current event
by Canadian inventor Kazimierz Holubowicz, a Quantum Electro Dynamics (QED) physicist, has developed a new form of engine he calls the 'gun engine' in response to a challenge from his son. His engine shares similarities with contemporary combustion engines - aspiration, exhaust, crankshaft, etc. However, it differs on a variety of elements to improve upon the combustion engine's 20% efficiency. Its design explodes fuel for greater force, utilizes a recycling twelve stroke cycle for a complete burn and reduces the number of components to save weight and eliminate waste heat. The gun engine is not entirely novel in the field of engine design, however, inventors have long been experimenting with different concepts to eliminate moving parts, burn varieties of fuel, improve torque, boost horsepower or simply improve fuel consumption.
Add a Comment (6)
Email This
Message Author
I liked the article. It's amazing when you read about technologies like this engine that blow away the capabilities of the current technology.
It's very understandable to see why oil companies would have an incentive to suppress or prevent this type of technology from entering the market. However, to counter that you would think car companies would have a tremendous advantage to pursue the technology. I mean, GM could get involved and prevent themselves from going bankrupt as it looks like they will do if they continue on the path they're on. What a huge advantage a car manufacturer would have to say our engine can get you across the country on one tank of gas!
That's what bothers me every time I hear people make that accusation about gas companies and car companies being in collusion to make gas guzzlers. Your second paragraph hit it on the head. US auto manufacturers got pummelled on quality and fuel economy in the 70s and 80s, and we're back to the future with the same problem with fuel economy again. People want to blame the auto manufacturers, but why on Earth would they make gas guzzlers if people weren't buying them, and why would they keep trying to sell gas guzzlers if they were in peril of being undermined by someone with the same features and power with better fuel economy? They tried "waving the flag" in the past, and learned the hard way that they had to change to survive. I believe that GM's sins are basically those of a slow, lethargic bureaucracy, not a vicious conspiracy to burn up the rain forest, make people buy oil and kill small puppies.
I hate to be cynical about this engine, but do we really have any proof that this thing is as great as the inventor claims?
I would like to see a working prototype at least.
Check the X1 out ... made by a former Cisco engineer. It's beaten Ferraris and Porsches for speed and is only out-accelerated by the Bugatti Veyron 1000+ horsepower beast.
Of course, there is always the other option of saying 'to hell with fuel efficiency' by installing a jet engine into your VW Beetle. I like how the DMV and Highway Patrol each had no clue on the street legality of such a machine. But builder Ron Patrick describes it best: a jet-boosted run will "pin the speedometer and that's at 140." He thinks that when it hits 160 mph -- he hasn't seen that ... yet -- the car will start lifting off the ground ...
RSS
What is the argument? by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 04 May 2006
One thing has always bothered me about the arguments made by anti-oil groups. They say that all of these technologies are surpressed or wiped under the table by the oil industry. I would imagine that improved engines that still utilize fossil fuels would be promoted as it would ensure the longevity through which they can still peddle petroleum products.