Wasn¹t the ³bat mobile² turbine powered? If Batman had a turbine back in the 60¹s.....it seems like the vigilante police industry would have created a consumer version by now. Seriously, they could create super-heroesque consumer vehicles and provide jobs and real job training for ex-themed psychotic villians that were seriously altered in radiation related accidents...and our streets would be safer as a result.
On 12/7/07 11:46 PM, "Robert Tait" <tai...@gmail.com> wrote: > Turbine cars have been around since 1950, on and off. They were all custom > and impractical....mostly. Chrysler built 50 turbine cars and did customer > trials in '65. > > http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/chrysler.shtml > > http://www.diseno-art.com/encyclopedia/classic_concept_cars/chrysler_turbine_c > ar.html > > GM made a few EV-1 electrics with turbine chargers. > > The cool thing about the old turbine engines is that they would burn about > anything, gas, jp4, paraffin. I'm not sure about carbide. Makes getting fuel > easier on those backwater cave trips. (no longer off topic.. ) > > Turbines are getting very small. Hand held prototypes are being tested. > Microturbines are available from Honeywell, and GE (although in this case > Micro the size of a small shed with generator and support gear) > > Exotic materials that can withstand high temperatures and high tolerances are > factors in high cost. > > They may make a comeback yet! > > Cheers > > Rob, in upstate NY > > > At 04:57 PM 12/7/2007, Don Cooper wrote: >> Through the years I've crossed my fingers and held high hopes that the same >> thing would occur with the logical replacement for the internal combustion >> engine (IMO) : the small gas turbine. >> If large gas turbines can operate at 80% efficiency and piston combustion >> engines are limited to a maximum of 23% by the physics of the otto cycle - >> then what's achievable is better than what we got! And with composites, >> ceramics and the brains for real-time digital automation control becoming >> cheaper than a cup of coffee - I still am wondering why are such engines not >> available (well, except for $200,000 replacement turbine powerplants for when >> the six cylinder horizontally opposed, air-cooled 520 cu inch engine in your >> Cessna 185 wears out). >> Also there is a new alternate powerplant available for small aircraft which >> uses jet fuel, but is a two-stroke piston engine - it's more efficient than a >> Continental aircraft engine - it costs $75,000. >> Progress, sure. A little. Digital control of the gasoline engine does a >> WHOLE lot to improve efficiency of the old standard truck or car motor. But >> powerplant technology seems really pushed to the cutting edge in building >> humongous airliner-moving jet engines - not small affordable mass-produced >> engines. >> >> I like to imagine a nice little car that is an absolutely true hybrid and >> runs on a small generator powered by a tiny fuel efficient >> gasoline/diesel/alcohol/LNG turbine. It would cost millions to build one, >> but if millions were built - I'd bet they'd be affordable. >> >> -WaV. >> Boycotting the limited selection, and keeping alive the obsolete dinosaurs I >> already have. >> >> On Dec 7, 2007 1:33 PM, Mixon Bill < bmixon...@austin.rr.com >> <mailto:bmixon...@austin.rr.com> > wrote: >> I could bore everybody to tears with oldtime computer stories. When I >> started out as a programmer, memory cost a dollar (a 1960 dollar) a >> byte. Of course back then there was no such thing as a megabyte of >> memory. IBM mainframes had a quarter of a megabyte. >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- Visit >> our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: >> texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: >> texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
