SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : George Gilder - Forbes ASAP -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (323)2/18/1998 11:31:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 5853
 
What about Reynolds Number and all that stuff jfred? Fluid mechanics doesn't just scale down to something you can use in the same way as a big thing can use it. But more importantly, why go through the thermodynamic losses of a turbine and a generator when you can do a fuel-cell job on the very same fuel that might be used in the turbine [methanol]? That way you'd get more mpg.

Also, being an ex oil industry guy, how on earth can somebody with an oil can get the oil into the bearings which must be really, really small?

The best use of turbines would be in cars with flywheels which the Compaq computer founders went away to achieve a couple of years ago. That would be a winner. Or maybe micro jet aircraft with micro spy cameras on them with nano cdmaOne transmitters back to base. But again, Brownian motion might be a problem. Imagine trying to dodge those deterministic H2O or the dirty great CO2 molecules drifting aimlessly over the battlefield in a micro plane - getting the molecule to go under the wing instead of over it or simply crashing into it.

Ooops, I'm ranting.
Bye,
Maurice

PS> Just read that the little turbines give more power. I guess that means watts per kilogram of production unit? Yes? But if they burn much more fuel per electron volt output than a fuel cell, they'll need a bigger petrol tank, hence more weight there.