 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Cars / January 2006Gas turbine/electric hybrid?
Lack of fuel economy and pick-up was the principle operational deficiency of pure turbine power. Might not this be solved by using a gas turbine intermittently to charge a battery which then drives an electric propulsion motor? Electric motors develop maximum torque at zero rpm, making for snappy pickup and eliminating the need for a complex transmission. A battery stores energy for the motor, with the energy being replaced by a gas turbine. The turbine need not run much around town for short trips until the battery runs low on chemical energy and needs recharging. On the open road, the car is powered principally by the turbine, but since it runs at its efficient speed, it need not have a large fuel burn in terms of pounds of fuel per horsepower hour, which the bottom line should yield efficiencies no worse than a piston engine. An automotive gas turbine, with waste heat regeneration, used at a constant speed would be quite efficient. Sizewise, the rotor probably need not be larger than a kitchen toaster for 80 hp out. Gas turbines also will run on a wide variety of gaseous and liquid fuels, helping to aleviate the high cost oil supply situtation. You could run a gas turbine on hydrogen electrolized from water using wind turbines for a fossil fuel-free transportation system. Alternatively, you could run a gas turbine on natural gas, LPG, kerosine, even liquid coal or any other clean burning fuel. As for the high cost of gas turbine engine development and construction, there are solutions. The development should be by a consortium of cooperating companies, who will do the research and development and the government which will finance the project. It will take many billions of dollars. The government can invest these many billions and later reap licensing returns during production. Patent protection and enforcement will allow only those government-licensed companies to produce the patented power plants. Standardization will keep down the costs. Only one engine design, in three sizes need be developed: small, medium and large (80, 160 and 320 hp) for various sized passenger vehicles and small trucks. Manufacturers can distinguish their products by differentiation of their chassis and body. For instance, Ford can go for round taillamps, GM can mount tail fins, and Chrysler can put racing stripes down the sides. The engines will all be the same, Thankfully for the mechanics who now struggle to service the myriad of makes and models which are all different, but all do the same simple end function: to power two tons of automobile down the road. Costs can also be reduced by recycling the rotors, the most expensive part. When a car is junked, the rotor can go into a new car. This can be made legal by statute law. A used rotor will be as good as new one after inspection and refurbishing. The secret is in the HEPA air cleaner which will prevents all erosion of the rotor blades due to particular matter impaction. With a rotor lasting 25 to 50 years, the previously high cost of gas turbines will be just a footnote in the history of technology. A diesel hybrid might work just as well and certainly should be considered, but it doesn't have the desired high-tech sound of a 50,000 rpm whine. "Electric motors develop maximum torque at zero rpm......." Is that so? Unfortunately Nomen, you are a poser, just cutting and pasting things you read. That leaves you making error after error in how things are or could be. > "Electric motors develop maximum torque at zero rpm......." > > Is that so? Depends on the type of motor used. Actually turbine-electric makes some sense: turbines are efficient at constant speed and offer both high efficiency and light weight, offsetting the heavy batteries. Regeneration is unnecessary in a constant--power setup: the turbine expanders can be optimized for that regime. Emissions would be a deal killer because it would take intense and long development to get them to recip standards. The best thing that could be done for turbine car buffs would be to enact a emissions _certificatiion_ waiver for turbine cars for a set time, so as to make it worthwhile for some company to build a fair run of them. The waiver should be carefully written to force the outright sale, not lease or test loan, of the cars so they cannot destroy them like the Chrysler TC program or the GM and Ford factory electrics. If you want to look at economical hybrids, look to a diesel-electric combination like locomotives use. In a vehicle hybrid of this sort the electric motors would always be the prime movers and the diesel would use an auto-throttle and auto-switch to either send the electricty directly to the motors or into storage batteries. You accelerator pedal would regulate the juice going to the electric motors only and not the RPM of the charging diesel. Since diesels are more efficient at idle than a gasoline motor of the same size/output, you can use the power in the batteries to do all the accelerating and stop-and-go driving (keeping the diesel at idle RPM for a much longer time than using a directly coupled motor) and only have the diesel increase RPM when you need either the batteries charged or a direct flow to the electric motors for power. In addition, a hybrid of this type would not need any significant leaps of technology or waivers for emissions. Just my two cents worth - Jonathan >> "Electric motors develop maximum torque at zero rpm......." >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > test loan, of the cars so they cannot destroy them like the Chrysler TC > program or the GM and Ford factory electrics. > If you want to look at economical hybrids, look to