Ringless engine technology

Discussion in 'General Questions' started by Fabian, Dec 24, 2013.

  1. Fabian

    Fabian Well-Known Member


  2. HeadSmess

    HeadSmess Well-Known Member

    naaaah....

    been doing it for years on RC... bit different but.

    noticed hydraulic spool valves dont require rings, and dont leak...but then straight oil is pretty viscous.

    wonder how it copes with blowby? and obviously, this swirling air effect takes a certain piston velocity...what happens at TDC when it stops, experiences the maximum pressure, and or at low cranking speeds?

    pistons still going to touch the wall at times unless...it was using a scotch yoke, wasnt it? so piston can go straight up and down with (almost) no side thrust... they then have problems with the "dwell" at TDC and BDC. a lot of crank movement for very little piston movement.

    the action is symmetrical, so balancing is much easier. the planes of vibration are distinct, and are easily controlled. piston only goes up and down, crankshaft only rotates. no con rod swinging side to side...

    cant recall its name, but theres a high compression petrol engine that works (almost) on the diesel cycle (no spark!) using the same "scotch yoke" principle...

    acceleration forces on piston are increased, despite mean piston velocity being decreased. due to the dwell times, it has a lot less stroking time to achieve full speed then slow back down again.


    the sliding block also produces a lot of friction. the yoke has been around just as long as the conrod, yet isnt in common use...for a reason.

    anyway!

    i thought engines had cooling systems because of the fact they combust a fuel and use heat to expand air that then produces pressure on the working parts? apparently not, all that heat is from the ring friction, now im being informed :)

    what i particularly like is that theres not even a working model of the concept. just a few "simulations".

    at least ralph sarichs managed to make several of his orbital engines with no CAD or huge funding!! just in his back shed, in his spare time.

    still - it didnt work! :jester:

    once again...wish i could find someone super rich that would just throw money at something and not even require a working result!

    maybe i should get into politics? :) multi million dollar feasibility studies to work out whether to blow a few million on another study or just add it to the "slush fund"... with a nice superannuation for when i retire (which will be way before the 70 yrs age theyre thinking of instigating)
     
  3. grinningremlin

    grinningremlin Active Member

    Yup,... old hat.Cox/Webra/Fox/Testors/Enya/ among many others, just use straight castor glow mix and who needs rings, though you have to scour the shellac off the cylinder walls occasionally.
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2013
  4. jaguar

    jaguar Well-Known Member

    If the cylinder compression is 120 psi then they have to generate that much air pressure at the piston grooves to counteract cylinder pressure. Comparing the energy loss to generate that pressure compared to the energy loss of ring friction I think the old design will come out ahead.
     
  5. butterbean

    butterbean Well-Known Member

    That **** blows my mind! If you read the whole article, the movement of the piston generates the air pressure, so energy loss would be negligible. And even if there is comparable energy loss (which I doubt), there are several other benefits to be considered here. If an engine could run cooler, be smaller and lighter and have higher volumetric efficiency (I'm thinking same hp at 1/2 the size, maybe even better), then why wouldn't it be better? It's definitely worth exploring, because it's way past time to be developing new engine technology. Sticking with what we know has gas at almost $4 a gallon U.S. And $4 for 20 miles is crap. I'm going to be following this development.
     
  6. HeadSmess

    HeadSmess Well-Known Member

    i had to do a google on the scotch yoke (that IS whats pictured in the link...) just to reassure myself about what i said...

