| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Sam Wormley" |
| Date: |
12 Nov 2005 09:49:57 PM |
| Object: |
MIT research could clear up foggy problem |
MIT research could clear up foggy problem
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/fog.html
Foggy windows and lenses are a nuisance, and in the case of
automobile windows, can pose a driving hazard. Now, MIT scientists
may have found a permanent solution to the problem. The team has
developed a unique polymer coating--made of silica
nanoparticles--that they say can create surfaces that never fog.
The transparent coating can be applied to eyeglasses, camera lenses,
ski goggles ... even bathroom mirrors, they say. The
new coating was described Aug. 29 at the national meeting of the
American Chemical Society.
Researchers have been developing anti-fog technology for years, but
each approach has its drawbacks. Some stores carry special anti-fog
sprays that help reduce fogging on the inside of car windows, but the
sprays must be constantly reapplied to remain effective. Glass
containing titanium dioxide also shows promise for reduced fogging,
but the method only works in the presence of ultraviolet (UV) light,
researchers say.
"Our coatings have the potential to provide the first permanent
solution to the fogging problem," says co-study leader Michael
Rubner, the TDK Professor of Materials Science and Engineering. "They
remain stable over long periods, don't require light to be activated
and can be applied to virtually any surface." Coated glass appears
clearer and allows more light to pass through than untreated glass
while maintaining the same smooth texture, said Rubner, who
collaborated on the work with Robert Cohen, the Raymond A. and Helen
E. St Laurent Professor of Chemical Engineering.
The coatings consist of alternating layers of silica nanoparticles,
which are basically tiny particles of glass, and a polymer called
polyallylamine hydrochloride, both of which are relatively cheap to
manufacture, Rubner says. He has applied for a patent on the
manufacturing process and says that the coating could be available in
consumer products in two to five years. The military and at least two
major car manufacturers have already expressed interest in using the
technology, he says.
When fogging occurs, thousands of tiny water droplets condense on
glass and other surfaces. The droplets scatter light in random
patterns, causing the surfaces to become translucent or foggy. This
often occurs when a cold surface suddenly comes into contact with
warm, moist air.
The new coating prevents this process from occurring, primarily
through its super-hydrophilic, or water-loving, nature, Rubner says.
The nanoparticles in the coating strongly attract the water droplets
and force them to form much smaller contact angles with the surface.
As a result, the droplets flatten and merge into a uniform,
transparent sheet rather than forming countless individual
light-scattering spheres. "The coating basically causes water that
hits the surfaces to develop a sustained sheeting effect, and that
prevents fogging," says Rubner, who is director of MIT's Center for
Materials Science and Engineering.
The same coatings also can be engineered to have superior
anti-reflective properties that reduce glare and maximize the amount
of light passing through, an effect that shows promise for improving
materials used in greenhouses and solar cell panels. So far, the
coating is more durable on glass than plastic surfaces, but Rubner
and colleagues are currently working on processes to optimize the
effectiveness of the coating for all surfaces.
This work was funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) and the National Science Foundation.
.
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: MIT research could clear up foggy problem |
12 Nov 2005 11:46:07 PM |
|
|
20 mpg $ 4 is a nuisance.
piston engines are 10 % fuel effective.
at best.
O2 and gas and air is 5 times stronger.
BUT converting thrust direct to rotation is STUPID .
3 x 40 inch cyl 32 inch full of water blasted into the tank past the
flap is BETTER.
Driving the sliding vane rotor is better.
10 times better.
4 cylinders firing one per second 60 bangs into the tank 1/2 full of
air is better .
Thrust into potentual energy is more effective .
Car engines are retarted .
.
|
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: MIT research could clear up foggy problem |
13 Nov 2005 05:36:07 AM |
|
|
"tj Frazir" <GravityPhysics@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:76-4376D31F-135@storefull-3214.bay.webtv.net...
