Read the Articles I posted above about the Rosen's and their flywheel turbine technology and how they solved those inefficiency problems. DD
Right, because there hasn't been any effort to improve the range of helicopters or anything. In a car, it's possible.... but it's going to be horribly expensive. A turbine alone will be expensive because of the precision required when you spin something large at 100,000 rpm. Then you slap on an hybrid electric to get the efficiency up.... It might be more feasible in semi trucks.
99% of a car's power is devoted to moving the car and not its passengers. You make the car lighter weight and it'll meet current CAFE standards without tweaking the engine. You do both and design both around each other, and it'll replace the production of several ANWRs. We dug a hole with SUVs and large utility trucks. Now people have security issues with lousy drivers driving their 2 ton vehicles of death. But changing social perceptions would be the most practical way of fixing things, even if creating an enitrely new tech would be the easiest solution...
Turbos and superchargers are capable of spinning up that fast -- they are more or less mini-turbines used to boost the power of piston engines. Both superchargers and turbochargers require high compressor rpm to compress the air. This ranges from 30,000-65,000 rpm in superchargers and can be even higher with turbos (over 100,000 rpm). In order to achieve the high rpm levels required to compress the air to the psi required, superchargers must have a step-up mechanism (gears, belts, pulleys or a combination thereof) consisting of numerous moving parts, to convert 6,000 engine rpm to the 40,000+ rpm necessary to build boost. Turbochargers need no step-up mechanism and have only one moving part, the compressor/turbine wheel assembly. link It's not like a turbine powered car is some sort of science fiction fantasy -- they are race proven as far back as the late 60's at Indy.
i'm pretty shocked at the poll results. if necessity is the mother of invention then we are blind orphan sheep.
Yes, I know.... In fact you can buy a microturbine today if you are so inclined. Check out the Jetcat turbines. However, the larger the turbine, the more centrifugal force on the blades... the more difficult it is to spin it @ 100,000 rpm and thus cost rises because at some point you have to make the entire metallic structure of a fan blade a single crystal (really interesting how they do so) The issues are high specific fuel consumption for a small turbine, a nasty tendency to cook bearings, the fact that you have to turn a blast of air into a way to push a car, and on a per-hp basis they are expensive. Now, if you insulate the turbine, you recapture some of your losses in efficiency because a lot of the turbine energy goes into heating up the turbine itself. The efficiency problems CAN be solved.... The issue of maintenance (bearings) can be solved... but it's going to cost you.
This is a great question, I think you have to have someone dedicated to changing the world. I remember my dad going to a seminar in the 80s about how to build a more efficient carborator...that would allegedly get 60+mpg.....something about spraying the gas on a heat plate and then injecting the fuel in gaseous state into the cylinders. Anyway.....the company that had the patent got bought out by Texaco for about $50 million if I recall correctly. It just makes you wonder how much tech has been squashed, because the Auto industry and Oil companies where happy with status quo. DD
But what about how the Rosen's did it where they used a magnetized flywheel that I believe was spinning at 60,000 rpms with little or no friction. DD
That is a winning formula from an efficiency standpoint, but it's a cost issue. You're dealing with aerospace tolerances when you're talking about those rotational speeds with any sort of longevity. I don't see how you can mass produce the parts. I guess it's possible, but I don't know of any company that can do it. There is a market for such things in the small aircraft industry and they already spend $20,000+ on powerplants.