    Internal combustion engine uses[edit]

    Under ideal engineering conditions, force is applied directly in the line of travel of the assembly. The sinusoidal motion, cosinusoidal velocity, and sinusoidal acceleration (assuming constant angular velocity) results in smoother operation. The higher percentage of time spent at top dead center (dwell) improves theoretical engine efficiency of constant volume combustion cycles.[5] It allows the elimination of joints typically served by a wrist pin, and near elimination of piston skirts and cylinder scuffing, as side loading of piston due to sine of connecting rod angle is mitigated. The longer the distance between the piston and the yoke, the less wear that occurs, but greater the inertia, making such increases in the piston rod length realistically only suitable for lower RPM (but higher torque) applications.[6][7]


    The Scotch Yoke is not used in most internal combustion engines because of the rapid wear of the slot in the yoke caused by sliding friction and high contact pressures[citation needed]. This is mitigated by a sliding block between the crank and the slot in the piston rod. Also, increased heat loss during combustion due to extended dwell at top dead center offsets any constant volume combustion improvements in real engines.[5] In an engine application, less percent of the time is spent at bottom dead center when compared to a conventional piston and crankshaft mechanism, which reduces blowdown time for two stroke engines. Experiments have shown that extended dwell time does not work well with constant volume combustion Otto Cycle Engines.[5] Gains might be more apparent in Otto Cycle Engines using a stratified direct injection (diesel or similar) cycle to reduce heat losses.[8]



    READ IT.

    now, consider that the piston does NOT move very fast at TDC or BDC... the time when it needs the most pressure in these "ring grooves"... and wouldnt the little vortices have to stop, and be created in the opposite direction each time the piston stops?

    i dont know why, but i doubt this will go any further than a glorified CAD drawing.


    i do like the idea, but the benefits are scanty, the disadvantages...numerous.



    concentrate on REAL new engine technology.... fuel cells, converting hydrocarbon fuel (that does not have to be highly refined gasoline) directly into electricity, with the majority of by products being water and co2, due to the near "perfect" combustion.


    just think, you could have a car like the delorean from back2the future! MARTY!!! we NEED MORE FUEL! just shove some banana peels in! and whats the old joke about butterflies and bees running out of fuel? it only runs on bee pee!

    (some guy worked for one of the big car companies, circa 1970 and did develop a urine powered engine...he was promptly fired. nothing to do with the latest nigerian idea which may just be bollocks)

    just like the efficiency of a diesel electric train is higher than a plain diesel truck...the engine runs at one steady speed (plus its really easy to plug another set of driving wheels in, rather than somehow drive a tailshaft down the length of a train, with all its associated losses)...combustion is as near as perfect as it can get in an internal combustion engine...(the giant cargo ship engines are the most efficient of internal engines) but...fuel cells dont produce waste heat, which is simply energy, being thrown out the window.

    for every 4 dollars you spend on gas, 3 dollars is thrown out the window... the internal combustion engine is very very lucky to get 50% efficiency in ideal circumstances- that rarely occur. turn on the heater and some of that waste heat is directed into the cabin...leave the window open and its gone. bye bye pay-cheque!

    ring friction probably accounts for, at most, 5% of the loss. just the cam shaft and springs alone add something around the 70% mark of losses. theres been plenty of moves to replace them with other methods, with little success(other than the early sleeve valved engines, that were commercially successful...but fallen out of favour now)

    (using daltons law, they could use that waste heat to run an airconditioner that wouldnt add extra load to the engine...we all know how aircon sucks down the fuel!)

    a fuel cell is closer to 98% efficient. shame thats only on hydrogen, but still...technology in some regards, does progress in amazing leaps and bounds.

    coupled to electric motors with high efficency ratings, regenerative braking, and battery storage... i like the sound of using 3 dollars out of every four to produce motive power to the current 1 out of four (or worse when you plant the pedal)

    no frictional losses due to gearboxes, churning oil, bearing after bearing after bearing....


    the internal combustion engine of any type, will simply be a museum piece in 50 years time, most likely. probably need a license just to start one up, the way things are going... the only thing that might save it is that some people like the roar of an unmuffled V-12 ? but considering that some people like cigarettes and thats almost banned (here at least) and will probably need a license... not to mention other things people like that ARE banned! :jester:


    back on the RC topic... nitro is being phased out, companies that were exclusively nitro are now producing electrics. (OS engines for instance) like honda has stopped making two strokes altogether... its commonly agreed that electric is now faster than nitro. yes, you can buy nitro engines...theyre getting cheaper. a few years time theyll start skyrocketing as tooling is removed, parts scrapped, spares sold off rather than sitting around gathering dust... just like the venerable cox .049 is now worth a fortune, when ten years ago they cost a few dollars...

