Past New Technologies

Ronseto,

I remember the flywheel bus. The flywheel was a composite construction, very thick at the hub and tapered to a thin rim. This cross section allowed very high speed when run in a vacuum. There were also some experiments with gas turbines in passenger cars by Chrysler. The exhaust from the first models would set a wet board fence on fire at 20'.

LG_DAVE

I remember the Chrysler turbine- a friend of mine actually had one of the test prototypes. We teased him about melting the tarmac when he accelerated. It seemed like a fantastic idea- it would run on any liquid that would burn (he bragged about running it on $80 an ounce perfume, back in the days when gasoline was 50 cents a gallon!). The body design was really futuristic, and I thought it was a great idea. I think Chrysler used the engine technology in big trucks, but it was probably too expensive for mass market vehicles when gasoline was cheap. Most likely, the proponents/designers are long gone by now, and no one at Chrysler today probably remembers this...

cw,

Soon after the chrysler turbine, I read an article about a turbine in a fire engine. It was either in Popular Science or Joe Gutts in Science and Mechanics. They said it was so smooth that you could balance a quarter on the hood while it was running. Guess they ran out of quarters, because I have heard no more about it.

LG_DAVE

well here you can read the story of the oval cylinders

http://world.honda.com/history/challenge/1979pistonengine/text/01.html

Hi ronseto,

We have someting similar and more modern here in the UK, this is a gas burning module that provides heating, hot water and electricity for the whole house via a Stirling engine, air-conditioning we don't need here in the UK but it could be done via the gas burner!

I can also remember the Rover experimental gas-turbine sports car, but it was trashed due to the dangers on the road and enormouse amount of fuel needed to run it, remember, that the smaller the gas turbine the less efficient it is!

Spencer.

Can you provide a link or name for the gas burning module? Does it work effeciently?

Thanks!

Honda is marketing a home Combined Heat & Power unit in the U.S.

I have seen it at several energy shows in the past couple of years. Find more information at www.freewatt.com. I know there are more of these types of machines in Europe but have not seen them imported to the U.S. yet.

Yes, I recall several things, including a couple of those, that seemed great but disappeared almost as soon as you heard about them. I wonder if it is mostly a case of there being a flaw that squashed the deal, or some sort of supression? Not being much of a conspiracy theorist (beyond a good aluminum foil hat, that is), I tend toward the flaw concept. Or possibly just a lack of venture capital to get it going.

And what about those flying cars? We were promised flying cars, doggonit!!!

Enviro,

Damn shame about the flying cars. We hashed this out in a recent thread here on CR4 - concluded that most drivers shouldn't be driving, much less operating an aircraft ( in crowded airspace)

LG_DAVE

I know, I was in on that thread. Concur most shouldn't drive, much less fly, but they PROMISED us those flying cars, daggonit! Along with electricity too cheap to meter...

Enviro,

The flying cars are a tough one to let go of, I know. We can relieve our traffic congestion three ways:

1. make the roads wider ( use more land)

2. go underground like Boston's big dig (very expensive)

3. use the airspace

I think electricity from nuclear plants is already almost too cheap to meter. We still have to pay a little something for the cost of containment and regulation.

LG_DAVE

Don't forget...

4. Mass transit (bus, light rail, etc.)

Enviro,

You are preaching to the choir when you bring up mass transit. Unfortunately, most commuters won't use it. In Seattle, most notably, you will see empty busses, empty multi-occupant lanes and bumper to bumper grid locked single occupant cars. The advantages and benefits of mass transit are clear, but in practice, people are going to use their single occupant automobiles. So that is where we should be seeking solutions.

LG_DAVE

In 1981, Chrysler was about to make the decision to produce their turbine powered automobile when their financial troubles caused them to seek help from the U.S. government. Uncle Sam bailed them out, but one of the conditions of the loans they received was that they scrap the turbine project as being too speculative.

It was actually a neat little engine which, by that time, Chrysler had worked most of the bugs out of. For example, it used regenerators which scavenged exhaust heat to heat the intake charge, and variable stator blades to control engine speed. The fuel efficiency was also quite good, right on par with piston engines of comparable output.

The really nice thing about the Chrysler turbines was that they could burn virtually anything that would burn. There's even a story about someone running one on tequila.

As far as heavy trucks, Rover in England and Ford here in the U.S. both built turbine powered tractors. The Ford machines in particular criss-crossed the continent and turned in a an impressive reliability record for such prototypes, as well as delivering fuel efficiency and pulling power right on par with the diesels of the day.

It's worth pointing out that turbines have several significant advantages over pistons. Most important of these is the shear fact that combustion in a turbine is continuous, which allows for a very clean burn, as opposed to piston engines which start and stop combustion hundreds of times per second. It also has fewer moving parts with no reciprocating assemblies (no vibration), and a much higher power-to-weight ratio. Of course because of the high temperatures and rotational speeds that they operate at, turbine engines are expensive, and they don't idle down very well either.

Still, they are an attractive technology. How about a liquid hydrogen fueled turbine-electric hybrid?

The Abrams tank is propelled by a gas turbine. The only problem I heard about was something with the air filters early on. They have apparently fixed that.

Guru,

Could you pls. help for this.?

they gave me a sample form, i wondering how they get the maximum deviation of %FS As-found +/- 0.75 and as left +/- 0.13

Range input pressure: 0.00, 18.13, 50.75, 76.13, 101.50 respectively.

Rising O/P mA Actual: 4.0, 8.0, 12.0 16.0, 20.0

Rising measured as found: 4.09, 8.052, 12.075, 16.091, 20.120

Rising measured as left: 4.00 7.996 11.998 16.013 20.021

Rising Error mA as found: 0.059 0.052 0.075 0.091 0.120

Rising Error mA as left: 0.000 -0.004 -0.002 0.013 0.021

thanks,

raffy