a diesel-electric > combination like locomotives use. In a vehicle hybrid of this sort the > electric motors would always be the prime movers and the diesel would use an > auto-throttle and auto-switch to either send the electricty directly to the > motors or into storage batteries. It would make _more_ economic sense, but it still wouldn't make economic sense, not at US fuel prices. A few people would pay a lot of money for the novelty of a turbine car, diesels are not novel. Straight diesel cars, which do make economic sense, are unobtanium in the US, because of consumer apathy and emissions laws combined with a refusal to require Euro-spec fuel for the current generatioon of CRD engines. > "Electric motors develop maximum torque at zero rpm......." > > Is that so? > Unfortunately Nomen, you are a poser, just cutting and pasting things > you read. That leaves you making error after error in how things are or > could be. Well Mr. Bundy, I am afraid that Nomen is correct, at least for permanent magnet electric motors. Have a look at: http://claymore.engineer.gvsu.edu/~jackh/books/model/html/model-71.html#54931 John > > "Electric motors develop maximum torque at zero rpm......." > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > John Well John, you are wrong because you took a blanket statement and qualified it to suit your answer. Again, nice pasting job though. >>>"Electric motors develop maximum torque at zero rpm......." >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Well John, you are wrong because you took a blanket statement and > qualified it to suit your answer. Again, nice pasting job though. There are a LOT of varibles in electric motor design that can effect at what RPM peak effort is achieved. Generally though with traction type motors used to power electric cars and such, they achive maximum torque at zero or very low RPMs to get the load moving.  Signature----------------- www.thesnoman.com >>>>"Electric motors develop maximum torque at zero rpm......." >>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > motors used to power electric cars and such, they achive maximum torque at > zero or very low RPMs to get the load moving. I think I may see where Mr. Bundy is saying. Without having read any of the links provided, it makes sense to me that at zero RPM the motor is putting out zero torque. Once any torque great enough to make the motor turn is applied, then the RPM is no longer zero. >>>>>"Electric motors develop maximum torque at zero rpm......." >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > out zero torque. Once any torque great enough to make the motor turn is > applied, then the RPM is no longer zero. What batshit! If electric motors put out *zero* torque at zero RPM, they'd never begin to rotate at all. Internal combustion engines DO have zero torque at zero RPM, which is exactly why you need an electric motor to start them! How much torque an electric motor does put out vs. RPM depends a lot on the design of the motor. DC and AC/DC commutator motors put out their maximum torque at 0 RPM (but will burn out if held at 0 RPM because only one winding on the armature is carrying the full load). An example of a DC commutator motor is the starter motor in a car, or the traction motors in older locomotives. An AC/DC commutator motor is the type used in vacuum cleaners, hand power tools, and blenders. AC induction motors put out their peak torque at a few percent less than their free running maximum RPM. As you lug them down, torque goes up at first, but lug them too far and torque begins to decline again, but it never drops to zero even at zero RPM. An example of an AC induction motor is a fan motor, AC blower motor, AC compressor motor, or shop air compressor motor. The most commonly used AC motors in the world. AC Synchronous motors put out their maximum torque at the synchronous RPM. They're used in heavy industry because they can be set to run at leading power factor to compensate for induction motors that run at a lagging power factor- save's the industry money overall. Variable-frequency drive motors are induction or synchronous motors driven by a variable frequency AC source, so that you can make them put out peak torque at any RPM you want. Modern AC locomotive traction motors are variable-frequency drive motors. But regardless of the type, ANY self-starting electric motor puts out SOME torque at 0 RPM. An example of a non-self-starting type would be a synchrounous motor without any start/damper windings... but that's a laboratory curiousity as all real-world electric motors have a provision to give them self-starting torque. >>>>>>"Electric motors develop maximum torque at zero rpm......." >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > What batshit! I agree. (Good thing you didn't refer to bull sh.t, then I'd have been offended.) After having thought about it after posting I realized a motor can put out torque without turning. I thought of a drill with keyless chuck. When the chuck tightens on the bit the motor is still putting out torque > If electric motors put out *zero* torque at zero RPM, they'd never begin > to rotate at all. Internal combustion engines DO have zero torque at zero [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > laboratory curiousity as all real-world electric motors have a provision > to give them self-starting torque. Makes sense to me. :) Gas turbine engines are very expensive to build. I doubt that we will ever see significant application to automobiles. It has been tried, many times, and came up short. John > Gas turbine engines are very expensive to build. I doubt that we will > ever see significant application to automobiles. It has been tried, > many times, and came up