Re: Quasiturbine and the Air Car
From: Angelo Campanella (a.campanella_at_att.net)
Date: 10/17/04
- Next message: Tim O'Flaherty: "Re: Can hydrogen deliver?"
- Previous message: Don W.: "Re: Electrolysing Steam"
- In reply to: Saint-Hilaire: "Quasiturbine and the Air Car"
- Next in thread: Eunometic: "Re: Quasiturbine and the Air Car"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 13:27:53 GMT
Saint-Hilaire wrote:
> We use to much energy and power !
This is true. But we also waste a lot of brain power pursuing such silly
things as sex and rock music.
> One day, once we will accept (or be force to accept)
> to use much less energy and power,
> Internal combustion 1/2 HP engine will still be one of the solution,
> as well as electric battries, air car, Stirling, solar,
> nuclear pellets, coil springs or twist rubber band,
> gravity energy storage, humain power, etc.
The powered bicycle is the most efficient personal transportation. Some,
called "Whizzer" motorbikes, were manufactured in the US after WWII.
Only some teen-age boys bought and used them lcal to their homes.
> Researches are also about giving solution to future context.
> There will be room for all sorts of solutions.
> Hopefully, outrageous human energy waste will not be for ever...
We have made progress:
100 years ago, it was the steam engine, fully 5% efficient, that was
premier!
> menu alternatives to the 300 HP gaz piston engines !
> Lets keep innovating and gives them our encouragements,
> dont play the establishment game...
So far I have restricted my self to a 150 HP gaz gussler.
> Petrol is a net energy source only to those which think
> it is OK to still petrolium from the planet underground reserve.
> Base on long terme, petrolium products are not energy sources,
> but energy carriers just like the hydrogen or the synthetic fuel.
> The difference is only that it store energy from an other era !
It is a remarkable thought to realize that the most efficient process
MUST be the photosynthesis of water and carbon dioxide into low
hydrocarbons (methane, propane, butane). The natural plant leaves
contain the photochemical processes placed there by God that we still do
not completely understand. For instance, the leaves of mature evergreen
trees (pine, etc.) burn fiercely, containing hydrocarbons of various
molecular weights. Where are our chemical and biological scientists
hiding today? It is the science of biochemical engineering that MUST
mature quickly and establish these processes. I anxiously await their
products.
> The establishment and government (and many others) like you to think
> that it is Ok and correct to express the efficiency form "well to wheel".
The government, (any... yours... mine...) because of its bureaucracy,
can only respond. They do not create. It is up to the entrepreneur to
discover the scientific facts and to create the engineering principles.
This internet mode is a good forum to that end.
> This is very wrong and incomplete, because it implicitly mean
> that you start efficiency calculation from an existing products,
> and after it has been stolen from the underground (foreign) reserve.
> Once the human will have to make its synthétic fuel
> from honest planet surface energy transformation activities,
> it will soon discover that compressing and expanding air
> is as efficient and less complicated
> that making synthetic fuel for its mobile applications,
> and that the the size and weight of the air reservoir
> is quite convenient compared to a mini synthetic fuel plant !
> In overall complete senario, planet surface human made fuel
> is not providing good efficiencies, and in no way in the 10 % range.
> So please be fair to alternatives...
What is the comparison of, for instance, one liter of propane
(convenient liquid, low storage costs) to one liter of compressed gas
combined with its compression energy?
> But who does ? Not the car industry, not the battries makers,
> not the hydrogen investors, not the nuclear enthousiastes,
> not the solar or windmill fans...
> Not even probably the Quasiturbine team ?
In this forum, we must seek the truth in all cases.
> When a country produces too many experts in efficiency,
> it does induce an efficiency deficiency population attitude,
> which favors efficiency concept like :
In my opinion, once a "job" in the normal sense has been established, it
is barred from exercising true creativity and entrpreneurmanship. Each
job has to be firmly defined. That definition excludes change.
THEREFORE, government employees cannot create the solution since all
government jobs are clearly defined by old standards. A "catch-22"!
> Lets other do it! Steal it from others! Let wait to see!
Ergo, the government solution.
> Thats probably the way America is giving up it car industrie ?
> I am not saying this is not natural to be lassy,
The car industry is going worldwide because the US wages are too high
and the US auto makers, certainly along the whole 20th century, built
any cars it pleased. It was only the VW 'beetle', followed more
aggressively by the Japanese manufacturers that responded kindly to
human desires of nicer cars that consumed less fuel.
> Wait and lets the fish hunt : cook it when it become large !
> ...But sometime, others catch the fish,
> and you are left with little free lunch ?
Good analogy.
> I must had that I am not
> in conflict of intérest on this matter
> because even if the Quasiturbine coud be
> a good substitution for the 300 HP
> internal combustion car engine market,
The quasi turbine is similar to the Wankel engine in its dynamics and
efficiency. I now own a Mazda P5, which provides me about 32 miles per
gallon efficiency. Mazda created its original reputation with the Wankel
engine type. This P5 has a four cylinder conventional piston engine with
multiple valves per cylinder. It is a very smooth operating engine at
low and high speeds. I wonder why the Mazda company abandoned the Wankel
engine? I think it was because that it is not as efficient as the piston
engine!
> Remember, petrolium is a precious feed stock
> available for material transformation,
> of which the energy applications are often
> the worst non recycleble uses.
Exactly true.
> Remember our fundamental human society problem :
> We use to much energy and power.
> Let save some ! ...and give-up about
> the stolen underground fuel efficiency 30% bias reference...
We hope and pray for a better solution.
Inspire (build a fire under?) the biochemical engineering professionals
and consultants (ignore the government scientists with their tied
hands), to create photosynthesis projects to produce low hydrocarbons
from H2O and CO2.
Sincerely,
Angelo Campanella
--------- www.CampanellaAcoustics.com ---------
"I have simply studied carefully whatever I've undertaken, and tried to
hold a reserve that would carry me through." - Charles A. Lindbergh.
"As for background noise level; 35 dBA is a good classroom; 45 dBA is a
sound masking system!" - Anthony K. Hoover
- Next message: Tim O'Flaherty: "Re: Can hydrogen deliver?"
- Previous message: Don W.: "Re: Electrolysing Steam"
- In reply to: Saint-Hilaire: "Quasiturbine and the Air Car"
- Next in thread: Eunometic: "Re: Quasiturbine and the Air Car"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
