[Arlekiin]

Hello,

So in another thread I started interesting topic rose...


Originally Posted by Arlekiin
As an example steam engines come to mind.
At some point in history there was a choice between gasoline engine and steam engine but the gasoline engine won.
Steam engine is actually much better choice because of its effectiveness and if one would use condenser's etc you dont have to change water at all etc.
I believe there was an experiment few years back where some dudes extracted top speed of 170 mph which is not bad at all.

Link to the article about the experiment

Also as written in this article steamers are not too practical at the moment but as a proof of concept it rocks... You can get real speed form steam Now they have gas turbines and such.

Any-ways:
My point is that not always the best things are at the top. Steam engine is not the fastest at the moment but it has had a lot less resources poured into it since 19th century.
As an engine which has over 90% effectiveness compared to 60% in the case of gasoline engines.
Well I am sad the gasoline engine won. And also steam engine is absolutely foolproof only thing that can top it in reliability is electric engine

...went a bit off topic there hehe...


Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif The biggest benefit of steam is that it is external combustion. Or that you can run it from nearly anything that burns - gasoline not necessary. You could stop oil imports altogether and run steam engines off locally made alcohol if you wanted. Burning alcohol is much cleaner than burning gasoline, as well. In the US, it is legal to have a still for the purpose of making fuel. Imagine making fuel for your car from yard trimmings and waste food. You can also use the existing infrastructure of tankers, pipelines, trucks, stations, etc. to move alcohol just like gasoline. I think a steam/electric hybrid would be ideal - use a steam engine to charge batteries that drive electric motors. I can't think of any reason we're not doing this. These are all 100+ year old technologies that need no development. Only engineering and marketing are necessary. If one of the Big Three wants to get solidly back in the black, this would do it. Sorry about the threadjack.

So if anyone has any other technologies to add besides steam engine do so.
It would be interesting to hear and discuss others.

 

[fraseyboy]

Vacuum tubes?

I would love to have a tube cellphone.

Also, analog synthesizers with piles of yummy knobs and dials instead of crappy digital ones which just have screens and buttons.

 

[Blind Tree Frog]

Sterling engines are still used in various applications. Mostly boats I believe. But they are quiet and efficient, so yeah, good stuff. As far as applications in cars ther are some issues that I think would need to be worked out first, like that you have to let the engine warm up and build up pressure longer than you need to wait for a car engine before you can go, but shouldn't be too terrible (Might have some deceleration issues as well... slightly bigger issue). I'd be slightly more concerned about technical limitations regarding maintanence; i mean there is a reason that the guy who drives the train is called an Engineer, back in the day of steam trains he had to be one.

Problem is, and the alcohol proponents keep overlooking this, gas is really really good. Good energy density. Easy to transport. Stable. Etc etc. Just mix it with air and you are good to go. A well designed engine can hit. Once you start looking beyond Otto cycle engine designs you can get some amazing designs and good effciency too.

Alcohol has about half of the energy density of gasoline as I recall. Convieniently, it also only needs about half of the amount of air as gas to burn completely (7:1 versus 14:1) and effictively has a higher octane (more resistance to burning). So we can spin the engine faster and squeeze the fuel-air mixture more and make up a lot of that difference. This comes at the cost of engines that wear out faster, but exotic materials can help with that in the long run. That and the amount of crop that one would need to actually produce enough alcohol to really put a serious dent in the worlds fuel usage is rather obscene (ignoring that I think farming, harvesting, and refining the product still doesn't quite work out in your favor on a cost analysis). If they get some of the other tech working that won't require corn (Kudzu was one intriguing option. Another was wood/cellulous as there is a type of grass that would work really well too) this will get far more viable as an option. Corn and Cane sugar, are not viable.


But there there is biodeisel, algae grown fuel, black powder (if you want to stick to old ideas), and a few others that would all work as a fuel source. These all would work better in an internal combustion engine for our current usage patterns however. Once you start looking at compressed air as a fuel souce (not one I like personally), internal combustion style engines look even more intriguing to study more (and turbine engines).


In my ignorant opinion, the best use for a sterling engine is in solar power. Make a parabolic mirror that tracks the sun and put a sterling engine at the focal point. Let the mirror and the sun be the heat source and use the engine to drive a generator. Should be better effciency than the current solar panels and I would hope that it would use up less land real estate than current solar options (but i have no evidence it would.... that land usage thing really sucks on solar power)

 

[Skylab]

Vacuum tubes and turntables!!!!!!

 

[Lazarus Short]

A backstory on gasoline vs alcohol:

Always remember that there is the reason-that-is-given, and then there is the real reason. In 1919 Prohibition came in with a lot of propaganda and a Constitutional amendment. It was called the Great Experiment, an experiment in public morals. Who could speak against that? However, was it just coincidence that the auto/oil industry was just seriously gearing up at that time? Further, was it just coincidence that by 1933, when prohibition ended, that the auto/oil industry had become entrenched and unassailable? The sheer timing impels me to connect the dots, and guess that the whole thing was a complex plot to nip the fuel alcohol industry in the bud. After the Arab Oil Embargo, another fuel alcohol startup was attempted, but that was foiled too. Fuel alcohol is allowed, but only as an additive to gasoline, so it's basically window dressing. It's really not too different from the demonization of hemp, as funded by the cotton industry.