Also . . . .the government has become more and more unfriendly to inventors in general they have gutted alot of the Patent Protections They attemping to shorten the period of time the inventor has protect on his product etc. As I have stated before we have entered and era where Capitalism is not longer fostering innovation but is now hindering it Higher Profits is in status quo and squashing new tech and innovation More profit is LIFE-TIME TREATMENTs than ONE TIME Cures If it is to be IT IS VITAL ,IMO, to national security that we PROTECT and EXPLORE new Tech As someone has stated . ..alot of the overly expensive tech today would have come down on price and be more efficient by now If only we had explored them 20 years ago . . . . I'm not Anti-Capitalism but it requires Regulation and alot of attention! Laiz-e-faire government of the economics and technology is crucial in crippling our nation Rocket River
But if you are already spending $30,000 on a car, and another $5,000 per year on gas, what would be the difference in spending $40,000 for a car, and $1,000 for gas. I would think that the fact that people are paying a premium for inefficient Hybrid vehicles proves that there is a market out there for a better solution like Hydrogen cars, or flywheel mini turbines. The bigger issue for me would be repair, where would you go for engine repair etc? It is such a dramatic shift in the way engines work, that it would take a lot of people switching at one time to make it work....which may happen. But, IMHO, there is a greater chance of it happening in another country where they do not have the large oil and auto companies pining for the same ole..same ole... DD
No question we're moving in that direction DaDa... but I don't think the microturbine is there yet despite decades of investment from companies like Williams, Pratt & Whitney, GE, and companies working the other side i.e. the model aircraft engine makers. Every dollar that a barrel of oil goes up makes otherwise silly ideas that much more practical. If Rosen solved the problems in a microturbine and was only trying to sell it to car companies, he seriously missed the boat by not selling to the aircraft industry. Imagine having a $150,000 Cessna with a 300+ mph cruising speed, it would be revolutionary.
But that is a relatively small market, very few people are pilots or have airplanes, but everyone has a car. You go for mass market to make it work, not micromarkets. DD
You make it sound like auto manufacturers haven't been doing that. Every new model, different things are done to make a car as light as possible, while still being strong and "SAFE" if involved in an accident. More and more aluminum is being used. Many body panels are now aluminum, or some form of plastic. Engines are using magnesium for valve covers and other parts. BMW even uses magnesium blocks for their newest 6 cylinder engines (with iron sleeves), aluminum BOLTS (one time use, light as a feather), etc. That engine alone is drastically different, for weight saving issues only, saving a whopping 20 or so pounds. Electric water pumps that cycle on and off, to lessen mechanical load on the engine compared to a belt driven pump. Suspension parts are aluminum, subframes are aluminum. I could go on, but the point is, that weight savings is always a priority. Engine tweaks? Engines are constantly changing to be more efficient, as far as an internal combustion piston engine is concerned. Advances in fuel delivery, from carbs, to throttle body injection, batch port injection, sequential port injection, and now direct/high pressure injection. Variable cam timing, variable valve LIFT (which does away with the conventional throttle control), variable intake runner length, etc. BOTH engine and body are tweaked all the time. The results do not appear in leaps and bounds in efficiency. Weight has more to do with energy used to get a car's mass moving to a speed. Aerodynamics is more important when the car is up to freeway speeds, as wind resistance is a KILLER in performance. If we are to see a huge improvement in fuel efficiency, it'll come with a different technology. The internal combustion engine has been fine tuned for a long time. Perhaps using something other than gasoline could lengthen it's use...?? Lastly, suppose that all the evil SUV's on the road today were replaced by cars, getting 30 mpg (twice what a normal SUV would get). Would that really have that much of an impact on global oil usage? Personally, I've got a truck that I rarely use anymore, but keep it for when I need to haul things. I've got an econo car that I do my commuting with. Not all people can afford multiply vehicles, so many will have a truck or SUV, if they also have the need to haul trailers and such. But then, they'll be on the highway in rush hour, and some will scoff at it. I wouldn't worry about the SUV, the current gas prices will weed out those who really use one, and those who don't need it......unless price isn't an issue (select few). Al Gore's plan is working perfectly.
I thought everyone wanted the oil companies to use their profits for exploring alternative fuels? Are oil companies supposed to stay in their line of work, and butt-out of the future? Which is it?
I've heard of that long ago. Seems to me that the fuel and air were mixed OUTSIDE of the engine, which sounds like a bomb waiting to go off. Modern fuel injection has done a good job, as well as can be expected, imo. Whichever method is used, the end result is getting the fuel as atomized as possible, mixed as well as possible with the air charge, in a very short timeframe.