short. And the V12 in the Lambo is a low build cost powerplant?? No, gas turbines are not necessarily incredibly expensive to build. My guess is the Allison 250 costs less to build than a Lyc or Continental recip of half the power: the P&W PT-6 is probably twenty or thirty thousand dollars of actual labor, materials, and other hard build cost. There are probably five hundred people who would buy a turbine exotic car in the $200-300K price class in the US any given year, enough to make it doable. The "Bugatti" Veyron is well into seven figures, at which point buying a off the shelf ST6 at market price from P&WC becomes a legit option economically speaking. However, it would make for a miserable road car, but the Veyron probably is that to begin with, to say nothing of the modified Stingray the Granatellis foisted off on some dumb yuppie idiot for a six-figure price with a junk runout training PT6 they mooched off P&W a decade earlier many years ago. >>Gas turbine engines are very expensive to build. I doubt that we will >>ever see significant application to automobiles. It has been tried, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > off on some dumb yuppie idiot for a six-figure price with a junk runout > training PT6 they mooched off P&W a decade earlier many years ago. Well now you are talking about a whole different animal, a high-priced vehicle for those with more money than sense. All in all not an interesting topic of speculation. I would agree that the only way a turbine has a fighting chance in automotive use would be as a fuel burner to power a generator for a true hybrid powertrain where there is no mechanical connection between the fuel burning engine and the drive wheels. Trains have been built with such a powertrain for decades, and AFAIK, none use a turbine engine. GE locomotives has made a bunch of these trains and GE is also a top builder of turbine/jet engines, so I bet they have looked at it in depth. John > >>Gas turbine engines are very expensive to build. I doubt that we will > >>ever see significant application to automobiles. It has been tried, [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > these trains and GE is also a top builder of turbine/jet engines, so I > bet they have looked at it in depth. Actually there have been a few turbine powered locomotive engines have been tried. The problem was and still is fuel consumption. Turbines of ANY size use LOT's of fuel rapidly. There have also been a few turbine powered autos built. They were dropped for two reasons, cost of production and fuel use. There are also turbine powered motorcycles. Jay Leno owns one and was telling on a show the other night that it is a very difficult bike to get used to ride since the turbine has a very high lag on both ends. As for a turbine powered hybrid. Doubt you will ever see one. Heat production and fuel use are both VERY high as is noise. <<snip>> > > no mechanical connection between the fuel burning engine and the drive > > wheels. Trains have been built with such a powertrain for decades, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > very difficult bike to get used to ride since the turbine has a very > high lag on both ends. What Jay Leno and a couple of other people have is a crude homemade motorcycle built around a surplus Allison turboshaft engine. Such things are very different than purpose-built automotive gas turbines which are relatively inexpensive to produce and designed to recover much of the wate heat via regeneration. Several companies built prototype automotive gas turbines but none were ever sold. <<snip>> > Well now you are talking about a whole different animal, a high-priced > vehicle for those with more money than sense. All in all not an > interesting topic of speculation. I don't agree. High end vehicles such as Lambo, Ferrari, etc. do serve a purpose and are interesting to watch. I think I remember reading about lots of other issues, too. There's a massive amount of airflow which all needs to be very well filtered -- I think the Chrysler turbine cars were needing the filters cleaned daily? Of course that's old technology but you'd still have the same basic problem to deal with and probably would still have very frequent filter replacement or maintenance. To say nothing of the replacement cost of Nomen's "HEPA" filters. That'd be one helluva HEPA filter for a turbine engine's airflow. I think there was a problem with extremely high exhaust temperatures as well? There are ways to reduce that, of course, but it would probably still be a problem. I think there'd be enormous investment of research dollars with very dubious returns on practical usefulness, and not very likely to see a great advantage even over conventional automotive hybrids. I often wonder about using smaller engines with higher-pressure turbochargers as a low-cost way to raise fuel economy. Perhaps a modern 1-liter or 1.5-liter with a high-pressure turbo instead of a big V6? (Just a thought, not trying to hijack the thread...) > Gas turbine engines are very expensive to build. I doubt that we will > ever see significant application to automobiles. It has been tried, many > times, and came up short. > > John > I think I remember reading about lots of other issues, too. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > well? There are ways to reduce that, of course, but it would probably still > be a problem. You have done your homework very poorly and need to go to the back of the class. Chrysler Turbine Cars needed very little day to day maintenance including in the dustiest environments. Usually they would not see a mechanic in the three months the host family drove them. The EGT at idle was so mild you could, as I actually have, put my feet under the tailpipes and felt pleasant warmth at idle. Under power it is hotter but never high enough to damage anything unless you tied the rear axle to a light stand and tried to pull away at full power on tarmac and even then all it would do is mush the tarmac a little. You would probably run out of fuel or tear up the transmission first. > I think I remember reading about lots of other issues, too. > > There's a massive amount of airflow which all needs to be very well > filtered -- Filtered? Turbine engines don't typically need air filters unless run in *very* dusty conditions. Too much silica in the air flow will abrade the compressor blades and can even accumulate as "glass" deposits on turbine blades after going through the combustors, but ordinary levels of dust just pass right through turbine engines. Dust doesn't get into the lubricating oil or get ground between cylinder walls and piston rings the way it does in piston engines (or rotor tip seals in Wankels). > Lack of fuel economy and pick-up was the principle operational > deficiency of pure turbine power. Might not this be solved by using a > gas turbine intermittently to charge a battery which then drives an > electric propulsion motor? There are better options under development... one being the CAM-Vane engine which developes a lot of power in a little space, runs on diesel without sounding like one and is pretty light weight for power produced, thus is economical...{being developed for unmanned drone aircraft} no word on the pollution aspects, but I'd guess they're no worse that a wankel. SignatureYeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price you pay..DEAL with it! > > Lack of fuel economy and pick-up was the principle operational > > deficiency of pure turbine power. Might not this be solved by using a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > economical...{being developed for unmanned drone aircraft} no word on the > pollution aspects, but I'd guess they're no worse that a wankel. Anything developed for, or primarily intended for sale to the DOD is going to be so overpriced due to contractor spoilage as to not be worth considering. > Anything developed for, or primarily intended for sale to the DOD is > going to be so overpriced due to contractor spoilage as to not be > worth considering. Yeah.... like all that technology developed under NASA/ Space funding.. total waste of money, considering we never saw any of it! Good Catch! SignatureYeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price you pay..DEAL with it! NASA developed many new technologies that have passed on to the public. Do a Google search, you will be impressed. Progress is never a waste of money. >> Anything developed for, or primarily intended for sale to the DOD is >> going to be so overpriced due to contractor spoilage as to not be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Good Catch! > Yeah.... like all that technology developed under NASA/ Space funding.. > total waste of money, considering we never saw any of it! > > Good Catch! What about velcro ? High impact plastic ? Fuel Cells ? GPS ? Satellite TV and Radio ? Lynn >> Yeah.... like all that technology developed under NASA/ Space funding.. >> total waste of money, considering we never saw any of it! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Lynn Heh.. gee... never THOUGHT of that!!1 ;) There's more, btw. SignatureYeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price you pay..DEAL with it! >>Yeah.... like all that technology developed under NASA/ Space funding.. >>total waste of money, considering we never saw any of it! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Lynn Actually the DOD was behind the GPS program at the start. NASA provided the taxi for it. Signature----------------- www.thesnoman.com More importantly what about the need to make things small that let to better computers, cell phones, and microscopic surgery such as eye surgery, organ surgery and transplants. As well as the ability to reattach severed limbs etc? mike hunt >>>Yeah.... like all that technology developed under NASA/ Space funding.. >>>total waste of money, considering we never saw any of it! [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Actually the DOD was behind the GPS program at the start. NASA provided > the taxi for it. > More importantly what about the need to make things small that let to > better computers, cell phones, and microscopic surgery such as eye surgery, > organ surgery and transplants. As well as the ability to reattach severed > limbs etc? Most of the things you mention had a tangential relationship to the space program. It's true the space program speeded up many of those things, but not that we would not have any of it without them. And perhaps the pace of progress would have limited some of the regress we have to face too, like offshoring of jobs, elimination of repair jobs, and cheapening of all manner of products. It goes both ways. Once a company has derived most of its income from NASA or the Air Force it is permanently spoiled and will never want to work again for a living. You'd have to fire or kill all of the executives and most of the management to get them to pursue gainful market endeavors at reasonable per-piece profit levels. >> More importantly what about the need to make things small that let to >> better computers, cell phones, and microscopic surgery such as eye [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > have to face too, like offshoring of jobs, elimination of repair jobs, > and cheapening of all manner of products. It goes both ways. The Space Program's necessity of the materials, mapping, weather forcasting, etc. promted their development and the speed of their