    im australian, i should be supporting this invention, but i just cant bring myself to do so...



    oooh. last thing. (i dont know when to stop, do i? :jester: feel free to tell me to shutup or ignore me :))

    the bourke engine... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourke_engine

    read the bit about "claimed" and "measured" efficiency... engineering critiques... i know its not EXACTLY the same as this design in question, but its very similar...


    if it was as good as claimed...it would be in every car right now! other than mazdas with the bwap bwap motors :)



    im going. stopped raining.
     
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2013
  7. HeadSmess

    HeadSmess Well-Known Member

    and thats only cranking pressure...not actual dynamic operating pressure peaking upwards of 1000psi in a stock engine, over 1500 in a racing engine...
     
  8. keatonx

    keatonx Member

    That idea... With the grooves... I thought that was my invention:icon_cry: :icon_cry: :icon_cry:

    Seriously though, I couldn't find anything similar when I did patent searches!

    Anyways at first I was messing with directing the combustion pressure around from the head to the cylinder walls, where it meets up with corresponding grooves in the piston that are angled to direct the gas flow upward towards the combustion chamber. It wouldn't operate on constant pressure; it required the bursts of pressure from combustion to make the turbulence required. All the passageways were covered/uncovered by the piston at the right timing so passageways met up with the big groove in my piston when the pressure was released.
    View attachment 51486
    Piston groove

    image.jpg image.jpg
    Some old pics of some of the passageways (there were a lot), which were made out of brakeline and took hours upon hours to bend and position them through the holes I made in the fins. (there were some tricky ones!)

    That motor didn't end up building enough compression due to excessive piston/cyl clearance, the compression ratio being slightly reduced by the volume inside of the brakeline, and the compression being slowly released by another new design I had put on this same engine (it ran of cylinder pressure, and leaked. A lot). I just haven't got around to getting it fixed up. I had multiple ideas implemented on that motor, and it's a pain to get it all working right.

    image.jpg
    Yeah, just look at it. Too much going on, too many things to go wrong! But I never expected it to magically start up and run great like this one did-
    image.jpg

    So up until, well, a few minutes ago, I've been thinking up a new idea a lot like the one in the article; with specially shaped grooves (as many as possible) on the piston that causes turbulence in the blowby, which makes it swirl upward to make a high-pressure spot on the combustion chamber side of the groove.

    Like it said in the article, these designs wouldn't require lubrication because of the flow of blowby between the cyl and piston, acting like an air bearing. But it would likely only work correctly on a 2-stroke, because it is the only piston engine that has constant pressure above the piston. This is needed to keep the gases in the grooves pressurized and flowing.

    Good thing i saw this article tho, now I can stop wasting time on this idea and get working on some other, more feasible 2 stroke ideas I'm working on. Maybe even this messed up idea for a new kind of orbital engine that I have???
     
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2013
  9. keatonx

    keatonx Member

    You guys want to see a pretty cool engine, search up the Hossack engine. Allows for asymmetrical port timing, which is what we need for
    2 strokes
     
  10. butterbean

    butterbean Well-Known Member

    I seriously doubt that there would be any reason this idea could not work on a 4 stroke. Simply based on the idea that they are marketing this concept to the automotive industry, and for the funding they seek they would absolutely have to have the R&D to support it. These guys have engineering degrees and experience, and they're paid to figure these things out correctly. If there were any reason this wouldn't work, I'm sure they would have found it before seeking funding. Sounds like they are well into the testing phase to me.
     
  11. CanadaGlass

    CanadaGlass New Member

    Fuel cells have been getting hyped for over 20 years now, but it will never be mainstream technology. Not because it fails to live up to the hype, but because there isn't enough platinum on the planet to replace internal combustion engines...
     
  12. HeadSmess

    HeadSmess Well-Known Member

    gets away with out cylinder lube because the scotch yoke linkage (virtually) eliminates any side thrust, combined with no wrist pin, means the piston doesnt rock in the bore, means it doesnt touch cylinder except in the most extreme of conditions. that bits cool. they make AWESOME compressors (what the rotary engine was originally developed as).

    i like the hossack engine...at least that guy made a working model too! just like good old ralph sarichs... unfortunately, it suffers much the same issue as the rotary...seals.

    a ring works by combustion pressure forcing it DOWN onto the base of the groove, and OUT into the cylinder wall. as soon as you try sealing flat sides and corners...it needs all these separate seals, and each seal is going to suffer what is called "ring flutter"... its bad enough in a plain engine... rotor apex seals chatter, which is basically the same thing...

    its really easy to make a cylinder, really easy to make a (almost) round piston, but as honda found out when they made that oval pistoned engine...really really hard to make any other shape! how to hone them? how to rebore them? rotaries? once a rotary wears out in the chamber...thats it. engines buggered. there arent oversized rotors available.

    id like to see this concept in a running rotor...this grooved idea, cus if it DOES work... all those arguments go out the window, and i post a video of me eating a boot :)


    i still dont see a working model, and if these guys have all this money to throw at R&D...wheres the freaking prototype?


    PHD means nothing. some guy in his back shed can make a running engine, and these guys CANT.

    keaton...they look as ugly as all hell, but still... you have a go, and there my argument stands... just some guy in his back shed, having a go and (maybe) making a working model...


    oh! and theres one for you...did orville and wilbur wright have degrees, PHD's, and big industry support? nope. they made that engine FROM ALLOY, the first of its kind, with a DRILL PRESS. a file. and a chisel. not much else.

    nope. this is going to be another librato motor.

    GMC and other companies spent MEGA BUCKS years ago, trialling all these alternate ideas and only the rotor has stayed on with us (and mazda has called it a draw and ceased production of the rotor). isnt GMC defunct now? poor america. sold all their manufacturing tools to overseas or scrapped them and is now broke...



    what happened to the $20 throw away rotary developed in the 50's? good luck finding info on it! (try mechanics illustrated)


    no running prototype yet...

    repeat, no running prototype yet...

    once again. NO RUNNING PROTOTYPE IN SIGHT.


    memory formatting......complete
     
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2013
  13. HeadSmess

    HeadSmess Well-Known Member

    agreed. theyve been hyped over for 50 or more years...

    but, considering that approximately thirty years ago LED basically didnt exist, nor the lithium ion battery, or the touch screen, or even mobile phones...


    while platinum has been the best catalyst found so far, theres a few alternatives... but of course...you still need oxygen, in a pure form...

    gunna take energy to do that, right there...

    i like the idea of just burning ALL the oil now, then theres no longer a monopoly in the oil game... well have no choice but to work out something better... amazing what developments necessity can produce...
     
  14. CanadaGlass

    CanadaGlass New Member

    Pressure swing absorption is the cheapest approach to making pure o2, and it's not very efficent...but I know little about fuel cells, and was unaware they called for pure oxygen. As a glassblower, I know a little about producing oxygen, and some of the problems with hydrogen. Being the smallest possible molecule, it leaks like a SOB, degrades rubber, and makes metal brittle. I think using liquid nitrogen as an energy carrier is much more promising. Admittedly only about an 1/8th the energy density of gasoline, its main advantage is in having zero emissions. My first thread on the forum was about this idea:
    http://www.motoredbikes.com/showthr...ustics-liquid-nitrogen-and-rotary-vane-motors
     
  15. butterbean

    butterbean Well-Known Member

    I think you're all failing to realize something very important. The R&D on fuel cells and all that jazz is going to be very expensive. If it wasn't, it would probably already be mainstream, or at least a lot closer to market. Adapting the ICE is going to be far less expensive, and the price of the final product will be comparable to the current technology. Sure, we can spend the money to develop fuel cells and all that, or we can improve on current technology at half the cost and be ready to come to market sooner. I vote for less expensive and coming to market faster.
     
  16. keatonx

    keatonx Member

    Who knows, their diagram is a scotch yoke engine, so I wouldn't be surprised if they're ready to make some big changes.

    On a side note, now that I think of it, a forced induction 4 stroke/deisel's combustion chamber is always under pressure, assuming it's always making significant boost. But then they say something about the movement of the piston causing "high speed eddies", so they're might be other things going on in there.

    These articles always confuse me; there's always not enough information, incorrect information, too many fancy catchphrases("high speed eddies"), etc.
     
  17. grinningremlin

    grinningremlin Active Member

    Until they figure a way to make LiPo/electric, safe/light/rapid-recharge (refuel) as liquid petrol, OR until you see passenger planes flying electric, none of this stuff is any more than research.Lipo is known to blow up all by itself, has a short shelf life (used or not), I've seen RC gas and Lipo planes catch fire on crashing, but never even HEARD of a glow powered plane catching fire.Just think of the people touting wind energy, I read it takes a five gallon bucket of axle grease PER TURBINE PER MONTH!!! That's a lot of petroleum.I'm for whatever gets me the furthest being the lightest/cheapest, that's good ol' gasoline at the moment.What I want is a tiny titanium diesel engine that I can mount on the GEBE.
     
  18. HeadSmess

    HeadSmess Well-Known Member

    they prefer pure oxygen, pure fuels, mainly because of that catalyst! platinum, coming in contact with lead and certain other metals...big no no! thats where the RD is directed...reducing that requirement, that danger... you have to pump air through them somehow, and when the atmosphere is only approx 16% oxy... a lot of wastage.

    as a comparison...oxy acetylene cutting...even with only 96% oxy, the cutting rate is almost halved, over pure oxy! something like that, anyway...been a while since i saw the chart. but at a certain (fairly high) percentage, it just stops working!


    what sort of glass blowing? jewellery ornamentation type or laboratory glassware type? i used to love doing that stuff :)

    (the following is just me having a rant....its not directed at anyone in particular...just venting :) its all related from where im standing)

    yeah, tis a silly idea :) though a fuel cell kit can be bought on ebay for a few dollars... they are fun to play with :) does the energy required to make the hydrogen and oxygen ever become available through the subsequent re-combination? nope. some vanishes. and entropy increases. entropy...when all energy levels have reached equilibrium. no transfer possible. stasis. dead.

    ## 1932, Charles H. Garrett, USA, the first to run a Internal Combustion Engine car with water, using water electrolysis, and obtaining a patent, 70 years ago… :United States Patent, 2,006,676, Electrolytic Carburetor, Texas, 1932, Serial No. 620,364.

    garret_electrolys_carb.gif


    just cus you can draw something, and get a patent on it, doesnt mean it WORKS!



    at least, mainstream science and all these shell and exxon funded studies tell us it doesnt work... im yet to (personally) see anyone actually have a go at making one of these things... i know when i tried pumping some hydrogen into a running dirtbike, it promptly needed a new head gasket :jester: thats as far as ive gone, myself...one can only dream! (for more money to experiment with these crazy ideas)

    why wouldnt they teach us about magnetics in highschool?

    what is gravity, exactly? really? time? what about that one?

    im getting esotoric now :)

    and why, exactly, is "naescent" (newly created) hydrogen so much more reactive than old hydrogen from a bottle? that one is well known in chemistry. i think its a monatomic thing... 2xH1 rather than 1xH2. dont have to split the molecule before combining with the other element in the reaction. saves some energy.

    ever heard of atomic hydrogen welding? it was a precursor to the TIG, was an evolution of the carbon arc and the oxy hydrogen welding. basically, an arc is struck between two tungsten elsctrodes, and a stream of hydrogen is directed through the arc. this does some weird thing and somehow transfers the energy of the arc through the hydrogen, that is being split into plain hydrogen atoms... as described in my comprehensive 1942 lincoln welding handbook :) it was quite popular at the time, mostly for what tig is used for now! because, back then...all tig was scratch start...meaning contaminated welds...