20 mpg $ 4 is a nuisance.
piston engines are 10 % fuel effective.
at best.
O2 and gas and air is 5 times stronger.
BUT converting thrust direct to rotation is STUPID .
3 x 40 inch cyl 32 inch full of water blasted into the tank past the
flap is BETTER.
Driving the sliding vane rotor is better.
10 times better.
4 cylinders firing one per second 60 bangs into the tank 1/2 full of
air is better .
Thrust into potentual energy is more effective .
Car engines are retarted .
and how is the prototype coming along?
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: MIT research could clear up foggy problem |
13 Nov 2005 12:31:07 PM |
|
|
Im telling all about whale engine 2 and 1 .
They cant comprehend whale 7 ballanced gas air steam twin with a
sliding vane between yet.
So Im running a brand new whale 2 and whale 1 . Whale 1 is a internal
combustion water rocket .
2 , is 3 or more cylinders firing once each to blast a 20 - 30 inch
stroke or more past the flap at its end into a tank 1/2 full of water.
Instead of converting thrust from combust into rotation it is potentual
in the tank.
3 cylinders fire once per second.
3x 60 inch cyliners ,,normal stroke is around 30 inches to 40.
70 cubic inch intake per stroke put in the top 10 inch of pipe , 280
cubic inch water out the bottom of cylinder.
The fill flap is just outside the tank and fills the pipe as top valve
opens and lets air out.
The pipe just fills to te water line ,,the pipe sticks up out of the
water 10 inch and the top valveis at the water line so it dont fill
above the line ... then 4 lb o2 is injected then 100 - 150 psi air
injected then gas and ignition.
02 and gas is 5 times better then just gas .
The water is blasted past the flap and is trapped in the 200 psi tank
and the water compresses the water in the top 1/2 of the tank . The
water pistons are just balsted into the tank till they wount go in and
te flap slams shut having more psi inside the tank pushing te flap over
the cylinder pipe.
then the top valve opens and water flows in and refills it ,,its a
trap the other way on the cylinder pipe onthe outside of the tank.
The Slinding vane rotor has an inner cam wheel ..it a 12 inch x 4 inch
,,runs 1 square inch normal at 200 to 300 psi at 1250 rpm .
The car dont nead a trans.
the rotor is conected direct to the wheels.
A far better engine .
10 X mpg .
whale 7 ballanced gas air steam has no tank just an oposit piston with
the rotor betwen .
The water will boil O2 increased and gas backed off to controle the
boil..
1/2 ic 1/2 steam engine boath o2 boosted..
In a veritable sliding vane rotor with the inner cam wheel ,
12 and 24 inch rotor sandwitch between 2 tall cylinders 3 x 30 inch.
138 hp 225 mpg
277 hp 162 mpg
45 hp 315 mpg ,,,
up to 2000 foot pounds at the wheel at slow speeds.
.
|
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: MIT research could clear up foggy problem |
13 Nov 2005 01:52:30 PM |
|
|
"tj Frazir" <GravityPhysics@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:24395-4377866B-565@storefull-3215.bay.webtv.net...
Im telling all about whale engine 2 and 1 .
They cant comprehend whale 7 ballanced gas air steam twin with a
sliding vane between yet.
Feel free to post photos/video of your engine somewhere.
If you want to prove you can get good mpg there are test tracks you can
hire.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: MIT research could clear up foggy problem |
13 Nov 2005 08:46:33 PM |
|
|
No one in physics should nead proof other then the facts .
A 4 stroke car piston moves 16 inches in one stroke . Ship engines
run at 100 rpm max with 10 foot strokes.
O2 and gas air is 5 better then gas air without o2 .. and piston
engines are only 10 % fuel effective.
So if its stupid to convert combustion thrust into rotation with a
piston and crank why do it ?
Blasting 280 cubic inches of water into a tank so the water compresses
air stores more of that stroke , and the sliding vane rotor uses the
volume better.