So...here's the ultimate in old and worthwhile technology: flint knapping. Farming and civilization have brought us to the brink, whereas the hunter/gatherer way of life sustained humanity for many millennia.

I only hope this is not judged as too political - in fact, it's more about MONEY.

 

[Arlekiin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lazarus Short /img/forum/go_quote.gif A backstory on gasoline vs alcohol: Always remember that there is the reason-that-is-given, and then there is the real reason. In 1919 Prohibition came in with a lot of propaganda and a Constitutional amendment. It was called the Great Experiment, an experiment in public morals. Who could speak against that? However, was it just coincidence that the auto/oil industry was just seriously gearing up at that time? Further, was it just coincidence that by 1933, when prohibition ended, that the auto/oil industry had become entrenched and unassailable? The sheer timing impels me to connect the dots, and guess that the whole thing was a complex plot to nip the fuel alcohol industry in the bud. After the Arab Oil Embargo, another fuel alcohol startup was attempted, but that was foiled too. Fuel alcohol is allowed, but only as an additive to gasoline, so it's basically window dressing. It's really not too different from the demonization of hemp, as funded by the cotton industry. So...here's the ultimate in old and worthwhile technology: flint knapping. Farming and civilization have brought us to the brink, whereas the hunter/gatherer way of life sustained humanity for many millennia. I only hope this is not judged as too political - in fact, it's more about MONEY.

You have got a very good point there.

In the previous thread I was making the same point about dvorak vs qwerty and how IBM had produced alot of qwerty keyboards and pushed them through alltough better layout had emerged. And another status quo was established.
Its mostly about money...which is quait sad to be honest.

Anyhow I am all for the technology and reasoning as a matter of fact I am embracing technology with my arms open. I cant wait all those break-thru's in
bio-engineering, cybernetics, nanotechnology etc.

So I am not saying we should live in the trees. I am saying we should be able to evolve rapidly and live with others instead of over others.

In this thread I am asking about technologies which deserve usage because they are actually worth pursuing. I don't like things being discarded because some moneyboss somewhere decides his (inferior or unfriendlier to environment) technology should be pursued only for his personal gain especially if he knows its bad for the enviornment etc.
However I also understand sometimes they have no choice because they have invested so much and their legs will be smashed if he does not deliver....

 

[Arlekiin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blind Tree Frog /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sterling engines are still used in various applications. Mostly boats I believe. But they are quiet and efficient, so yeah, good stuff. As far as applications in cars ther are some issues that I think would need to be worked out first, like that you have to let the engine warm up and build up pressure longer than you need to wait for a car engine before you can go, but shouldn't be too terrible (Might have some deceleration issues as well... slightly bigger issue). I'd be slightly more concerned about technical limitations regarding maintanence; i mean there is a reason that the guy who drives the train is called an Engineer, back in the day of steam trains he had to be one. Problem is, and the alcohol proponents keep overlooking this, gas is really really good. Good energy density. Easy to transport. Stable. Etc etc. Just mix it with air and you are good to go. A well designed engine can hit. Once you start looking beyond Otto cycle engine designs you can get some amazing designs and good effciency too. Alcohol has about half of the energy density of gasoline as I recall. Convieniently, it also only needs about half of the amount of air as gas to burn completely (7:1 versus 14:1) and effictively has a higher octane (more resistance to burning). So we can spin the engine faster and squeeze the fuel-air mixture more and make up a lot of that difference. This comes at the cost of engines that wear out faster, but exotic materials can help with that in the long run. That and the amount of crop that one would need to actually produce enough alcohol to really put a serious dent in the worlds fuel usage is rather obscene (ignoring that I think farming, harvesting, and refining the product still doesn't quite work out in your favor on a cost analysis). If they get some of the other tech working that won't require corn (Kudzu was one intriguing option. Another was wood/cellulous as there is a type of grass that would work really well too) this will get far more viable as an option. Corn and Cane sugar, are not viable.e )

I do not deny that gasoline is good energy value. But also we are overusing it.
I mean there are few calculations saying that the planet can sustain 2.5 billion people who go around and burn pillage and punish it and the planet would always make more (for along time). The last time we had this few people was during US civil war. 5 Billion would be ok if they behave....well we have 7 and no-one behaves.

Another thing being not used enough is nuclear energy.
Yeah it is being used but not nearly enough. Even if we had Chernobyl event in every 15 years it would be better for the environment that all the damage caused by the coal (etc) industry.
What are your thoughts on that?