    ( i always saw the transfer of hydrogen through another material as being almost like the flow of electricity in a cable.... electron fills a convenient hole, and one pops out the other side! all it needs is a lil protonic companion, and there you are...hydrogen...thats just the way i see it, and is probably wrong wrong wrong but nevermind, i like it!)



    then theres this idea...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy


    right down near the bottom... the high temperature part, and this bit mainly...

    "Molten salt storage[edit]


    The 150 MW Andasol solar power station is a commercial parabolic trough solar thermal power plant, located in Spain. The Andasol plant uses tanks of molten salt to store solar energy so that it can continue generating electricity even when the sun isn't shining.[66]
    A variety of fluids have been tested to transport the sun's heat, including water, air, oil, and sodium, but Rockwell International[67] selected molten salt as best.[68] Molten salt is used in solar power tower systems because it is liquid at atmospheric pressure, provides a low-cost medium to store thermal energy, its operating temperatures are compatible with today's steam turbines, and it is non-flammable and nontoxic. Molten salt is used in the chemical and metals industries to transport heat, so industry has experience with it.
    The first commercial molten salt mixture was a common form of saltpeter, 60% sodium nitrate and 40% potassium nitrate. Saltpeter melts at 220 °C (430 °F) and is kept liquid at 290 °C (550 °F) in an insulated storage tank. Calcium nitrate can reduce the melting point to 131°C, permitting more energy to be extracted before the salt freezes. There are now several technical calcium nitrate grades stable at more than 500°C.
    This solar power system can generate power in cloudy weather or at night using the heat in the tank of hot salt. The tanks are insulated, able to store heat for a week. Tanks that power a 100-megawatt turbine for four hours would be about 9 m (30 ft) tall and 24 m (80 ft) in diameter.
    The Andasol power plant in Spain is the first commercial solar thermal power plant using molten salt for heat storage and nighttime generation. It came on line March 2009.[69] On July 4, 2011, a company in Spain celebrated an historic moment for the solar industry: Torresol’s 19.9 MW concentrating solar power plant became the first ever to generate uninterrupted electricity for 24 hours straight, using a molten salt heat storage.[70]"


    just think... a small fresnel lens (only a few metres across) supplying ALL the power for your house? no fuel at all? sure, implementation is tricky, but storing a highly flammable liquid is pretty hairy in itself... and having hi tension powerlines crackling away over, seemingly, every school in AU..

    its been done. the system is available, but dont expect a rebate for installing it, just yet.

    go look up daltons law, and just contempate it as an air conditioner...heat one part up...to cool one part down. it has been done. gas fired refrigerators, ahem? and the aircon idea. try and BUY one of them, but ;)

    instead of storing electricity, store HEAT. a plug in heat exchanger on your car... just sucks some of the juice from your main storage tank buried in the ground... no vapours, no carcinogenics... exhaust fumes..cat convertors...

    its very easy to store heat. just add more insulation! generate the power as required...

    you would be amazed how long it takes 10kg of table salt to cool down from 900C, just sitting on a bench!

    like water..salt has a lot of LATENT heat. specific heat is what you measure in degrees. latent is what you measure in WATTS/mass

    all batteries go flat, self discharge, at a rate determined by chemistry type. heat will eventually escape too. but batteries degrade... salt doesnt. the tank might corrode eventually, but otherwise, it will store just as much energy in ten years as it did the day it was installed.

    could even make some type of "heat pack" that you swap at the garage/ service station... minutarised, as a battery pack, some type of thermoelectric coupling or a sterling generator? plenty of ways to tackle it!

    but, like CNG...implementing it, getting it out there in a big enough way to be viable. electric cars....pfft, old hat...what did they use in the early 20th century?

    windpower? the dutch do it properly. neat lil wind turbines. vertical shafts. us? ours cost more to service and erect than they will EVER produce in their useful lifespan... not to mention the noise of the dam things!