developement. The things mentioned may not be here today if it had not been for the Space Program. True, your point of jobs, it does go both ways, but , a basic economics class dictates if one has the money and needs labor, and one has a labor pool, but needs the money, a relationship will develope that will benefit both. Nothing new, been going on for thousands of years. > Once a company has derived most of its income from NASA or the Air > Force it is permanently spoiled and will never want to work again for a > living. You'd have to fire or kill all of the executives and most of > the management to get them to pursue gainful market endeavors at > reasonable per-piece profit levels. As long as the contractor is delivering their products within the contractual requirements of NASA and the Air Force, they are within a gainfull market. >>> More importantly what about the need to make things small that let >>> to better computers, cell phones, and microscopic surgery such as [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > contractual requirements of NASA and the Air Force, they are within a > gainfull market. And, tell that to Boeing... in this case, both Bret's and Franks' points are made http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002754224 _boeingitar22.html Copy and paste both lines. Carbon fiber technology developed for steath bomber, used in commercial aircraft. The issue: military secret or not? Whatever the case, not only is the market global, but also the product and manufacturing source. No... it isnt as easy as just keeping it to ourselves... in the competitive market, it goes both ways. The alternative is that, if you DO attempt to keep such close to the vest, some politico just deals it away without thinking, in return for campaign contributions. See: Clinton Campaign/China - Missile guidance systems scandal. SignatureYeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price you pay..DEAL with it! > http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002754224 > _boeingitar22.html [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > away without thinking, in return for campaign contributions. > See: Clinton Campaign/China - Missile guidance systems scandal. Personally I think that Boeing is making a mistake by outsourcing so much of the 787 development and manufacturing. Boeing is putting know-how into the hands of it's future competitors. Boeing saves some money today but takes away from it's own long term value. The government wasn't concerned about Boeing using the military technology to build commerical products, it was concerned about giving that technology away to foreign based companies. Since the US taxpayers funded the carbon fiber R&D there are good arguments for not giving the technology away. John Nearly anything you can name was either developed or vastly improved by the needs of war, include the space program itself. mike hunt . >> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002754224 >> _boeingitar22.html [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > John True, because of the need of a quality item in a short amount of time. > Nearly anything you can name was either developed or vastly improved by > the needs of war, include the space program itself. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >> >> John <<snip>> > > Once a company has derived most of its income from NASA or the Air > > Force it is permanently spoiled and will never want to work again for a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > contractual requirements of NASA and the Air Force, they are within a > gainfull market. When that market recedes the company is toast. Only bankruptcy allows the company to go back to civilian reality, because the corporate structure is geared to a process that spends $500 to qualify, approve and document a $2 bolt (which was made to government standards at 5X market price in the first place.) Thew recent crash of a Grumman amphibian due to spar failure was an example of this. No airline operator operates a 58-year old airframe that has been in continuous use in a marine environment.....unless there are no new ones. The Long Island plants that built these things are sitting idle, the trained workforce is unemployed, underemployed, retired early or moved elsewhere. The design of these things is paid for, has been for fifty years. New Grumman amphibian airframes could be built for very little in labor and materials. Some of the tooling still exists, none of it was terribly expensive to build (except for accounting purposes) and much could now be done on NC soft tooling anyway. In fact a very much cheaper option would be to just build new wings and horizontal stabilizers which (along with the gear forgings) are all that has much of a fatigue concern. The hulls are way, way overbuilt. I guarantee anyone at Northrop Grumman who suggested this would be laughed out of the boardroom. Their corporate structure is geared to selling a widget that costs $2,000,000 to build for $76,400,300 and making it look plausible on paper. (Yes, it cost $500,000,000 to develop....but the taxpayer already paid them in full and more for that!) I really believe now the only thing that can save America as we know it is a monumental, sudden, and near-total implosion of Wall Street. Most of the market cap in tech stocks and much in defense must vanish, and suddenly. I don't make light of the impact: many innocent people will suffer greatly. But the alternative is even worse. I'd rather see a few dozen families mourn their stockbroker and investment banker fathers that bounced off the Manhattan sidewalks and some 50-year-old retirees depensioned while they can still re-earn a small sum to live their lives