The future of fuel. Saltwater?

[Ziroc]

Originally posted by Lucern: quote: Originally posted by Ziroc: Remember Seven of Nine? Her Borg nanoprobes? Those will be a reality one day. But instead of making a freaky Borg, they will seek out mutated genes, and remove them.

Lol, in your investments Ziroc...I wouldn't invest in anything that does away with mutations. They're the only source of new genetic material. Every slightest bit of variation from single celled proto-life has been due to, you guessed it, mutation. No mutations means a rather static game of natural selection for humans. Of course, it it did away with Downs Syndrome or Tays Sachs or something specific...

Ahem. Where were we? Energy. Carry on. [/QUOTE]You don't think Nanotech is going to be HUGE??? lol at that. [img]smile.gif[/img]

When I speak of mutating genes, I am talking about abnormal and uncontrolled cell division.

[ 05-30-2007, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: Ziroc ]

[Ziroc]

Originally posted by Beaumanoir: But can the flame create more energy than the radio wave needs to run?

That's exactly what I said [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Lucern]

Originally posted by Ziroc: You don't think Nanotech is going to be HUGE??? lol at that. [img]smile.gif[/img] When I speak of mutating genes, I am talking about abnormal and uncontrolled cell division.

Zah? I'm at a university that's sunk millions into it. I don't think nanotech will be HUGE..I think it will be TINY and cause great changes

Edit: So you're basically talking about cancer. Yes. Down with cancer

[ 05-30-2007, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: Lucern ]

[Beaumanoir]

Originally posted by Lucern: Edit: So you're basically talking about cancer. Yes. Down with cancer

Oh Indeed. Down with the blighter.

[Sir Krustin]

Originally posted by robertthebard: Gasoline may not be pressurized in the tanks where it is stored, prior to being pumped into your car, but the next time you go to fuel up, listen for the hiss. Pressure is essential to the function of internal combustion engines, hence the compression ratio. On any model year vehichle newer than 1996, if the fuel cap is left off, it will trigger the infamous Check Engine light, signalling an emissions problem.

Yes, it signals an emissions problem (the "check engine" light is actually a legally mandated device for telling the owner he is violating the emissions laws) however, it has nothing to do with engine efficiency. Leave the cap off and you will notice no difference whatsoever in the performance of the vehicle, nor will you see much difference in fuel economy. The problem is that the fuel tank is no longer sealed, and is emitting hydrocarbon vapours, violating regulations controlling those types of emissions.

Compression comes into play solely in the combustion chamber.

The problem is that the fuel pump has to work harder to maintain the 14psi required to keep the fuel in the fuel rails for consumption. Every time a compression stroke fires, there is pressurized fuel.

Wrong, try again.

For one thing, modern fuel injection systems use anywhere from 42 to 66 psi in the fuel rail, and won't work correctly (power loss) if insufficient pressure is in the rail - mainly because the injectors are designed to flow at this pressure. One could just as easily design a motor to use injectors at much lower pressures - Honda, for example, used 8 psi fuel systems for years, even with port injection.

Fuel pumps do not have to work harder when the cap is off. They do have to work harder if you fail to change your fuel filter on a regular basis, however.

Pressurized fuel has little to do with compression or ignition. The injectors are positioned above the throttle in TBI systems, or above the intake valves in port injection setups. No pressurized flow is present in the combustion chamber when the cylinder fires, as the intake valve is closed at this point. This, in fact, is where the compression comes from - the valves are closed as the piston comes up, compressing the fuel-air mix already present in the cylinder.

It looks as if the medium for burning doesn't require pressurization, again, just from the video, since it's burning in an open test tube. While I'm not a physics major, I am an ASE certified automotive technician, it's my field of choice.

I have a hard time believing you are a certified technician with so much misinformation coming out of your keyboard.

I've already pointed out many flaws in your knowledge already, I think I'll stop here - this message is long enough as it is.

[JrKASperov]

Originally posted by robertthebard: Since 2/3 of the Earth's surface is covered in water, how is this statement wrong?

Even if he weren't talking about elements, he'd still be wrong. Earth (or silicium mostly) is many times more plentiful than water anyway.

Originally posted by Beaumanoir: But can the flame create more energy than the radio wave needs to run?

Easy answer: never.

[Hivetyrant]

Internet arguments eh?

[robertthebard]

Meow...

[Ziroc]

Sir Krustin, Why the harsh reply to Rob? There's no need for that sarcasm. You can correct someone without attacking or being rude to them. Relax [img]smile.gif[/img]

(And lets keep this on topic, Regardless of pretty cats)

[ 05-31-2007, 03:23 AM: Message edited by: Ziroc ]

[Kynaeus]

Originally posted by Beaumanoir: "This is the most abundant element on the planet: water" .... Sorry no. You just lost all credability with that statement.

I laughed at this too, especially since I'm taking Chemistry. But, he's a former producer or something so it's not totally his fault.