Hey ex-hot-rodders .... in your wildest dreams can you imagine an
affordable 1,500 Horsepower engine --- for your car, skycar, or
... err bicycle?
Possible - yes - as this one pictured below only weighs-in at 35
pounds and can be mass produced. It is a reality now; but there is
a catch-22 (isn't there always?) ... since it is not exactly
practical, given present commercial and political realities... or
should I say not practical yet .... since most of the present
impracticality could be related to the shortsighted horizons of
... well, let's don't go there today.
Here is a pic of the simple engine, which could cost less than
$1000 in mass production:
http://www.swissrocketman.com/images_gtre/41.gif
BTW such an engine (and wouldn't Mr. Moller love to have access to
these):
http://www.moller.com/skycar/
is only possible using a liquid mono-propellant, such as a
peroxide-based fuel - and that is because any liquid
monopropellant negates the need for compressing huge amounts of
air... which is where most of the weight (and inefficiency is)
with a traditional turbine - and negates the need for expensive
high temperature alloy. It is not a heat engine. The Swiss
rocketman uses commercial grade stainless steel - not cheap - but
affordable, especially in mass production.
For comparison purposes, here is an earlier model of the famous
Allison Turbine (from GM in better days) which powers most of the
world's non-military helicopters, in its various incarnations.
http://www.avonaero.com/allison.htm
As you can see, this one develops only 317 HP and tips the scale
at 136 pounds for a ratio of 2.3 (HP per pound of weight) ...
whereas for comparison, the HOOH turbine is 1,500 HP and 36+ lbs
for well over a ratio of 40. BTW a normal auto ICE has a ratio of
only about .4 - which is fully one hundred times heavier for the
same power. Most importantly, the Allison costs $100,000 minimum,
due to the need for investment-cast "superalloy" blades (and the
low volume production).
That monstrous weight and cost advantage is severely offset, as a
practical matter, by the lesser energy content and
non-availability of the monopropellant fuel - as approximately
four times more is needed per shaft horsepower. Therefore, for
anything longer than a twenty minute flight, the weight advantage
of a lighter engine can lost. Still the Swiss rocketman puts on
some impressive demos.
Actually it is surprising that only four times more is needed,
since the comparative "heat content" is 13 times less - but that
biomes relatively unimportant compared to other factors, since the
HOOH engine is technically NOT a heat engine in the normal
understanding of that term.
However, the large amount of propellant needed is not the
end-of-story. There is the huge issue of cost - which includes
both fuel cost and vehicle cost. And then there are political and
commercial realities, which means that US citizens may never
benefit from this alternative transportation concept - even the
rich ones. Try buying peroxide these days in 5 gallon quantities.
OTOH ... as Bobby Z sez: "the times, they are a changin' "
In the "big picture" and in the "perfect world" of the near-future
... circa 2010 and thereafter, perhaps the only real possibility
for affordable personal air transportation vehicle, like the
Moller-esque SkyCar might be the engine above - which is turning
an electrical generator and powering 4-6 electric motors, driving
tiltable fans.
So what if your sixty mile, 20 minute commute from the 'burbs (of
Sebastopol ?) to the city, requires 120 gallons of monopropellant
...
... since you made it all last night from water and air for about
the grid-equivalent of 100 kWh, or the equivalent cost of two
gallons of regular (in the year 2010) ... but since you are
off-the-grid ... all cost is for the amortization of the
mini-factory which makes the propellant... And I am assuming that
the other breakthroughs [like the MPI generator or the LENR
converter] have permitted you to go off-grid. OK maybe we better
move this Sci-Fi timetable to 2020....
Hey.. then as now, there will still only be two kinds: the quick
and the dead... ;-)
Jones
For non-word-freaks, the old (biblical) meaning of the word
"quick" is "alive." The phrase has become, of course, the
prototypical gunslingers-mantra of Oaters and drag-racers. But
when a baby was first felt to move in a mother's womb, it was then
considered to have come to life, in ancient reckoning- and this
moment was called a "quickening" ... nowadays, your
mostly-male-moralists prefer to call it the "second trimester" <g>
