Comments on: Which Motorcycle Engine Technology Will Win?

By: todd

todd — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 04:32:58 +0000

Oh wait, scrap my idea for a dry ice powered motor, CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

-todd

By: B.Case

B.Case — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 04:46:28 +0000

I think a stirling is better suited to generator type applications. Because of its somewhat constant rpm, it could be a good low-fuel perpetual system that kicks in just long enough to re-charge batteries. Of course, the stirling heat source doesn’t need to be a combustible fuel. You could use heat stored from braking, or perhaps solar. I’m with Bob, though, nuclear is the answer!

I think if we’re all honest with ourselves, we all know what we’d like to see happen in the future. And that is the discovery of pocket-sized self-contained power sources that have limitless power, require no fuel and have zero waste. Who knows, maybe in the near future there will be another paradigm leap like there was from horses to automobiles. Remember, it took more than a half century to have complete infrastructures built for the new mode of transport. I think long term, it will have something to do with advanced magnetics or some new understanding of Earth’s gravity.

Yeah, so anyway…the winning technology for the near term, will most likely be controlled by big business and no more than a slight evolution of more of the same.

By: MadScientistMatt

MadScientistMatt — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:58:38 +0000

A small gasoline fired bike can easily get 75 mpg as it is, and one built especially for mileage could probably squeeze out 100+ mpg with present technology. So you’d need a lot of work to make a new technology compete with that.

But, with that said, how about a compact Sterling engine? They’ve got good potential for efficiency, and can run off anything that’ll burn and several things that won’t.

By: ROHORN

ROHORN — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:58:09 +0000

Yeah. That’s why the 2009 year model bikes will run on the same fuel as the 2008 bikes. And the 2010 year model…ad nauseum.

Anyone familiar with the X-6 nuclear powered jet program and the direct heated turbine technology?

If not, do some reading – it is 50+ year old technology.

So how about a small nuclear heat source with a sterling cycle engine?

By: Clive Makinson-Sanders

Clive Makinson-Sanders — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:52:00 +0000

I agree, rohorn, change is bad and avoidable.