Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

"Quasiturbine" White Paper presented by eMOTION! REPORTS.com - Page 9

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by News on December 24, 2003, 10:39 am
 


Oh my God!!  That is one of the points of this thread. Why????  Why are we
still with this unbelievably inefficient piston IC engine after over 100
years?


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 15/12/2003



Posted by Rusty Shackleford on December 24, 2003, 3:04 pm
 
wrote:



You're right, it's a question I've asked you many times, and a
question you've evaded just as many times.  The answer is clear and
has been posted, the orbital motor is not all it's claimed to be.  


Because it's better than the orbital.  It really works for one thing.

Posted by News on December 30, 2003, 4:10 pm
 

It was, and is, and had minor development problems as a poster who worked
for them clearly stated.


You are brainwashed.


It doesn't!!   It is slowly killing the worlds in more ways than one.

Who do you work for?


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.555 / Virus Database: 347 - Release Date: 23/12/2003



Posted by Bob Peterson on December 23, 2003, 3:58 am
 

You are making a completely unwarranted jump between a sound concept (of
which there are a lot) and the concept being commerically viable (very few
ideas ever make it that far).  Suggesting that some kind of government
mandate is the only thing that will force car makers to use the QT is the
same as saying it is no good and would only be useful if people were forced
to use it.  probably not what you meant to say.  its pretty obvious you have
little clue about how the auto industry has to work to be successful.  You
can't take a flyer on something that barely even has a prototype at present
and decide to switch out all your powerplants to some future version of that
prototype.  No one even knows if the QT is even viable yet.


appalling

I am unaware of any innovation that has a proven track recoird that they
have not gone with.  Electronic ignition, fuel injection, tansaxles, front
wheel drive, etc, etc.  It just takes a long time to get from the pre-design
phase where the QT is now to the commerically succesful phase.  10-20 years
is not that long to get there.


otherwise

Volga-2

actually

Its full of BS and fluff.  That does not mean that it can't eventually
become commerically successful, only that it is a LONG way from where it is
now to where it needs to be.


prototype


Posted by News on December 23, 2003, 10:11 am
 

Usually because of vested interest rather than the concepts being flawed.
Some concepts that will only give a marginal advantage are naturally
dropped.


You put "people" and auto giants in the same pot.  The "people" want
vehicles that are safe, cheap, cost little to run and don't pollute the
immediate and global environments.  Auto giants only look at the bottom
line.  Do not put them both in the same group.


You are joking of curse.


What must happen is that government people must assess viable alternative
and set limits that will encompass them and leave behind the current
antiquate crop of iron lumps.  You don't regulate to one technology or type.


pre-design

Missedcthe point.  The core concept of the current piston power unit is
flawed - that is plain for all to see.  It is a heat engine, as heat is its
major product with BHP a by-product.  It is highly inefficient and dirty.

Electronic ignition and fuel injection systems is technology that plasters
over the cracks.  The cracks making little overall improvement to
efficiency.  The cracks are still underneath.


So, it is a long way off, so it should be dismissed?  Please?   If we all
adopted that attitude Frank Whittle would not have invented and produced the
jet engine.  The concept was there, it was viable, so he was given a small
staff to do some r&d with the Rover car company making some of the first
prototypes.  It was a hell of a long way off in the 1930s.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 15/12/2003



This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
 
 
 
 
 
 
  •  
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread