Interesting new engine design
Sep 13, 2011, 04:50 PM
#3
thats the wierdest idea I aver sar.
If you like new engine technology check out the MYT engine. mighty yet tiny. I researched for days and nothing even comes close to how cool that engine will be when it starts showing up in cars. The 200hp engine for ford focus is the size of a coffee can.
If you like new engine technology check out the MYT engine. mighty yet tiny. I researched for days and nothing even comes close to how cool that engine will be when it starts showing up in cars. The 200hp engine for ford focus is the size of a coffee can.
Sep 13, 2011, 05:00 PM
#4
thats the wierdest idea I aver sar.
If you like new engine technology check out the MYT engine. mighty yet tiny. I researched for days and nothing even comes close to how cool that engine will be when it starts showing up in cars. The 200hp engine for ford focus is the size of a coffee can.
If you like new engine technology check out the MYT engine. mighty yet tiny. I researched for days and nothing even comes close to how cool that engine will be when it starts showing up in cars. The 200hp engine for ford focus is the size of a coffee can.
This new engine that Mazda is coming out with is pretty neat. http://www.motoiq.com/magazine_artic...echnology.aspx
Sep 13, 2011, 08:28 PM
#7
I've looked up the MYT and haven't found any info on it running on any of the gases the inventor has said. Only thing I've found is a video of it running on compressed air. I don't know if this project is still going on or not but it's been maybe 5 years already so really, you're supposed to expect an actual running engine by now that's not compressed air.
Trending Topics
Sep 13, 2011, 09:39 PM
#9
Hmmmm... im defenitly missing something here because it looks to me that the two outer cylinders are pointless, theyre going down when the rod is going up, thus the power used to push them down is going where? also, wont that run really roughly only having two rods going to the crank?
Sep 15, 2011, 07:14 AM
#11
I've looked up the MYT and haven't found any info on it running on any of the gases the inventor has said. Only thing I've found is a video of it running on compressed air. I don't know if this project is still going on or not but it's been maybe 5 years already so really, you're supposed to expect an actual running engine by now that's not compressed air.
simple fact. the average gas mileage of cars for last 30 years has been stuck at 20mpg. do you really think technology hasnt improved? the reality is oil companies have more "lobbyist" power than any other on the planet. you cant get legislation passed through congress to allow gas mileage requirements to be higher.
there is no energy crisis. the energy crisis is the oil companies are in control because they are so rich. technology to run cars on electricity and 100% water has been around for 100 years.. neither is allowed to get a foot into the market.
watch video
"who killed the electric car"
stupid good video. but heart braking for those who want a green planet
Movie Description
In the 1990s, following California's passing of the Zero Emission Vehicle mandate, American car companies began producing electric cars for mainstream consumption. GM's EV1, which was by all accounts quiet, fast, and capable of driving up to 80 miles on one charge, used no gasoline and quickly developed an intensely devoted following in California. But even as its popularity grew, car manufacturers were fighting the mandate; it was overturned, and by 2005 just about every single EV1 had been recalled, crushed, and shredded. GM put its resources into the Hummer instead. WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR? looks at the tangled web of interests behind the car's untimely demise, laying out convincing cases against the auto industry, big oil, corrupt federal and state governments, and consumers themselves.
Last edited by 94AWDcoupe; Sep 15, 2011 at 07:19 AM.
Sep 15, 2011, 08:02 AM
#12
Most of these "green" cars really aren't very green. They gain an advantage in the use cycle, which makes a up the majority of the product life so if that's all you look at, they look great.
But electric cars use a LOT of materials that aren't very available. Copper is already getting WAY up there in price (as it becomes less available) and filling every car with 100 pounds of copper motor windings isn't going to improve this situation. There are A LOT of other rare earth materials involved with producing a lot of the electronic systems needed to run the electric car. This obviously has a direct impact on the materials that have to be mined out of the ground.
If you think the automobile is the primary contributor to world pollution directly, you would be wrong. Mining raw materials out of the ground is where the most energy is used and pollution is created. The problem with these rare materials is the net extraction rate efficiency. Where Bauxite (Aluminum ore, one of the most plentiful materials on earth) can come out of the ground at better than a 2:1 ratio (2 ton of earth in certain places can almost be 1 ton of raw aluminum ore), these rare earth metals require a WHOLE LOT more than 2 tons of earth material to get 1 ton of raw material. 2000:1 or higher in many cases. Think of how much energy and pollution is created when you process 2000 tons of material to get a single ton of a given rare earth metal...
Then there is the hazardous materials you have to deal with that are needed to produce a lot of these high tech items. The chemicals used in circuit card production, MEMS devices, and other micro-scale technology is very bad stuff and it has to go somewhere once it has reached it's usable life.
I'm currently not a believer in "high-tech" being the answer. At least not stuff that uses exotic materials. Stuff like "stratified lean-burn" engines where it's basically all the same parts and materials, just configured differently is where there can be large net gains.
I personally believe that a lot of the safety standards and emissions requirements are a lot of the problem. Modern fuel injected engines can run extremely clean without many of the emissions control systems. These systems simply add weight to the car. Which has a bigger impact...100 pounds less weight on the car or emission controls that only have an impact the first 1-2 minutes the car runs? Seems like nobody is looking at this problem holistically?
And safety standards...get 6000+ pound trucks off the light highways and you no longer need your commuter to add 300 pounds of safety equipment to survive a crash. I think this can be seen pretty easily as there are 30 year old cars that get 50mpg with carburetors simply because they are light and have small displacement engines. Replace the iron blocked engine for a modern day small displacement, direct injected, lean-burn, turbocharged aluminum block 4 cylinder and I bet it would near 80mpg if you kept the weight similar. While it might produce slightly more pollution in the first 1-2 minutes while it warms up then modern day emission control systems, that 30mpg better economy means 60% less fuel has to be refined in the first place, which I bet holistically means a HELL of a lot less pollution is created overall. There would be less waste through the smarter use of resources because of holistic engineering principles.
But electric cars use a LOT of materials that aren't very available. Copper is already getting WAY up there in price (as it becomes less available) and filling every car with 100 pounds of copper motor windings isn't going to improve this situation. There are A LOT of other rare earth materials involved with producing a lot of the electronic systems needed to run the electric car. This obviously has a direct impact on the materials that have to be mined out of the ground.
If you think the automobile is the primary contributor to world pollution directly, you would be wrong. Mining raw materials out of the ground is where the most energy is used and pollution is created. The problem with these rare materials is the net extraction rate efficiency. Where Bauxite (Aluminum ore, one of the most plentiful materials on earth) can come out of the ground at better than a 2:1 ratio (2 ton of earth in certain places can almost be 1 ton of raw aluminum ore), these rare earth metals require a WHOLE LOT more than 2 tons of earth material to get 1 ton of raw material. 2000:1 or higher in many cases. Think of how much energy and pollution is created when you process 2000 tons of material to get a single ton of a given rare earth metal...
Then there is the hazardous materials you have to deal with that are needed to produce a lot of these high tech items. The chemicals used in circuit card production, MEMS devices, and other micro-scale technology is very bad stuff and it has to go somewhere once it has reached it's usable life.
I'm currently not a believer in "high-tech" being the answer. At least not stuff that uses exotic materials. Stuff like "stratified lean-burn" engines where it's basically all the same parts and materials, just configured differently is where there can be large net gains.
I personally believe that a lot of the safety standards and emissions requirements are a lot of the problem. Modern fuel injected engines can run extremely clean without many of the emissions control systems. These systems simply add weight to the car. Which has a bigger impact...100 pounds less weight on the car or emission controls that only have an impact the first 1-2 minutes the car runs? Seems like nobody is looking at this problem holistically?
And safety standards...get 6000+ pound trucks off the light highways and you no longer need your commuter to add 300 pounds of safety equipment to survive a crash. I think this can be seen pretty easily as there are 30 year old cars that get 50mpg with carburetors simply because they are light and have small displacement engines. Replace the iron blocked engine for a modern day small displacement, direct injected, lean-burn, turbocharged aluminum block 4 cylinder and I bet it would near 80mpg if you kept the weight similar. While it might produce slightly more pollution in the first 1-2 minutes while it warms up then modern day emission control systems, that 30mpg better economy means 60% less fuel has to be refined in the first place, which I bet holistically means a HELL of a lot less pollution is created overall. There would be less waste through the smarter use of resources because of holistic engineering principles.
Last edited by 03whitegsr; Sep 15, 2011 at 08:08 AM.
