Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 8/23/2005 5:11:39 AM EDT
Think about it people, 35 years ago we had the technology to send astronauts into space and make it possible for them to land and walk on the Moon. I find it extremely hard to believe that in todays high tech world, auto engineers lack the ability to produce a fuel efficient combustion engine, that requires only a fraction of fuel to operate. You would think that after the oil crises of the late 70's we would have learned our lesion. Do you think that we already have this technology, and if so, do you think big brother has something to do with it not being released?
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 5:20:52 AM EDT
We have the technology for 100 mpg, oil companies won't allow it.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 5:25:19 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 5:26:52 AM EDT
200 mpg carburetors have been on the market for years.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 5:31:25 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 5:33:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:

Originally Posted By MrClean4Hire:
We have the technology for 100 mpg, oil companies won't allow it.

What do you mean "won't allow it"?



Hitmen and conspiracy theories.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 5:34:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/23/2005 5:34:41 AM EDT by DoubleFeed]
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 5:35:22 AM EDT

Any good idea you come up with will get sued out of existance. Corvair ring a bell??

Shok
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 5:36:28 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 5:47:05 AM EDT
Billions of dollars have been made for many years because of the demand for this or that. If the demand goes away, the CEO's and presidents and owners of various industries will not be rich. SO, that is why the 100 MPG car hasn't exeisted yet.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 5:50:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By coondog:
Billions of dollars have been made for many years because of the demand for this or that. If the demand goes away, the CEO's and presidents and owners of various industries will not be rich. SO, that is why the 100 MPG car hasn't exeisted yet.



Or there could be physic and thermodynamics at work which limit how efficient combustion engines can be, and still provide adequate power.


Nah, it's gotta be a vast conspiracy.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:16:40 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:41:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By QShok:
Any good idea you come up with will get sued out of existance. Corvair ring a bell??

Shok



So when do we say enough is enough. They keep raising prices, and we keep paying. (WTF!) It's only a matter of time before we start seeing these same drastic price increases in our grocery and department stores, because of this latest oil crises. Will we continue to keep shelling out our hard earned greenbacks to corporate greed, or will we finally make a stand and return this country to what it once was? Remember, there is strength in numbers.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:45:24 AM EDT
Read "The Hunt For Zero Point", by Nick Cook.

Cook is a writer for Jane's Defence Weekly. It's his story of delving into the world of "non-traditional" technology.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:46:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/23/2005 6:46:58 AM EDT by DK-Prof]
There's no grand conpiracy - however, it DOES seem to be true that auto manufacturers stopped caring about trying to develop much more efficient engines from the 80s onwards.

Engines don't really seem to have gotten much more fuel-efficient over the last 20 years or so. Some of that is no doubt the physical limits of the efficiency of the internal combustion engine, but it's also in part the fact that the American consumer has once again fallen in love with big cars and big engines (and forgotten completely the days of expensive gas in the 70s). So, car manufactures stopped really trying very hard to develop the super-efficient gas engines and lighter cars, because the market didn't really seem to care that much.



Personally, I really do not believe that oil companies have anything to do with it.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:52:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/23/2005 7:06:06 AM EDT by DoubleFeed]
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:53:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:

Originally Posted By QShok:
Any good idea you come up with will get sued out of existance. Corvair ring a bell??

Shok

Nope. Enlighten this whippersnapper.




www.leftwatch.com/archives/years/2000/000070.html

Shok
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:58:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Beerbellybo:

Originally Posted By QShok:
Any good idea you come up with will get sued out of existance. Corvair ring a bell??

Shok



So when do we say enough is enough. They keep raising prices, and we keep paying. (WTF!) It's only a matter of time before we start seeing these same drastic price increases in our grocery and department stores, because of this latest oil crises. Will we continue to keep shelling out our hard earned greenbacks to corporate greed, or will we finally make a stand and return this country to what it once was? Remember, there is strength in numbers.



The biggest reason oil prices are going up is because of demand. China is consuming more oil every year. Their economy is expected to grow continuously for at least the next 20 years. Its predicted that growth will slow down but their economy will surpass ours in 20 years. Oil prices will do nothing but go up unless we stop buying stuff made in China or the President puts an embargo on China.

Shok
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 7:02:34 AM EDT
It's all about the $$$
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 7:05:27 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 7:12:30 AM EDT
Pops figured it out a long time ago. Look where it got him. preempted!
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 8:18:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:

Originally Posted By Beerbellybo:

Originally Posted By QShok:
Any good idea you come up with will get sued out of existance. Corvair ring a bell??

Shok



So when do we say enough is enough. They keep raising prices, and we keep paying. (WTF!) It's only a matter of time before we start seeing these same drastic price increases in our grocery and department stores, because of this latest oil crises. Will we continue to keep shelling out our hard earned greenbacks to corporate greed, or will we finally make a stand and return this country to what it once was? Remember, there is strength in numbers.