10 x mpg .
5 to 1 stroke . o2 boosted gas , 350 psi att 4 % 02 and 96 % compressed
air slams 289 cubic inch into the tank that is 200 psi .
The lpe runs better smoother .
Test tracks are foor poor people.
I posted all the whale 2 this week.
4 cylinders 3 x 60 with one end bent up so it sticks above the water
line 10 inches.
Thats how far the cylinder will fill with water then after it fires and
the top valve lets the air out the water pushes the fill trap open just
befor the pipe goes into the tank where it pushes the trap open at the
end of the cylinder into the tank.
Posting pics would let people make thiers look like mine . Posting
pics is a security breach .
gov wount let the pic post on.
Do you know what the oil co will loose ???
the fat cats kill , its not a safe world.
Fascist fear this engine .
whale 2 beats the electric bill.
whale 2 can be biult in any shop .
Drive a whale 2 on a test track and show ford o gm ,,they will follow
you home and the navy will come take it. They know all about whale
engines I gave them all one .
The gov dont want it to be seen.
10 % gph will hurt the richest people .
they have you paying out the ***** and dont want it stopped.
.
|
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: MIT research could clear up foggy problem |
14 Nov 2005 02:22:36 AM |
|
|
"tj Frazir" <GravityPhysics@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:24119-4377FA89-785@storefull-3218.bay.webtv.net...
No one in physics should nead proof other then the facts .
But unfortunately physicists don't rule the world. The accountants do.
To make any progress you need independant test results from a credible
source. For example have a company like AEA Technology test a prototype it
on the official urban cycle.
This site has details of a pure electric car (not a hybrid) that they tested
nearly TWO years ago...
http://www.evuk.co.uk/news/index.html#jesterlion
Quite impressive results...
Extra urban cycle: 255 km/156 miles
Urban cycle: 326 km/ 204 miles
Urban cycle power consumption: 0.121 kWh/km
Extra urban cycle power consumption: 0.155 kwh/km
Maximum speed measured during tests: 114 kmh/71 mph
Useable energy stored in batteries: 39.6 kWh
Motor: Advanced DC with Regenerative Braking
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: MIT research could clear up foggy problem |
14 Nov 2005 10:41:04 AM |
|
|
I dont nead independent idiots seeing anything.
I gave the navy ford honda and gm engines.
They had a chance.
Accoutants dont rule nothin.
An accontants dont biuld engines and testers dont know what neads
tested.
I dont nead thier suport.
Why would I let them even see it ?
Ford used no independent pannel of testers.
Will 70 cubic inches at 350 pounds ram 280 cubic inches of water
into a tank 1/2 full of air at 200 psi ? Sure as ***** will.
How will an independent bunch of idiots make any improvements ?
I dont nead investors ,,I dont nead an independent pannel to pump
stocks.
Im going to slam the market with 15 years of evolution in liquid
pistons . Drop 10 million engines on the market like a bomb .
near 2 million biult so far 138 lpe 8 with 2 rotor.
We are talkin about the can banging lpe 2 not the 8. and I just biult
this can banger for natural gas and o2 for hot water heaters that
produce electric via whale 2 . Ive just started testing it and might
change it.
LPE 8 dont nead tested..it has over 1 million miles on them. They
wount tell me a thing.
And I dont nead them for the reasons you think I do. The independent
pannel is in some one elses pocket. Ill give tem a whale 7 no..whale 6
maybe.
You can biuld a 2 . Its simple .
Ignorance of brainwashed V8 drivers dont like the change . They are
in love with the american nationalisem and wont look at anything new.
The gov steels the navy steels ..dont count on the feds handing you
a fair deal.
I gave a few other billionaires cars with lpe 8 .
They dont nead an independent tester.
20 billionaires out math the feds.
The feds started ramming so much ***** that is worthless as a
dissinformation tactic .
The feds will spand more to stop the end of high gas prices and
greenhouse gasses.
