internal combustion engine game changer? gfy engineers weigh in on wave disc engine
 

Michigan State University is developing a novel generator for use in hybrid automobile engines. Nearly 85 percent of automobile fuel is wasted. Only 15 percent of fuel is actually used for propulsion. The new generator will make better use of automobile fuel. It is projected that the generator will use 60 percent of fuel for propulsion, thus significantly reducing the percentage of fuel that is wasted. The generator is compact in size (about the size of a cooking pot), yet it will replace nearly 1,000 lbs. of engine, transmission, cooling system, emissions, and fluids. As a result, automobile companies will be able to produce lighter, more fuel-efficient hybrid vehicles. If successful, this project will significantly increase fuel consumption efficiency, reduce automobile emissions by up to 90 percent, substantially decrease U.S. imports of fossil fuels from foreign sources, and create new jobs.




too good to be true? read on........http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2011/...od-to-be-true/

My guess is the patent will be quietly bought by an oil company and we will never hear of it again.
:(

damn, you came to that conclusion fast eh! :1orglaugh:1orglaugh :thumbsup

thinking it thru though, it's not inconceivable to see how prolonging the supply of oil and such would be a benefit to an oil company. depends on the math i guess eh.

i hope they don't suicide him soon

The oil companies can simply raise the price when consumption is lowered and make
the same profit. Plus if consumption is low enough that they can fill demand for
the next 50 years without expanding operations then that's more profit with no
more investment.

If it turned out that a new device meant current reserves would last 1000 years,
then why would anyone even try to produce a new kind of energy to compete
with them? Thus a cornered market for 1000 years.

:pimp

Rocket Science ? revisit the this plan in several years ? it sounds good.

How much will that 25kW engine cost?

It's a very interesting development. It may be revolutionary. I've been watching it for a while now, a super efficient small fuel engine to drive generators for hydridized fuel-electric cars.

There are a number of engine and generator and battery concepts floating around that have potential. Reciprocal piston, aluminum-air, molten salts, various kinds of turbines, supercritical fluid generators, and MHD concepts.

The thing is, do we have enough of an economic and manufacturing base left to develop these ideas?

And can we develop them in a reasonable time frame?

We will probably see them developed in china.

Little "mom and pop" company TESLA already has a full electric car (not a hybrid like the Chevy Leaf) that looks as hot as a corvette...goes just as fast and you can drive all day and night on one charge.

So if they can do it...I'd say that "yes" IF Detroit & the oil industry weren't holding hands they could do anything they wanted to faster and better than a few guys in TESLA's garage can. But there is a lot of money still left to make in oil.

One can hope. The tesla is a specialty luxury car tho in it's current state and pricepoint, a bit like a delorean. People have been watching tesla for a while hoping that a silicon valley approach to carbuilding can produce a faster leaner manufacturing process.

No joy yet. The tesla folks have said they were shocked by how hard it was to manufacture a car at an acceptable pricepoint.

The wave disk engine looks like it should be cheap and easy to make, a slam-dunk improvement to the hybrid class of cars.

We will see.

Awesome find, Scott. Very interesting technology.

I liked it so much I tweeted it http://twitter.com/#!/askmr5dollar :)

Less usage for FUEL means more oil for FERTILIZER = cheaper food?

I don't know...everything I'm reading on the specs of the Tesla roadster say that it's price is more a function of the fact that it's made of carbon fiber (very expensive) as a true sports car, and that it's made by a small company in limited numbers.

Even so it's less than the new Corvette Stingray ($120,000) is going to be next year. And yet it's faster! lol

I think if a big dog like GM built a plant dedicated to turning out an electric car like the Tesla they would be able to build so many of them that the price would come down.

Plus...I was watching the engineers for the big Detroit car companies on CNN when the big Detroit auto show happened a few months ago. Every one of them said over and over that there wasn't any battery technology in existence that would allow an electric car to travel more than 40 or 50 miles off of electricity and that they HAD to have a gas engine in them to fire up once the electricity ran out.

They all said that they were working around the clock to come up with that "battery technology".

And yet...Tesla has had it for a few years now!!! And the news doesn't report it!

And check this bit of history out:
"The first taxicab company in New York City was the Electric Carriage and Wagon Company, which began running 12 electric hansom cabs in July 1897.[3] The company ran until 1898 with up to 62 cabs operating until it was reformed by its financiers to form the Electric Vehicle Company.[4] The company then built the Electrobat electric car, and had up to 100 taxicabs running in total by 1899. 1899 also saw a number of notable firsts for the Electric Vehicle Company. On 20 May 1899, Jacob German, driving an electric taxicab received the first speeding ticket in the United States.[5] Later that year, on 13 September, Henry Bliss became the first victim of an automotive accident in the United States when he was hit by an electric taxicab as he was helping a friend from a streetcar.[6]

By the early 1900s the Electric Vehicle company was running up to 1,000 electric taxicabs on the streets of New York City until, in January, 1907, a fire destroyed 300 of these vehicles which, in conjunction with the Panic of 1907 caused the company to collapse."

Our auto makers just don't WANT to build a real functional electric car in my opinion. There's just too much at stake for the oil companies who are in bed with the car companies.

tesla's really NOT the panacea car you make it out to be.

1st, it doesn't run all day and night on a single charge.
also, it's not new battery tech, it's a shitload of lithium-ion (laptop batteries) wired together.

and not sure how it can be claimed it's cheaper and faster than the next vette stingray, no news on what the new stingray even is, let alone what it costs.

Yes there is plenty of news on the stingray. Pics and prices. Already spoke to the Chevy dealer here in Vegas about getting one in 2012 (hopefully) and sold them my 2007 Vette a few days ago. It's featured in the new Transformers movie by the way and is tentatively priced at $120,000 (though at first people are going to pay even more to get the first ones)

And does it really matter if it's a "shitload of lithium batteries" or not? It goes 245 miles on a single charge. Yes, I could drive it all day around town doing shit, and then go out clubbing that night. No...I couldn't drive it 24 hours straight on a single charge. But unless I am driving to L.A. or Phoenix, I never drive 245 miles in a day. And my Prowler has a 12 gallon gas tank and gets 16 mpg in the city, 21 on the hwy.
So I theoretically get 252 mpg on the hwy (but in reality a lot less since I like to step down on the accelerator lol )

So "Yes" the battery technology already exists and is being used. That was kind of my point. No "new" battery technology is needed. The technology has existed since the late 1800's.

I really like the Tesla. And I'm going to probably replace the Vette that I just sold with a Tesla. I'd really like to also convert my Prowler to electric. But I don't want the shitty conversions I saw so far...I want one that will be like the Tesla and give me that kind of speed and range.

I will never relinquish my 4X4.... NEVER!!!

The video is 1.5 years old:
Uploaded by whopperding on Oct 29, 2009

WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR:thumbsup

http://www.deltastate.edu/Images/DSU...tric%20Car.jpg

any links to the 2012 vette? i've been following it for a couple years now, thinking it might be the one, but as far as i know and the sites i follow, there is no word on the new vette. gm hasn't even announced motors yet, as far as the news i get.

a $120k car isn't an answer to anything, it's a toy for the rich.

a $50k car isn't an answer to anything, it's a status symbol for the liberal elite.

you need a pricepoint that the average family can afford, that can be manufactured and sold by the tens and hundreds of millions, to make a real impact, and counteract the price rise associated with the decline in the last remaining superfields of oil.

like I said, I've been watching the wave disk engine for a while, along with another dozen or so promising technologies.

all those technologies share one thing in common.

all of them are trapped in the prototype or theoretical stage, all of them are developing with glacial slowness (much like the tesla), and none of them are any closer to manufacturing than they were 2 or 3 or 5 or 10 or 20 years ago.

that's the big problem and the big puzzle - why are we so slow now?

Try looking around for the Corvette C7 as I believe that was the original name for it before they decided to go back to the old Stingray name.

There is a very cool vid on Youtube with the CEO of Chevy in a garage with some classic vettes and the new Stingray as well.

haha that's interesting

The oil markets are totally fake, I assume people understand that now.

So even if cars were 50% more efficient, the markets would eventually adjust and gas would be $8/gallon, so essentially no difference for the consumer. Although there will be some environmental benefit.

Similar with electric cars. If everyone started driving electric cars, then the electricity business would turn into the oil business.

So basically, when you depend on one type of energy, you are screwed. We need different energy sources so one group can't control the price.

I'm reading the forums over at Tesla. Some folks are simply buying a solar panel and using it just for charging their car. They are driving completely free of fuel costs at that point.

It is an expensive proposition to set up to start with and if you looked at it as a way to save money...you probably wouldn't own the car for long enough to justify it in that way.

But to me...it's sort of a great idea to say "fuck you" to the oil companies and the countries that hate our guts. And the thought of not going to a gas station again and driving my car for free is pretty sweet.

IF Detroit were to jump on this and IF solar panels were produced and purchased at high volume then these prices would go down fast. Just like our computers are 1000% faster and better and much, much cheaper than they ever have been.

But nobody wants to rock the boat with the oil companies. There's no long term monetary profit for any of them to build a car and a solar panel that would constitute a one time purchase. We are all being "rebilled" every day at the gas pump. It's just too damn profitable for the big oil companies to allow it to happen.

$8 gas is inevitable. nothing to do about that. but cars/trucks that get 200mpg driven en masse, will contribute to extending the amount of oil available.

An affordable Hybrid version of the Tata Motors NANO car FTW

Keep dreaming.

amg sls e-cell ftw!

and you keep dreaming of armegeddon. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Why is it that every time so earth shattering technological development hits Youtube, we never see in our daily lives? It just disappears.

We'll see armageddon long before we ever see 200mpg vehicles. :2 cents:

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh you never cease to crack me up with your doom & gloom schtick!

and you never cease to amaze me with your insane "I'm currently researching it" bullshit. :2 cents:

yeah, if i were you, i'd be super upset too if i always kept getting corrected by facts.

to wit:

Five years since Volkswagen showed off its 222 mpg "1-Liter Car" concept (shown), the company is apparently recommitting to the 200+ mpg project. Board chair Ferdinand Pi ch says it can be done ? that advances in materials and a reduction in associated costs have put plans for a super-efficient small Volkswagen back on the table.

According to Pi ch, one supplier says the components can be had for around $6,775, not $47,400 as had been calculated. Of course, the 1-Liter concept was powered by an 8.5-horsepower, 299 cc one-cylinder engine, while anything built for the marketplace would likely have to come in a bit higher on all those specs to be viable.
http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets...vw_1_liter.jpg

Blah blah bleckity bleh..... where are these wonder cars right now? Nowhere, that's where. Know where they're gonna be in our lifetime? Nowhere, that's where.

back tracking is so unbecoming amp. where is armegeddon right now? where the fuck is armegeddon gonna be in our lifetime? you have no fucking clue. you have again been presented with facts and you quickly forget your original bullshit.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

you bore me.

then stop posting your doom & gloom in all of my threads. seems more than simple to me.

To take a CONTRARIAN view, $8 to $20 per gallon gas would be a GODSEND. Why? It would finally make competing solutions affordable. High oil prices would push alternatives to reach economies of scale they couldn't otherwise attain with low priced fossil fuel around.

Alternatively, it would PUSH the technology described in this thread to proceed at a faster pace.

Oftentimes, we have to go through pain before being pushed to a whole new higher plane.

In a way I agree...but then you have to look at the bigger picture: It wouldn't be just painful for regular people buying gas for their cars. It would make food prices go through the roof as well as every product out there. Our goods are trucked across the U.S.

The economy is already devastated and higher gas prices could mean major, major trouble across the entire spectrum of our country...and the world.

One of the big problems in my opinion is the fact that we pay for gas what oil is SPECULATED on. Not what it actually costs to deliver. And then add on the govt. taxes (here in Nevada it is 23 cents per gallon in state tax and 18.4 cents per gallon in federal tax. County taxes run as much as 10 cents per gallon on top of those. There are also additional state fees that add another 1.3 cents per gallon.)

I wonder what a gallon of gasoline would cost minus the oil market speculation driving prices and the various govt. taxes?

Anyway...even if it were cheap, I think it's a matter of national security that we get off it.
At least get our passenger vehicles off of it. Either through electric or hydrogen (remember, that's been around for years too) or a super economical engine like this wave disc engine. Then just have our trucking and airline industries using oil. That would have to make some kind of dent right?

I have to disagree with the argument that more efficient cars will extend the time we can use oil.

There was a study out that showed cars today are actually less efficient than in the 80's when looked at on the whole even though technology has improved greatly. Basically, all the efficiency was used to just make bigger and more powerful cars, so we actually lost efficiency.

If car engines were made more fuel efficient, people would drive more, trucks would replace every other form of product transport, and flying and everything else would increase assuming the technology could be used for planes.

That's the problem with most arguments like this, it's assumed game changing technology will only change one aspect of the "game" but it changes everything, including peoples behavior.

That's why we need different sources of power. Solar, wind, fuel cell, hydrogen, natural gas, etc. That way there will be competition among them which will keep the price reasonable and the technology for each improving, at least for a little while until they all get together and price fix.

fuel efficiency has gone up since the 80s, ~35% since 1985
http://www.bts.gov/publications/nati...ble_04_23.html

That's not what I mean. I mean when you look at fuel consumed for the miles driven, the efficiency is lower.

The efficiency gains were used so people could drive SUV's all through the 90's with 300-400 horsepower.

I'm too lazy to search for it, but if you are curious google a few different phrases and you'll come across the story, it was somewhat big news when it came out a few years ago so most news sites will have it archived.

edit: here is the first reference I found. You can search for better sources though

http://www.dailyfueleconomytip.com/m...1980-and-2004/

But that was my point, fuel efficiency technology has increased, but it just made car makers build bigger engines and made consumers buy bigger vehicles, so we really didn't gain that much at all. That was my point in the first post. Changes in efficiency will change behavior and it usually cancels out any gains.