Lemme stop you right there, friend.
Prices are going up everywhere, because of simple inflation. You are correct that an added cost close to a source of something that everybody uses will filter down to the consumer, but oil isn't the only area where we're seeing added costs. A perfect example is when you see somebody suing a government agency. Most of the time it puts a smile on your face, because the government screwed up and is being held accountable.
But in reality, you, the taxpayer pays for that! The legal proceedings, the attorneys, the award, the peripheral costs (such as food and water), all of it.
They keep raising prices, and you keep paying. You do that because your paycheck keeps increasing. Inflation increases prices, and you get a cost of living adjustment in your paycheck, if nothing else.
Now, if you are talking about more fuel efficient powerplants, that's not a political problem, and cannot be poofed into existance by everybody standing up and demanding it. Engineers design and build those.
What's stopping you from being one of those engineers?



Are you trying to tell me that if some hot shot college engineer, designed a simple engine modification for 6 to 8 cylinder automobiles, that would allow vehicles to triple there gas mileage, that Big Brother would not intervene.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 8:23:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Gunner1X:
Pops figured it out a long time ago. Look where it got him. preempted!
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/Pops_Racer.jpg



Too bad Speed Racer smashed the windshield that was etched with the engine plans.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 8:29:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/23/2005 8:32:51 AM EDT by DoubleFeed]
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 8:32:48 AM EDT
Simple. The money it would cost to engineer and produce such engines hasn't been worth it up til now. It would cost millions to get a newly designed powerplant off the ground, and since they haven't had trouble selling their vehicles, why bother changing.

People were buying cars that get 8 to 30 mpg for years now, because, it wasn't that bad to deal with. Now people are complaining about high gas prices.

It's true, people only care about their wallets.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 8:40:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
Combustion chamber on top of and underneath the piston. But...how?



That technology exists ... it's called a steam engine.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 8:47:27 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 8:51:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By QShok:

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:

Originally Posted By QShok:
Any good idea you come up with will get sued out of existance. Corvair ring a bell??

Shok

Nope. Enlighten this whippersnapper.




www.leftwatch.com/archives/years/2000/000070.html

Shok



Having worked on nearly every year and model fo the Corvair, including a 327/350 Corvette-powered version, I can safely conclude that the Corvair was a POS, but not for the reasons cited by Nader. I relied upon on one to get me the 50-mile per day round-trip to high school and would like to steamroll every one ever built.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 8:55:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/23/2005 8:55:42 AM EDT by skid2964]

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:

Originally Posted By skid2964:

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
Combustion chamber on top of and underneath the piston. But...how?



That technology exists ... it's called a steam engine.

Correct. However, if somebody has produced a double acting gasoline engine, I haven't see it.



The efficiency is in the actuation of the piston ....

The in-efficiency is in the prduction of the compressed gas to actuate the piston.

See, we really need to perfect that fusion reactor thingy ...
But, if we did that, an all-electric would be even better!
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 8:59:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Beerbellybo:
Think about it people, 35 years ago we had the technology to send astronauts into space and make it possible for them to land and walk on the Moon. I find it extremely hard to believe that in todays high tech world, auto engineers lack the ability to produce a fuel efficient combustion engine, that requires only a fraction of fuel to operate. You would think that after the oil crises of the late 70's we would have learned our lesion. Do you think that we already have this technology, and if so, do you think big brother has something to do with it not being released?



Huh? My 2.0 4-cyl makes more horsepower than my old 4.5 V8, with lower emissions and double the fuel economy.

I'd say that's pretty good progress. People might prefer higher mileage, but the gov't requires lower emissions, so I'm not suprised that mileage has been mostly an afterthought. First they made the engines smaller, THEN they figured out how to make them stronger.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 9:03:06 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 9:22:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/23/2005 9:22:59 AM EDT by AeroE]
While you guys are drawing new engine cycles to improve the efficiency of heat engines, when you get some time think about the number of Sterling Cycle engines that were built before 1900.

Some of you thought it was a 20th Century invention, didn't you?
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 10:08:12 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 12:54:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/24/2005 4:19:45 AM EDT by AeroE]

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:

Originally Posted By AeroE:
While you guys are drawing new engine cycles to improve the efficiency of heat engines, when you get some time think about the number of Sterling Cycle engines that were built before 1900.

Some of you thought it was a 20th Century invention, didn't you?

If I understand what I read and remember it correctly, gasoline engines date back into the 1870s, correct?



I expect IC engines were running on stuff like Naptha and alcohol in the 1870's; I think gasoline became popular in the mid to late 1880's or early 1890's. The Otto Cycle engine dates to 1876. Gasoline was essentially a waste product in the early days of oil refining. In the early part of the century, low compression engines required gas with low anti-knock resistance. During the air races in the 1930's, oil company representatives attended so they could add anti-knock compounds for the high compression engines being run - now that I think about this, I'll bet they did the same thing at the major auto races.

The Sterling Engine was patented in 1816 and there bunches of them running all over the country up til about the civil war. For a while, they probably held equal footing with steam engines for low horsepower applications. There is an engine locally that uses a wood fire, and just runs great.

If you get a chance, read Lyle Cummins' book about the history of the Diesel engine; it's about 3 or more inches thick, but is a great book. I don't know if he ever published part 2.

Lindsay Books in Illinois is a good resource for reprints of old technology books -
www.lindsaybks.com/HomePage.html


ETA: In 1974 I owned a 68 Plymouth Fury with a 318 engine plus automatic transmission - that car got 22 to 23 mpg. This gives some calibration about the inefficiencies incurred by anti pollution add-ons.
Top Top