On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 17:20:20 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 19:27:32 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
wrote:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 23:52:13 GMT, the renowned Lew Hartswick
wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
In article eoyLf.496$fL3.486@fed1read01,
Mark Fergerson wrote:
[....]
it we won't be worrying about petroleum combustion byproduct pollution,
but Helium pollution...
Fusion is getting closer. 40 years ago they said it was 30 years away and
now they tell us it is 25 years away.
That reminds me of the blurbs by Chrysler Corp. in the 60s gas turbin
cars were 10 years away in the 70s they were 10 years away, I'm not
sure wether they gave an estimate in the 80s or not but if they had
I'm sure it would have been 10 years away. :-)
...lew...
Chrysler made a small number of them (something like 50). Apparently
bad fuel economy was an issue (even back then when an Imperial got 10
or 12 miles to the US gallon).
As a kid, I had a model kit of this engineering wonder:
http://www.lhmopars.com/MOPAR_Ads/Turbine_page6-7.jpg
Come to think of it, it probably inspired the TV-series Batmobile.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
There was also a big deceleration issue... take foot off accelerator
pedal and no significant back torque.
...Jim Thompson
It's amazing that the basic auto engine hasn't really changed in
almost 100 years: crank, cam, pistons, rings, poppet valves, spark
plug, pressure-fed plain bearings, geared transmission.
John