New Car Engine Sends Shock Waves Through Auto Industry, page 6

Pages: << 3 4 5 6 7 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 128 times

reply posted on 8-4-2011 @ 08:20 PM by JohnPhoenix

Originally posted by Teabags
reply to post by rle4lunch

Why do we have to ween ourselves off of oil???? It comes from the Earth. It is natural. what the heck is wrong with oil? Its there, use it. Put aside the "green" bs that it is causing global warming (which there is no evidence it is) as well as it is a limited resource that comes from decayed dinosaurs.
The Earth bleeds oil. The supply will never diminish. If you actually believe oil is a "fossil fuel" that comes from decaying matter you better wake up. There arent billions of gallons of oil underground from decaying life matter. do you see any middle-ground of decaying matter that isn't "quite-yet oil"?? No. Do you know why? Because the Earth bleeds oil from the mantle to the upper layers.

People Bleed. I promise you, if you bleed long enough and fast enough you Will Die !

i don't believe oil are fossil based either but if not, where do You say it comes from? How is oil created in the earth? How fast is oil replenished after it is removed from a section in the earth?

You cannot answer these things. Therefore how do you know the Earth will not bleed to death?

Even if we did have tons of oil for ever more I'll give you two good reasons not to use oil and develop other technologies.

1) The people in charge of oil have all the money and it's harming our economy. They are too rich already and can stand to lose some of their billions. ( heck I say we just Nuke em all and be done with those suckers)

2) People want cheaper options for fuel sources and they are entitled to have them. No one has the right to deny this to the people.

edit on 8-4-2011 by JohnPhoenix because: addition

reply posted on 8-4-2011 @ 08:57 PM by Niccawhois

reply to post by predator0187

Great! My guess is that domestic automakers using this technology will still produce unreliable crap made with a high percentage of cheep Chinese parts. Even with the lack of moving parts, these cars will still find a way to break down and all the dummies will continue to buy them.

reply posted on 8-4-2011 @ 09:16 PM by eojsnrak

Completely awesome, however Mazda has used rotary engine technology for awhile now. They are much more efficient engines and allow the transfer of kinetic energy to the wheels flow much easier as there are only a fraction of the moving parts in the rotary engine as a standard horizontally opposed internal combustion engine. Were you able to see any specs for the motor, dyno test, BHP @ the wheels, torque curve, displacement, etc. Motors like this are generally about only 80 cubic inches in size. The no transmission thing I don't understand. It must have some sort of centrifugal clutch, otherwise the motor would drop RPMs so fast when you stopped accelerating from highway speeds that it would launch you into the dash.

reply posted on 8-4-2011 @ 09:43 PM by Novatrino

reply to post by predator0187

I think it would be better to look into an oxygen powered energy supply. I saw a NASA scientist during a commercial for the Winter Olympics, He is holding a 1/4' by 1/4' cell that collects oxygen from our atmosphere for its power source. They are also modular in design. The more power you want just add more units. Close to a hydrogen fuel cell. These devices have around 50 wafer layers or so as well. Thats all I know at this point. Im going to look for an online video of that "commercial".

Peace,
Novatrino

edit on 8-4-2011 by Novatrino because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 8-4-2011 @ 09:59 PM by filterway

Hi all,

i'm new here but i read the blog since a month.

Let me talk about electric car who was developped here in Quebec by hydro-quebec electricity company (owned by government). A group of searchers had developped the motor-wheel. Hydro-quebec was very near to revolutionate the world's car and oil industry. But suddenly, big boss changed their mind about the project money was removed and the project died.

This video was made in 1994 by a scientific magazine on tv (french, Québec). The video show all the potential of this futur car revolution. If you don't understand french, go directly at 7:20 min and see how much power a motor wheel have... it's amazing...

www.youtube.com...

reply posted on 8-4-2011 @ 10:48 PM by yizzel

Originally posted by Teabags
Why do we have to ween ourselves off of oil???? It comes from the Earth. It is natural. what the heck is wrong with oil?

Not many people know this but the oil is there to lubricate the iron core of the planet. Without it, the core would seize up like on Mars and the planet will not be able to generate a magnetic field which we all know is necessary to protect us from dangerous cosmic rays.

We are already feeling the effects, all those earthquakes are down to low oil pressure. Just like in a car, when the engine runs out of oil it will violently come to a screeching halt.

reply posted on 8-4-2011 @ 10:50 PM by Novatrino

reply to post by filterway

Welcome to the ATS site

I would suggest if you have not been informed yet to go to the new members forum. It kinda lays out the methodology of the site. Very helpful, especially learning old school bbcode.

reply posted on 9-4-2011 @ 03:13 AM by Ironclad

Who wants to start placing bets as to how this guy and the other researchers will be found "accidentally", dead?

I personally feel that at least one person will be found at the bottom of an elevator shaft, deceased after accidentally falling onto 245 9mm bullets..

reply posted on 9-4-2011 @ 03:24 AM by H1ght3chHippie

reply to post by budaruskie

According to your theory, the microprocessor would have never been introduced since it's composed of less parts than Mr Zuse's tube-based calculation machine.

Your theory is flawed.

reply posted on 9-4-2011 @ 04:01 AM by jstanthrno1

reply to post by eojsnrak

This is not a rotary engine.. it will not be used as a traditional internal combustion engine.

If ever put into production it would power an electric generator which would provide the acceleration needed

reply posted on 9-4-2011 @ 05:59 AM by Shadowfoot

Star and Flag...the best way to get the big oil interests to stop quashing new technology that reduces our volume of dependence or dependence all together on oil, is to bring this kind of information to the forefront and keeping it there until everyone becomes aware. The best value for sites like ATS in my opinion is that the voices of the real people of all nations are being heard and nowadays are even filtering into the mainstream media as a result through the divisive radio talk programs etc...as they dig through these very sites for information. Fantastic thread.

reply posted on 9-4-2011 @ 09:05 AM by WayfaringStranger

Well, hopefully this is not bought up by the big oil companies and shoved away somewhere. We need to get off of the oil and start looking towards the future.

I agree, but my understanding is that only 10-percent of a barrel of oil is used as gasoline. The other 90-percent goes for lubricants, plastics, fertilizers and god-knows-what.

With or without petrol-based fuels, we'll be drilling for oil for a long, long time.

reply posted on 9-4-2011 @ 09:51 AM by budaruskie

Originally posted by H1ght3chHippie
reply to post by budaruskie

According to your theory, the microprocessor would have never been introduced since it's composed of less parts than Mr Zuse's tube-based calculation machine.

Your theory is flawed.

It isn't a theory its a fact based observation of reality. Also, I never said that it occurs 100% of the time in every industry for every product. Last but not least, if you think about it, microprocessors actually created a lot of software capabilities and ultimately jobs, so my "theory" as you call it is still correct. Why try to argue with virtually no argument?

reply posted on 9-4-2011 @ 11:41 AM by jonnywhite

reply to post by predator0187

Hope this is true! I've always wanted electric or something else because I hate gas and the big overburdened engines, but maybe all that was needed was an upgrade of what we already had? Who knows. Just like chemotherapy. Some people hate it because it wipes out healthy cells so they avoid it altogether and go to latenratives. But maybe the answers is 3d chemotherapy that voids hurting other cells and that's exactly what's happening! So perhaps the answers is just engines that still use gas and combustion but are upgraded.

reply posted on 9-4-2011 @ 12:03 PM by jonnywhite

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by Dr UAE

It's responses like this that have me scratching my head.

Sounds like some posters WANT this invention to be suppressed.

Negative thoughts attract negative energies.

Less parts = Less jobs. That's logic, not emotions. Monopoly = bad for business. Super technology that a company sells = bad for business. In both cases a lot of other competing businesses lose and have to leave because they can't compete. So if this engine is real and enters the market how will it work? Maybe since the engine reduces fuel costs and saves weight maybe this means more people drive so maybe even though cars will have less parts there'll be more cars on the road. Maybe just maybe we wouldn't lose as many jobs as we think.