Because they oposed it... Ill sneak up and ***** with th trade rules and
set the fuckers up .
Then when I can import 10 million engines ad secure tv adds its in the
consumers hands.
Here some rules ..
1 ,, get a patent befor you can manufacture.
2 , cant get a pattent against national security
3 ,, an engine that ends the oil age willl distroy the oil industry ,,
so the gov protects the oil industry and wount let the pattent grant.
4, cant post a pic or I breached security.
5 .. Ill import it .
The corruption
is limitless in gov protection of big bizz.
IF I gave the tester the whale 8 ,,
the navy will go get it and make shure they never say a word about it.
The oil boss my have them shot .
The rag headed oil bosses will drop anything they can get on it. They
manufacture an ignorant era becaus they all know what lpe will do .
its a 15 year ordeal .
they all know its real and simple.
10 % the fuel demand wipes out 1/2 the rich around this planet.
They will spend any amount to stop and dissinformation it away .
letting testors have an engine might get them killed. Why else would
DOE hide engines ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: MIT research could clear up foggy problem |
14 Nov 2005 11:34:21 AM |
|
|
"tj Frazir" <GravityPhysics@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:24119-4378BE20-869@storefull-3218.bay.webtv.net...
I dont nead independent idiots
They aren't for you they are to give consumers confidence in your product. I
haven't yet seen you post any performance claims that allow a
directcomparison to be made... but then I haven't read all your posts.
Im going to slam the market with 15 years of evolution in liquid
pistons . Drop 10 million engines on the market like a bomb .
Wow a free car engine. Sorry I've already got one - came free with the car
and the mechanics around here know how to make it sing.
near 2 million biult so far
I think that should be enough to convince the world.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: MIT research could clear up foggy problem |
14 Nov 2005 05:43:01 PM |
|
|
Another idiot that neads an independent pannel because he dont know
*****.
The independent pannel wount tell the truth and is not independent.
3 x 40 inch stroke with o2 boost is not brain surgery .. any
dicckhead should understand it ,,why dont you ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: MIT research could clear up foggy problem |
15 Nov 2005 01:08:55 PM |
|
|
"tj Frazir" <GravityPhysics@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:10408-43792105-889@storefull-3216.bay.webtv.net...
Another idiot that neads an independent pannel because he dont know
*****.
The independent pannel wount tell the truth and is not independent.
3 x 40 inch stroke with o2 boost is not brain surgery .. any
dicckhead should understand it ,,why dont you ?
Well thats one way to approach your customers.
Tell me what percentage of car buyers understand how a conventional
gas/petrol engine works? I reckon it's less than 20%
.
|
|
|
| User: "Black Knight" |
|
| Title: Re: MIT research could clear up foggy problem |
15 Nov 2005 04:53:28 PM |
|
|
"CWatters" <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote in message
news:bnqef.49352$HO7.2648175@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
"tj Frazir" <GravityPhysics@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:10408-43792105-889@storefull-3216.bay.webtv.net...
Another idiot that neads an independent pannel because he dont know
*****.
The independent pannel wount tell the truth and is not independent.
3 x 40 inch stroke with o2 boost is not brain surgery .. any
dicckhead should understand it ,,why dont you ?
Well thats one way to approach your customers.
Tell me what percentage of car buyers understand how a conventional
gas/petrol engine works? I reckon it's less than 20%
The phuckwit can't spell his own name and yet refers to others as
"idiot".
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: MIT research could clear up foggy problem |
15 Nov 2005 08:13:44 PM |
|
|
Whale 2 on gas air and o2 is 300 to 500 psi .
70 cubic inches compressed to 24 cu .
tank psi is 200 and 260 cubic inch drives the rotor at 1250 rpm.
Pmax diesel o2 and air is 2800 psi..1000 psi tank and 260 cubic inch
trns the rotor 8 times .
but a stroke can be 400 cubic inches.
10 inch of head will blast 40 inches of water out the end of the pipe
into a tank with less presure.
Its fucking simple ..
4 cylinders 6 feet long are bent so the top end is 10 inches above the
water line .
inject compresion fuel and o2 ign .
The end of the cylinder is insdie the tank .
The water will push a flap open and flow into the tank and air will be
pushed up in the tank .
The stroke was not converted to rotation it is potentual energy in the
tank.
The entire fuel burnt and all the stroke was worth went into the tank .
The sliding vane rotor is the best way to convert it .
A piston has mechncical limits , and time limits . a lpe dont , 1000
psi tank from diesel o2 at pmax 2800 psi will blast 400 inches per
second into 1000 pounds.
4000 foot pounds direct to the wheels out of te hole.
.
|
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: MIT research could clear up foggy problem |
16 Nov 2005 02:22:26 AM |
|
|
"tj Frazir" <GravityPhysics@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:24119-437A95D8-1110@storefull-3218.bay.webtv.net...
Whale 2 on gas air and o2 is 300 to 500 psi .
70 cubic inches compressed to 24 cu .
tank psi is 200 and 260 cubic inch drives the rotor at 1250 rpm.
Ok so your liquid piston produces a tank full of compressed air. I'm
obviously an idiot because I don't understand how you use that to drive the
wheels without using another piston. Any diagrams?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Black Knight" |
|
| Title: Re: MIT research could clear up foggy problem |
16 Nov 2005 11:11:48 AM |
|
|
"CWatters" <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote in message
news:6%Bef.49822$bN7.2593858@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
"tj Frazir" <GravityPhysics@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:24119-437A95D8-1110@storefull-3218.bay.webtv.net...
Whale 2 on gas air and o2 is 300 to 500 psi .
70 cubic inches compressed to 24 cu .
tank psi is 200 and 260 cubic inch drives the rotor at 1250 rpm.
Ok so your liquid piston produces a tank full of compressed air. I'm
obviously an idiot because I don't understand how you use that to drive
the
wheels without using another piston. Any diagrams?
LOL, Colin...too much!
Nice one.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: MIT research could clear up foggy problem |
16 Nov 2005 01:29:33 PM |
|
|
I dont expect idiots that dont undrstand engines to understand engines.
A 3 x 40 inch stroke blast water past the flap at the end of the
cylinder into the tank that is 1/2 full of water.
Are you realy this stupid ?
you nead a pic ?? draw one.
3 x 60 inch pipe with a fill trap 6 inch befor the tank and a flap on
the end of the cylinder inside the tank .. use a 15 gal tank .
then drive a sliding vane rotor with an inside wheel the vanes run over
to get pushed up out o the rotor with.
Put the water line at 1/2 the tank and 10 inch of the cylinder above
the water line .
Then Ill tell you again how te compresor for the head works.
post it ill corect you .
.
|
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: MIT research could clear up foggy problem |
18 Nov 2005 05:40:49 PM |
|
|
"tj Frazir" <GravityPhysics@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:6444-437B889D-66@storefull-3216.bay.webtv.net...
I dont expect idiots that dont undrstand engines to understand engines.
Well I have built a steam engine (from metal stock) and I've stripped and
repaired petrol engines in several cars and lawnmowers. I'm also familar
with the operation of CO2 powered motors.
Still haven't got a clue what your talking about.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: MIT research could clear up foggy problem |
18 Nov 2005 11:00:07 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, CWatters
<colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be>
wrote
on Fri, 18 Nov 2005 23:40:49 GMT
<5Etff.51922$t37.3263618@phobos.telenet-ops.be>:
"tj Frazir" <GravityPhysics@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:6444-437B889D-66@storefull-3216.bay.webtv.net...
I dont expect idiots that dont undrstand engines to understand engines.
Well I have built a steam engine (from metal stock) and I've stripped and
repaired petrol engines in several cars and lawnmowers. I'm also familar
with the operation of CO2 powered motors.
