people don't like the idea of mass they drive gas gusslers. Others don't like shelling out an extra $2k for a hybrid, but those are there too.

The technology is fine...people just don't want to change. The issue is society.

posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 09:42 PM

Originally posted by Quest
Nuclear Virtually endless energy used commonly in Naval Ships but easily applicable to Cars and Planes.

easily applicable to cars and planes

yeah if the car is as big as an aircraft carrier

posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 12:26 AM
Did you guys watch TopGear last week(I think it was last week)? they have calculated that trains polute more than cars! if we count per passanger!

so before complaining about cars, complain about trains

posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 12:31 AM
I really think the point is moot, we are going to have no choice about moving away from fossil fuels. Today, no, in our lifetime, yes. I'd have my stockbroker on speed dial, because it's going to be quick.

new topics

top topics


log in