    desalination...why, in australia, with all our sunshine, do we NOT have solar powered desalination, like they do in other countries? oh no, just spend a few billion on these great monstrosities that as soon as they were finished...never needed to go into service! all the dams flooded! thankfully, cus who was going to pay the power bill?

    what did someone once say? if half our roads (in AU) were turned into heat exchangers and used to generate power...we would be leaving the coal, the CNG, the coal seam gas, the lpg, the petroleum... under ground.

    seriously, whos going to implement THAT?

    its almost as ludicrous as Teslas dream to transmit power without wires! WHAAAAT?!? how do you make any MONEY MONEY MONEY out of that?

    im a miserable ***** :) the worlds screwed and the sooner the human race wipes itself out, the better :) its all about money money money, and whats it done? you cant just "live off the land", you own land...you gotta pay for it! you have to make money, just to give to some beauracrat, so you can retain your small parcel of dirt.
    small towns are dying as people leave in swarms for the big smoke with lots and lots of money! the shops close. the few remaining farmers...where do they go to get fuel? to get food that they cant grow? transport what they do produce? get bitten by a snake or get appendicitis? they give up, sell the land, and head off for town too. who buys the land, nice and cheap? some other country, because theyve destroyed all their farmland already.

    as for all this "west side" nonsense...stuff ya gangsta cr4p where it belongs... kids today... pfft! as one comedian recently said "um...your in freaking lismore, d1ckh34d!...i dont see a west side...what you rapping about? how hard life is on the streets of lismore? yeah, rapping it up in lismore....good one :)"

    we cant all be lawyers but. or sell real estate... sooner or later, somethings gotta give!


    lol, i should get a PHD in philosophy... :jester:



    in conclusion, we are SURROUNDED by power, just waiting to be tapped into. all that holds us back as humanity, progressing as a species, is these multi billion dollar profit earning corporations. the ceo doesnt care. he can afford nice air filtration units and cancer treatments. as long as he has lots and lots and LOTS of money!!!!

    (hes still gunna wind up in a casket one day, and be worm food just like the rest of earthly creation)

    so dont gimme no cr4p about how reducing a lil bit of ring friction will suddenly make the world a magical happy place for all. it wont.

    all it does is continue our dependency on a dwindling resource.



    ^^^^far out, i feel like deleting all that nonsense!^^^^

    i have the longest freaking posts... im sort of embarrassed about it... but it all needs to be said or ill EXPLODE!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 18, 2015
  19. grinningremlin

    grinningremlin Active Member

    You know, I usually don't read long posts, but that was a good 'un, no need for embarrassment.Way off topic but I share many of your views in regard to the futility of human nature, it's arguable there hasn't been many (any?) humans that live in balance with things.The profit problem (gluttony) always rears it's ugly head.Humans will suck up all the petroleum some day, until then it's going to be the same old story.
    The heat storage through melted salt is brilliant, I have an old camper refrigerator that runs on a pilot light and thought it would be cool to have a solar set up with a magnifying glass/some servos controlled by an arduno that would replace the propane.
     
  20. CanadaGlass

    CanadaGlass New Member

    Sorry to the OP for threadjacking (and...I make another post)

    HeadSmess:
    Lampworked borosilicate. I admit, mostly pipes (none in the old pictures thread I am linking to), but I have been taking a break from the torch as of late...

    http://www.talkglass.com/forum/showthread.php?1618-Brian-s-pictures

    "why wouldnt they teach us about magnetics in highschool?
    what is gravity, exactly? really? time? what about that one?"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okPnDZ1Txlo

    I see anyone who believes the big bang as admiring the Emperor's clothes, and it belies their lack of comprehension of relativity. More parroting by teachers than there is actual understanding...

    I invite you to have a look at this thread, indeed ramble, rant, and pontificate there if it tickles your brain:
    http://www.motoredbikes.com/showthr...mon-man-or-why-the-quot-Big-Bang-quot-is-bunk
     
Loading...