Still haven't got a clue what your talking about.
Don't feel too bad. Nobody else does either. :-)
Certainly *I* don't.
In any event, what's there to understand about engines?
Piston gets air-fuel in its chamber, pushes up,
spark, pushes down to generate power, pushes out exhaust.
In the case of a liquid piston engine, insofar as I *do*
understand tj's "whale", the fluid gets thrust out to
some tank -- which now begs the obvious question as to
how precisely it gets back. Also, the injection of the
air-fuel mixture has to ensue, presumably under pressure.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: MIT research could clear up foggy problem |
19 Nov 2005 08:04:11 AM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:tsl253-vif.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
In sci.physics, CWatters
<colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be>
wrote
on Fri, 18 Nov 2005 23:40:49 GMT
<5Etff.51922$t37.3263618@phobos.telenet-ops.be>:
"tj Frazir" <GravityPhysics@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:6444-437B889D-66@storefull-3216.bay.webtv.net...
I dont expect idiots that dont undrstand engines to understand engines.
Well I have built a steam engine (from metal stock) and I've stripped and
repaired petrol engines in several cars and lawnmowers. I'm also familar
with the operation of CO2 powered motors.
Still haven't got a clue what your talking about.
Don't feel too bad. Nobody else does either. :-)
Certainly *I* don't.
In any event, what's there to understand about engines?
Piston gets air-fuel in its chamber, pushes up,
spark, pushes down to generate power, pushes out exhaust.
Huh?
NO SPARK, NO PISTON.
http://z.about.com/d/inventors/1/0/-/E/steamenginesavery.jpg
PISTON, NO SPARK
http://www.stirlingengine.com/graphics/mm7_home.jpg
SPARK, NO PISTON.
http://www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet/images/lh200aa.jpg
You don't seem to know much about engines.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: MIT research could clear up foggy problem |
19 Nov 2005 12:00:05 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Androcles
<Androcles@MyPlace.yep>
wrote
on Sat, 19 Nov 2005 14:04:11 GMT
<vhGff.31117$6A4.22219@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:tsl253-vif.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
In sci.physics, CWatters
<colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be>
wrote
on Fri, 18 Nov 2005 23:40:49 GMT
<5Etff.51922$t37.3263618@phobos.telenet-ops.be>:
"tj Frazir" <GravityPhysics@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:6444-437B889D-66@storefull-3216.bay.webtv.net...
I dont expect idiots that dont undrstand engines to understand engines.
Well I have built a steam engine (from metal stock) and I've stripped and
repaired petrol engines in several cars and lawnmowers. I'm also familar
with the operation of CO2 powered motors.
Still haven't got a clue what your talking about.
Don't feel too bad. Nobody else does either. :-)
Certainly *I* don't.
In any event, what's there to understand about engines?
Piston gets air-fuel in its chamber, pushes up,
spark, pushes down to generate power, pushes out exhaust.
Huh?
NO SPARK, NO PISTON.
http://z.about.com/d/inventors/1/0/-/E/steamenginesavery.jpg
PISTON, NO SPARK
http://www.stirlingengine.com/graphics/mm7_home.jpg
SPARK, NO PISTON.
http://www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet/images/lh200aa.jpg
You don't seem to know much about engines.
Androcles.
I was referring to the standard reciprocating internal combustion
variety, but you are correct; there are many engines, some
of which are even in use.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: MIT research could clear up foggy problem |
19 Nov 2005 02:41:19 PM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:vf3453-fa6.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
In sci.physics, Androcles
<Androcles@MyPlace.yep>
wrote
on Sat, 19 Nov 2005 14:04:11 GMT
<vhGff.31117$6A4.22219@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message
news:tsl253-vif.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
In sci.physics, CWatters
<colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be>
wrote
on Fri, 18 Nov 2005 23:40:49 GMT
<5Etff.51922$t37.3263618@phobos.telenet-ops.be>:
"tj Frazir" <GravityPhysics@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:6444-437B889D-66@storefull-3216.bay.webtv.net...