Remember for us to raise up all of the poor people in 3rd world countries so they can live like us the ONLY way to do it is with much much better technology. Otherwise, we're royally screwed. MIT upped their model results and now say CO2 is likely to reach upwards of 800ppm and as high as 1000 by 2100. We're entering a dangerous phase in the next 100 years. We cannot CANNOT do it with current technology. Either we slow our economy down drastically and take a big hit to reduce the damages to our planet or we develop technology that allows us to continue to grow at X rate while reducing the rate that we destroy the planet. We can't prevent destructive impacts to our planet but we CAN reduce them. IMHO it's our only option that's human.

The threat is real and we can't ignore it. Stagnant technological advance is looking less and less likely. We have to continue to advance and develop better technologies. It's the only way.

For reference, here is the news about the MIT results:
www.grist.org ...

edit on 9-4-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 9-4-2011 @ 12:11 PM by nh_ee

reply to post by civilchallenger

The advantages of any rotary based engine over a reciprocating one is that it's power isn't required to be transferred from one axis to another, which is another source of losses due to friction.

This is the advantage of the Turbine, the Wankel rotary and this new engine ....in that there is no crankshaft required.

Turbine engines would be a great compliment to a hybrid vehicle but it's all about costs.
Car companies have to be realistic in providing vehicles that the general population can afford to buy.

A turbine engine would be awesome but simply looking at the aerospace industry and helicopters in particular for example..

Even the lesser expensive helicopters are built using piston engines, such as the trainer, the Robinson, whereas the more expensive Helicopters utilize turbine engines such as the Huey Bell Ranger.
Expensive meaning...a new one costs $700,000. dollars.

A turbine engine due to it's complexity requires considerably more advanced tooling,manufacturing and skill levels to manufacture AND maintain.
Also, from a longevity/reliability perspective, the turbine due to it's high rpms requires being rebuilt after so many hours of use.

But that is exactly where this new engine is revolutionary,Since it is a basic turbine impeller inclosed in a housing, it's is far less complex than a turbine engine with it's hundreds of precision fan blades and titanium components.

This new engine's simplistic design means it will be more reliable and cheaper to manufacture and will more likely to fit into most auto manufacturer's profit models.

Piston engined Robinson 44
en.wikipedia.org...

Turbine Powered Bell Ranger
en.wikipedia.org...

reply posted on 10-4-2011 @ 01:49 AM by mbkennel

Originally posted by WayfaringStranger

Well, hopefully this is not bought up by the big oil companies and shoved away somewhere. We need to get off of the oil and start looking towards the future.

I agree, but my understanding is that only 10-percent of a barrel of oil is used as gasoline. The other 90-percent goes for lubricants, plastics, fertilizers and god-knows-what.

this is false, it's the other way around. About 10% of a barrel is used for material purposes, the remainder for heating and transportation.

reply posted on 10-4-2011 @ 01:00 PM by gladtobehere

Its an idea, years away from implementation. It would be nice if true but at this point, its basically a theory.

reply posted on 10-4-2011 @ 02:29 PM by AtlantisX99

Originally posted by SpunGCake

i guess i never realy thought about it like that. in this case i have been a sheep, just following. i mean i had many ideas on how to improve and get off oil but im not rich or an engineer. i am angry and have been for along time that nothing has been done about this. i just loved how you pointed out "still using tech before we landed on the moon." i guess to sum it up i can use 1 word "Greed" is why we are where we are today. i hope soon we will change our current power source.

I totally agree with you but the other word I would use other than greed, is control.

edit on 10-4-2011 by AtlantisX99 because: Bad spelling

reply posted on 11-4-2011 @ 02:59 PM by Trig970

ya hopefully they further pursue the research on this cuz nothing is being done about rising gas prices. also hope this doesnt get swept away like the electric car!

Pages: << 3 4 5 6 7 >> ^^TOP^^