out than...the current trends, where most of them will lose it anyway and a few people will become multibillionaires and the average standard of living in America plunge further and further. >>Some of the tooling still exists, none of it was terribly expensive to build (except for accounting purposes)<< And the liability insurance. Or is that free nowadays? > >>Some of the tooling still > exists, none of it was terribly expensive to build (except for > accounting purposes)<< > > And the liability insurance. Or is that free nowadays? For a company the size of Northrop Grumman it's a necessary business expense, one they already carry because they have a substantial "tail", and a small part of the cost. Hard estimates are tough to pin down because companies do not disclose their actual premiums, and many payouts go unreported in the press. However, it's very certain that product liability premiums have far more to do with the rate of return reinsurors can earn on capital than with the day-to-day likelihood of big judgments. GAMA wheedled the General Aviation Tort Reform Act and a Bonanza has since went from being a $350K to a $750K airplane-with no changes, no new technology, and a DECLINE in labor costs! Raytheon has laid off many senior rivet pounders and replaced them with younger, cheaper ones with lowered health coverage. You didn't notice, son of whore Richard Collins didn't tell you, of course. Requiring reporting requirements to make it possible to publish, with certainty, just how much companies ARE paying in premiums should have been part of GATRA. It wasn't. >>More importantly what about the need to make things small that let to >>better computers, cell phones, and microscopic surgery such as eye surgery, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > the management to get them to pursue gainful market endeavors at > reasonable per-piece profit levels. Don't confuse companies with technologies. Sure a company which focuses on supplying the government is unlikely to do well in other areas, but there are exceptions to that rule as well. Jet engine development was all funded by the government early on and to this day both commercial and goverment users are supplied from the same factories. Then of course we have GM's Hummer division, which is clearly an offshoot of government contract work. Of course AM General had to put Hummer into GM's hands in order to maximize the commerical appeal, but the roots are still clear. It sounds like you have a particular bone to pick. John >> Yeah.... like all that technology developed under NASA/ Space funding.. >> total waste of money, considering we never saw any of it! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Lynn Don't forget Teflon! > Don't forget Teflon! I thought Teflon™ was a happy accident that resulted from a tank car load of whatever the chemical is being lift sitting too long - not a result of any intentional development. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >> Don't forget Teflon! > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address > with the letter 'x') And now, the rest of the story. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teflon Bill K. the best inventions are results of mistakes the yellow sticker is a result of a bad glue mixture > the best inventions are results of mistakes > the yellow sticker is a result of a bad glue mixture Not really. It was the result of specific experimentation. Spense Silver was looking for improvements in the way 3M made tape adhesives and as part of his experimentation, discovered this new glue with different properties. Not really a bad glue mixture as much as experimenting. Here's a link to the story off 3M's web site... http://inventors.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.3M.com/about3M /pioneers/fry.html Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net >> Anything developed for, or primarily intended for sale to the DOD is >>going to be so overpriced due to contractor spoilage as to not be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Good Catch! Yeah, just cable television (all of which uses commerical satellite content), weather satellites, GPS navigation, XM radio, the Internet and a huge amount of solar cell research and production. Damn NASA and the military :). John Sirius radio. >>> Anything developed for, or primarily intended for sale to the DOD is >>>going to be so overpriced due to contractor spoilage as to not be [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > John >>There are better options under development... one being the CAM-Vane engine >>which developes a lot of power in a little space, runs on diesel without [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > going to be so overpriced due to contractor spoilage as to not be worth > considering. You are being rather short sighted and provincial. Many technologies get their start in military applications where the development costs can be borne, then later make their way to commercial use. In fact, the Internet we are using started as a DOD project. Much of the early funding for the semiconductor industry came by way of the military as well. John "Nomen Nescio" wrote in message... > Lack of fuel economy and pick-up was the principle operational deficiency > of pure turbine power. Might not this be solved by using a gas turbine > intermittently to charge a battery which then drives an electric propulsion > motor? Chrysler did this over ten years ago, to an extent. See: http://www.rqriley.com/sld010.htm or just google up "chrysler patriot" Flywheel technology has advanced enough in the last decade that it may be worth it for them to take another shot at it... |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.