I dont expect idiots that dont undrstand engines to understand
engines.
Well I have built a steam engine (from metal stock) and I've stripped
and
repaired petrol engines in several cars and lawnmowers. I'm also
familar
with the operation of CO2 powered motors.
Still haven't got a clue what your talking about.
Don't feel too bad. Nobody else does either. :-)
Certainly *I* don't.
In any event, what's there to understand about engines?
Piston gets air-fuel in its chamber, pushes up,
spark, pushes down to generate power, pushes out exhaust.
Huh?
NO SPARK, NO PISTON.
http://z.about.com/d/inventors/1/0/-/E/steamenginesavery.jpg
PISTON, NO SPARK
http://www.stirlingengine.com/graphics/mm7_home.jpg
SPARK, NO PISTON.
http://www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet/images/lh200aa.jpg
You don't seem to know much about engines.
Androcles.
I was referring to the standard reciprocating internal combustion
variety, but you are correct; there are many engines, some
of which are even in use.
Two stroke or four stroke (one cycle or two cycles per spark... never can
tell
with yankee vocabulary) ?
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: MIT research could clear up foggy problem |
19 Nov 2005 04:54:06 PM |
|
|
LPE is compresion then fuel then spark and it pushes the water out the
pipe just like a piston.
The stroke is converted to potentual energy rather the converting the
stroke direct to rotation with a piston and rod.
The more of the stroke can be used. and used at the best radius and
time.
You can use the stroke tomarrow !!
You can put o2 with the gas air your car uses in the lpe .
Get more out of the fuel with o2 boost.
use more of the stroke by putting it in the tank.
evry stroke is perfect and all the fuel is burnt in evry stroke.
10 X the mpg and less smog to the point its a green engine.
No more cadalatic converters burning fuel your car dont. No more
polution fuel additives .
Longer range per tank 10 X .
.
|
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: MIT research could clear up foggy problem |
19 Nov 2005 06:02:36 PM |
|
|
"tj Frazir" <GravityPhysics@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:22802-437FAD0E-528@storefull-3218.bay.webtv.net...
evry stroke is perfect and all the fuel is burnt in evry stroke.
10 X the mpg and less smog to the point its a green engine.
No more cadalatic converters burning fuel your car dont. No more
polution fuel additives .
Longer range per tank 10 X .
Hold on just a moment. I thought modern car engines were between 20 and 40%
efficient. So at best a factor of between 2 and 5 is possible.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: MIT research could clear up foggy problem |
19 Nov 2005 09:01:15 PM |
|
|
gas air o2
70 cu inch compressed to 20 then with 4 psi o2 bc and 2 of the cars size
injector shots .
will blast 280 cubic inches o water past the 200 psi trap. and 70 up the
compresor tube .
diesel o2 will knock 500 cu inch into a 1000 pound tank and put 1200
psi in the compresor tube.
..
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: MIT research could clear up foggy problem |
19 Nov 2005 08:44:50 PM |
|
|
"CWatters" <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote in message
news:w2Pff.52642$ve7.3279917@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
"tj Frazir" <GravityPhysics@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:22802-437FAD0E-528@storefull-3218.bay.webtv.net...
evry stroke is perfect and all the fuel is burnt in evry stroke.
10 X the mpg and less smog to the point its a green engine.
No more cadalatic converters burning fuel your car dont. No more
polution fuel additives .
Longer range per tank 10 X .
Hold on just a moment. I thought modern car engines were between 20 and
40%
efficient. So at best a factor of between 2 and 5 is possible.
"Cadalatic" for catalytic? That's quite a conversion.
"burning fuel your car don"'"t"?
You are talking through its empty head, Colin.
It doesn't understand "%" or English. Its a gorilla with an IQ of 5, based
on the average gorilla IQ of 100.
It only made 5 because it said "burnt" instead of "burned".
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: MIT research could clear up foggy problem |
19 Nov 2005 09:10:31 PM |
|
|
3 x 60 inch pipes .
fill trap so water gets in not out at bottom of cylinder befor it goes
into the tank.
Flap on the end of the cylinder so water gets out but not in.
The water line is at 10 inches ,, slant the pipe so it is .
the exhaust valve at the water line and the air intake and injectors
are in the top 10 inches dry .
draw one up , let see if you are worth a ***** ghost
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: MIT research could clear up foggy problem |
19 Nov 2005 08:49:47 PM |
|
|
If they could burn o2 with the mix they would be 5 times stronger.
They waist 40 % getting to the wheels .
thats allmost 100 % better without the trans .
Is your car better at 1000 rpm or 5000 rpm ?
40 % compaired with what ?
Not compaired to a water rocket .
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: MIT research could clear up foggy problem |
19 Nov 2005 09:46:26 PM |
|
|
The cars effective force is 30 deg turn of the crank and is only best at
90 deg .
0- 20 deg trn of the crank is only 1/8 inch from the center of the
crank so leverage sucks .
The crank sucks ,,1000 pounds at 1.5 inch at 90 deg but 1000 pounds at
3/4 inch at 45 deg .
a 1 inch lever is not verry effective .
BUT 200 psi at 12 inchs is better .
1000 pounds at 1 inch for 30 deg .
OR 200 psi 200 pounds at 12 inches.
100 foot pounds or 200 foot pounds ?
The car wount go over 100 foot pounds .
The lpe will slide out 4 inches atslow speeds and thats 800 foot pounds
..
The car cant compete with lpe.
it will run at 48 HP 516 MPG.
then run at 266 hp 162 mpg.
when you slow down the rotor cam passes center and puts your momentum
into the tank backwards.
Liquid pistons is a new internal combustion method . Just me doing it
for 15 years.
Liquid Piston and slide vane rotor motors are
hard sci .
You can lauph lpe off ,,but not for long.
You could biuld 1000 lpe I never biult.
The aplications of lpe is wide.
engines that run on combined fuel chemical .
3500 psi tanks , rocket fuel, in very small coiled tube engines .
Tube cylinders from 1/3 inch x 12 inch coiled to strait 22 inch x 20
feet.
multible tube cylinders , are parts of volumes and volumes can take
many shapes.
horn shapes , ball , cone , cyl, pipe ,
bell.
60 compressed to 14 dentated to 190 is volume to volume .
The cylinder shapes and tank and trap shapes
can aply the most fluid volume to volume
stroke to tank. The least distance for water to move and the easyest
flap trap.
yet fit the object it works for.
combining the cylinder shape to work best with the tank and trap
shapes.
Till it dumps the most of the stroke into the tank .
till the smallest blast sends the most water past the trap.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: MIT research could clear up foggy problem |
19 Nov 2005 11:25:01 PM |
|
|
The cars effective force is 30 deg turn of the crank and is only best
at
90 deg .
0- 20 deg trn of the crank is only 1/8 inch from the center of the
crank so leverage sucks .
The crank sucks ,,1000 pounds at 1.5 inch at 90 deg but
1000..........snip
******************
Good argument for a controlled, totalitarian society.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: MIT research could clear up foggy problem |
19 Nov 2005 08:54:41 PM |
|
|
car is 792 cubic inches second intake gas air mix.
LPE is 70 cubic inches gas air 02 .
per second.
thats 10 to 1 .
at the engine ,,but it is 20 to 1 at the wheel.
19 to 1 at wheel.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: MIT research could clear up foggy problem |
19 Nov 2005 09:48:55 PM |
|
|
it injects 4 psi o2 then 150 psi air then fuel then fires it ,,in 1/50
sec.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