 

[Blind Tree Frog]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arlekiin /img/forum/go_quote.gif I do not deny that gasoline is good energy value. But also we are overusing it. I mean there are few calculations saying that the planet can sustain 2.5 billion people who go around and burn pillage and punish it and the planet would always make more (for along time). The last time we had this few people was during US civil war. 5 Billion would be ok if they behave....well we have 7 and no-one behaves.

Meh, most of those estimates I have seen are based on the idea of "peak oil" or pretending that we actually know how much oil there is to extract. Lots of oil out there. We're learning how to make our own (year or three ago a company in the midwest started doing that in fact I seem to recall). Use it more effectivly sure, but it's not going to be drying up tomorrow like everyone keeps liking to say every other day.
Quote:

Another thing being not used enough is nuclear energy. Yeah it is being used but not nearly enough. Even if we had Chernobyl event in every 15 years it would be better for the environment that all the damage caused by the coal (etc) industry. What are your thoughts on that?

Per square foot of footprint, nuclear is still the best source of power we have available. If we are going to bank any new technology on the idea of "this works well enough, figure out the details as we go and solve those problems later when they arise" nuclear is the one we should be running head first into. Yeah there was Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, but people forget that they had to actively cause Chernobyl to fail for it to happen and 3 Mile Island was an example of all of the fail safes working correctly and preventing catasrophe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arlekiin /img/forum/go_quote.gif In the previous thread I was making the same point about dvorak vs qwerty and how IBM had produced alot of qwerty keyboards and pushed them through alltough better layout had emerged. And another status quo was established.

QWERTY was established long, long before computers came out. And it was established for good reason (And because of good salesmen, but that was to be expected). Even the oldest IBM keyboards I can remember (And actively, I can only think as old as the M-Series sadly) have had keys that could easily be rearranged for any keybaord set up.

Dvorak didn't become the standard simply because QWERTY was too well established when it came out. Yeah the performance benchmarks were good (And a little questionable last I heard), but QWERTY had decades if not longer of time to establish itself. Typists don't like relearning how to type.




Back on topic, I want throttle wires back. And dumb down the cars. All of the electronics are neat and all, but I don't want the car always undoing what i'm trying to do.

 

[Arlekiin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blind Tree Frog /img/forum/go_quote.gif Meh, most of those estimates I have seen Back on topic, I want throttle wires back. And dumb down the cars. All of the electronics are neat and all, but I don't want the car always undoing what i'm trying to do.

Hehe thats right, its lame when your car fails because of moisture or because its having a bad day (computer personality crisis - everyone owning a computer should know what I am talking about.

 

[shigzeo]

if we are going to stay in the spirit of the op: transportation and at least what seems to be industrial revolution times, i will say the bicycle. it is once made, sometimes maintained, but propelled by an infinite source of renewable energy.

its footprint is small so that if in mass use, cities could shrink, people could walk again, lessening obesity and dependence on the selfish and dangerous automobile which enables evil to be more evil and holds the good in people captive till they exit the contraption.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Quote:

Originally Posted by shigzeo /img/forum/go_quote.gif if we are going to stay in the spirit of the op: transportation and at least what seems to be industrial revolution times, i will say the bicycle. it is once made, sometimes maintained, but propelled by an infinite source of renewable energy. its footprint is small so that if in mass use, cities could shrink, people could walk again, lessening obesity and dependence on the selfish and dangerous automobile which enables evil to be more evil and holds the good in people captive till they exit the contraption.

China was only recently a country to look up to in this regard, but it has, as a nation, abandoned this sustainable technology, and is now a net importer of oil. Further, it is combing the whole world for sources of petroleum.

One "old" technology which is down, but not out, is cold fusion. Yes, it's still alive.

 

[Blind Tree Frog]

Cold fusion has never been figured out. Hot fusion sure, but cold fusion is still one of those holy grailes.


And bikes are only sustainable tech if you ignore how much a bike can't do and the added caloric intake the populace would need to be able to maintain a similar lifestyle.

 

[ronnielee54]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skylab /img/forum/go_quote.gif Vacuum tubes and turntables!!!!!!

And reel to reel

 

[Lazarus Short]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blind Tree Frog /img/forum/go_quote.gif Cold fusion has never been figured out. Hot fusion sure, but cold fusion is still one of those holy grailes. And bikes are only sustainable tech if you ignore how much a bike can't do and the added caloric intake the populace would need to be able to maintain a similar lifestyle.

Cold fusion may not be figured out, but it may just be because physics took a wrong turn a long time ago.

I call the bicycle sustainable technology because it avoids, limitations granted, many of the problems associated with petroleum-based technologies. Also, do balance the caloric intake versus increased fitness and health.

 

[limpidglitch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lazarus Short /img/forum/go_quote.gif China was only recently a country to look up to in this regard, but it has, as a nation, abandoned this sustainable technology, and is now a net importer of oil. Further, it is combing the whole world for sources of petroleum. One "old" technology which is down, but not out, is cold fusion. Yes, it's still alive.

Remember Katie Meluas 2005 Nine Million Bicycles?

There are now 11 million bicycles in Beijing.