Ya know Gary there isn't anything that will yet replace the recip engine . Some electrics will work great for city use and recip engines will /can use several different fuels. Just a thought.
Oil production peaked in 2006
- Thread starter rshaw125
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Originally Posted By: Steve S
Ya know Gary there isn't anything that will yet replace the recip engine . Some electrics will work great for city use and recip engines will /can use several different fuels. Just a thought.
..and you don't find that odd? While I really enjoy the visual manifestations that the reciprocating engine can bring into view, it's kinda hard to accept that anything can remain the principle mode of power production/transmission for over 100 years. There's nothing else that I can think of that has remained basically unchanged for that amount of time. Refined, surely, but the same basic package.
Is that all there is to engines? (cue music) Is that all there is?
Ya know Gary there isn't anything that will yet replace the recip engine . Some electrics will work great for city use and recip engines will /can use several different fuels. Just a thought.
..and you don't find that odd? While I really enjoy the visual manifestations that the reciprocating engine can bring into view, it's kinda hard to accept that anything can remain the principle mode of power production/transmission for over 100 years. There's nothing else that I can think of that has remained basically unchanged for that amount of time. Refined, surely, but the same basic package.
Is that all there is to engines? (cue music) Is that all there is?
Last edited:
There's lots of more efficient ways of getting the job done, just doing it's more expensive than "the way we used to do it".
Modern "high efficiency" engines aren't that much more high tech than what was around 90 years ago (when they had DOHC, pentroof combustion chambers, and 4/5 valves, rotary valves etc.)...we've got better metals and fuel delivery, but they were still getting 0.45lbs per hphr.
Modern "high efficiency" engines aren't that much more high tech than what was around 90 years ago (when they had DOHC, pentroof combustion chambers, and 4/5 valves, rotary valves etc.)...we've got better metals and fuel delivery, but they were still getting 0.45lbs per hphr.
What works better? over my short life there have been different designs Wankel, Sterling etc. that the magazine articles seem to write the new products would change the world where are they? Is there a plot against the little people? What is cost effective?
Kestas
Staff member
Steve, in the world of engineering there are pros and cons - not panaceas to problems. Those magazine articles always exalt the wonderful advantages of new ideas and designs. They rarely mention the practical downsides to new technologies.
For example, though Wankel engines have better theoretical efficiency, one big problem is that combustion gases are harder to seal than in a piston engine. Also, the large quench area of the combustion chamber and all the nooks and crannies that hide unburned gases in the chamber resulted in high emissions that effectively killed the rotary design in the American market.
As far as peak oil is concerned, I agree with panzerman. Let's stop all this conservation. Why should we conserve?... so our grandchildren can learn the pain of petroleum conservation? We won't be going back to walking. Let's use it up. This will get rid of the geopolitical angst we're presently experiencing, and put everyone economically back on the same page.
For example, though Wankel engines have better theoretical efficiency, one big problem is that combustion gases are harder to seal than in a piston engine. Also, the large quench area of the combustion chamber and all the nooks and crannies that hide unburned gases in the chamber resulted in high emissions that effectively killed the rotary design in the American market.
As far as peak oil is concerned, I agree with panzerman. Let's stop all this conservation. Why should we conserve?... so our grandchildren can learn the pain of petroleum conservation? We won't be going back to walking. Let's use it up. This will get rid of the geopolitical angst we're presently experiencing, and put everyone economically back on the same page.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
As far as peak oil is concerned, I agree with panzerman. Let's stop all this conservation. Why should we conserve?... so our grandchildren can learn the pain of petroleum conservation? We won't be going back to walking. Let's use it up. This will get rid of the geopolitical angst we're presently experiencing, and put everyone economically back on the same page.
I beg your pardon? This statement in the same post as one that concedes to hitting a virtual brick wall on technology with the reciprocating engine?
Suppose we never crack the energy nut ..just like the engine nut?
Geo-political angst? How about global starvation and dysfunction ..famines ..you name it.
That's one level playing field we should surely attempt to achieve (if I read you correctly) and quick!
As far as peak oil is concerned, I agree with panzerman. Let's stop all this conservation. Why should we conserve?... so our grandchildren can learn the pain of petroleum conservation? We won't be going back to walking. Let's use it up. This will get rid of the geopolitical angst we're presently experiencing, and put everyone economically back on the same page.
I beg your pardon? This statement in the same post as one that concedes to hitting a virtual brick wall on technology with the reciprocating engine?
Suppose we never crack the energy nut ..just like the engine nut?
Geo-political angst? How about global starvation and dysfunction ..famines ..you name it.
That's one level playing field we should surely attempt to achieve (if I read you correctly) and quick!
I am getting at the reciprocating engine works really well in general . What else is there that can replace it that works as well? Going back to horses would really suck.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
What else is there that can replace it that works as well? Going back to horses would really suck.
That's the $10T question. Just what's going to replace it if Mr. Fusion isn't just over the horizon?
Horses will suck.
What else is there that can replace it that works as well? Going back to horses would really suck.
That's the $10T question. Just what's going to replace it if Mr. Fusion isn't just over the horizon?
Horses will suck.
We can start by replacing our oil furnaces with solar heat or ground source heat pumps, and have more fuel left over for transportation machines.
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
We can start by replacing our oil furnaces with solar heat or ground source heat pumps, and have more fuel left over for transportation machines.
Would be nice but it takes energy to make and install those things. Is the energy/labor payoff there?
The market currently says no.
We can start by replacing our oil furnaces with solar heat or ground source heat pumps, and have more fuel left over for transportation machines.
Would be nice but it takes energy to make and install those things. Is the energy/labor payoff there?
The market currently says no.
Hey, we could just re-refine our used oil and recycle it back into our oil economy....Oh right....I forgot, Safety Klean said that California spent millions trying to get people to use re-refined oil, and that proved unsuccessful, so no retail sales of America's Choice Motor Oil for the United States!!!!!!! Besides, consumers want the cheapest or a name brand oil to buy to put into their cars.....America's Choice Motor Oil is neither.....Darn it....
Oh yes, and the EPA said that the industry would require subsidies just like the european companies need subsidies to continue recycling old oil.....Darn it again....
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
We can start by replacing our oil furnaces with solar heat or ground source heat pumps, and have more fuel left over for transportation machines.
Would be nice but it takes energy to make and install those things. Is the energy/labor payoff there?
The market currently says no.
Because coal gets a free ride, and fossil energy is inherently undervalued "by the market".
Any system that allows five times as many calories to go into food production as actually make it to the table is inherently flawed and unsustainable.
We didn't get to the top of the food chain on a negative energy balance.
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
We can start by replacing our oil furnaces with solar heat or ground source heat pumps, and have more fuel left over for transportation machines.
Would be nice but it takes energy to make and install those things. Is the energy/labor payoff there?
The market currently says no.
Because coal gets a free ride, and fossil energy is inherently undervalued "by the market".
Any system that allows five times as many calories to go into food production as actually make it to the table is inherently flawed and unsustainable.
We didn't get to the top of the food chain on a negative energy balance.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
People have a hard time seeing how coal and other fossil fuels are undervalued. They're virtually free. The price IS altered by supply and demand ..but there's no true manufacturing costs involved only processing/refinement. You can't manufacture a fossil fuel.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked