Why are we still using internal combustion engines?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Evadman

Evadman

Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Feb 18, 2001
30,990
5
81
Go search for my last post in this. There isn't enough volume of air to go anywhere useful.
 
Evadman

Evadman

Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Feb 18, 2001
30,990
5
81
I did all the math on this in another thread. I am way too lazy to do it again. The results were that a basic car with a compressed air tank the same size as a normal gas tank at 5000 PSI would have a range of something like 4 miles.
 
B

BrownTown

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2005
5,314
1
0
well at least as much or more as you are getting out, but the point is that it is produced by electricity and not gasoline. However of course if you gonna use electricity just go with a straight up electric car, its better in more or less every way imaginable than this piece of junk.
 
Chaotic42

Chaotic42

Lifer
Jun 15, 2001
35,132
2,275
126
Originally posted by: BrownTown
well at least as much or more as you are getting out, but the point is that it is produced by electricity and not gasoline. However of course if you gonna use electricity just go with a straight up electric car, its better in more or less every way imaginable than this piece of junk.
Click to expand...

I still think that the future of human energy use is a combination of fuel cell technology on a personal level and fusion/fission power on a regional level. We need to get everyone on the same page and start working on fuel cells or something similar.
 
Linux23

Linux23

Lifer
Apr 9, 2000
11,374
741
126
Range is 200 miles, with speeds up to 60 miles an hour. Not too bad for an everyday commuter. :p

Oh, did I mention all for about $15k?
 
N

natto fire

Diamond Member
Jan 4, 2000
7,117
10
76
An internal combustion engine is an air pump.

This isn't even funny as a joke. If you were serious, then wow.
 
Zenmervolt

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,514
44
91
Originally posted by: BigPoppa
Because external combustion is super inefficient.
Click to expand...
I dunno, steam wasn't too bad as far as efficiency, just very, very, very hard to make convenient. Sh*tloads of torque though. I know a guy who restores old steam traction engines and those things can pull pretty much anything you can hook up to them. They would have shows where they'd load up a sled from a tractor pull as heavy as it could get and the old steam engines would just slowly pull it all the way down the track. The tractors from the tractor pulls were much faster off the line, but the steam engines just chugged right along and never slowed down, they took it to the end of the run every single time.

Of course, 99% of people aren't mechanically-able enough anymore to mind a steam boiler with all that pressure.

ZV
 
Jeff7181

Jeff7181

Lifer
Aug 21, 2002
18,368
11
81
I've always thought a diesel/electric hybrid would be a great idea. A high torque, low RPM turbo diesel engine turning an electric generator. The engine would be efficient because it would operate at the same RPM all the time regardless of speed and load. Therefore, components could be designed for optimum performance at a specific RPM. And of course the engine would shut off when not needed... and cylinders could be "turned off" like they're doing with the new Hemi engines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom