Skip to main content
Content Starts Here

Idea Detail

130
Points

multi-fuel concept.

Chrysler during the 1960's demonstrated a car that would run on almost any liquid that contained some hydrocarbons.........motor oil, hair tonic, perfume, cooking oil, terpintine, etc........it had a turbine for an engine........but it quietly died........i guess because of big oil............

it would be fantastic if the on-board computer could analize the fuel in the tank and adjust the engine controls to operate efficently on that fuel...........naturally there would be only certain fuels that thevehicle could use.......but it would make refuling a lot easier if one could have choices while driving to be able to fill up witrh what's available.
13 Comments  » Posted by e_sc on 12/9/2008 10:05 AM

Comments

 
upst
12/13/2008 4:08 PM
I hear the Linvolt team is working on that  and will have on the next version
 
edel
12/15/2008 6:37 AM
 sdfasdfadsf
 
dand
12/15/2008 10:10 AM
Nice!!
 
phil
12/22/2008 5:27 PM
 I'd like to know how a turbine is different than the rotary in LincVolt now.
 
biof
12/24/2008 5:05 PM
The turbine was too expensive to build but the bio diesel in cheap and available at a low cost. The small diesel engine from Yanmar is under $5000 and Kubota is even less. The rotary is hard to adapt to Bio Diesel. Turbine uses high grade alloy steel fans and turbines the rotary is cheaper to build. 
 
jmar
12/27/2008 12:42 PM
I keep on hearing ideas about electric-gas hybrid designs, all of these designs will someday have to be disposed of at the end of their lifecycle, just as we junk cars today.  Has anyone looked into the disposal problems of disposing of these batteries, ( read warning on regular cell phone batteries) and the rest of the system that goes along with them, recharging etc.  Insurance companies have, and it isn't a slam dunk.
 
jmar
12/27/2008 12:52 PM
About the turbine engine:  world's fair of 1963 chrysler promoted.  Andy Granitelli of STP actually built a turbine powered indianapolis racer and his driver was Mario Andretti in the 1960's.  It dominated the races so much that the racing authorities put a limit on the size of it's air intake.  Never won the 500, one year andretti was leading race in it and a $5 part broke and he lost race with only a few laps to go.  So technology is out there, just has been stifeled by the big oil companies and politicians that receive big bucks from them.  Now maybe that will change!
 
rowl
1/6/2009 8:32 PM
we're on the edge.  whether its turbine, a Revetec-style modified combustion engine or simply hyper-efficient batteries, big oil lost the game when oil speculation showed this generation its vulnerability.  (and they all recognize that china will be fighting us for every drop - the price increases have just begun.) 

we've got a president with a logical mind and two young children who will inherit this world and a youth market that isn't married to horsepower, but are married to the planet.  between price spikes and climate change, oil lost the game in 2008.

the new nasa program should be straight-forward and two fold:

1) battery research.  develop them to go 600 miles on a charge with a recharge time under ten minutes, and there will be a rush to the showroom doors.
2) improved photovoltaic efficiency. 

we're on the verge of both.  these goals could be reached within 3-5 years.
 
SPARKY
1/20/2009 1:47 PM
I've got a 98 E-85 Caravan, Does that Qualify? It reads the Alcohol-fuel mix and compensates for it.
What I'm looking for is a computer that can compensate for a H2 Combustion that needs TDC as apposed to 17 BTDC.
SPARKY
 
supergoose
6/24/2009 8:45 PM
It pretty much sounds to me like you're just looking for some kind of fuel to compete with the oil companies. Which doesn't eliminate the use of a hydrocarbon fuel which is the goal from what I understand. I think the biggest obstacle is the oil companies. I have a cousin that read an article in a magazine he told me about appx. 20 years ago. To the best of my memory it was about a guy that designed, built and tested an engine that ran on compressed air with a lawn mower sized gas engine used to start this engine. He also had a patent on it and somehow the oil companies found out about it and paid this guy billions for the patent. I think they destroyed the engine. I have looked online to try to find this story so I could 1st read it and 2nd send the link to the news media and government but have had no success. My point is I think most people can be bought out if they invent an engine or power-plant that could put the oil companies under. Greed controls the world and until people stop being greedy it always will.
Another example of greed was how the big 3 put Tucker out of business. I haven't watched the movie in a while but if I remember correctly the Tucker automobile had a helicopter engine in it that got 50MPG and it also had some very good safety features. No it didn't eliminate the use of hydrocarbon fuel but at it's time had unheard of fuel economy. I honestly can't remember how or what the big 3 did to put Tucker out of business. I'll have to watch the movie again soon.
It also wouldn't surprise me if the oil companies were give that auto manufactures kick backs to keep the fuel economy down. Just like I believe tool companies give auto manufactures and fastener companies kick backs to invent new bolt or screw head types so mechanics will have to buy new tools. Yes I'm a mechanic. I see no reason for the invention of the Torx style fastener or Torx Plus or 5 point Torx other than so tool companies can sell more tools. For that matter the inverted 12 point style fastener that VW uses. Ok I have issues! If I could only prove my beliefs. Sorry for getting off topic.
 
weez
8/10/2009 3:02 PM
supergoose, sounds like your average ordinary 'big oil' consporacy theory. 

Compressed air is not a viable energy transfer medium because of the immense amounts of energy required to compress it and the fact that it does not release any heat when used to drive an engine or motor of some sort.

As it is not combustible, air compressed even to liquid would yield very limited range unless the vehicle had an enormous pressurised air tank.

Merely releasing non-combustible pressurised air through (for example) a piston engine can't do much work because there's no heat produced. It is heat energy released in combustion which does an awful lot of the work of expanding the gas and pushing pistons or spinning turbine wheels in internal combustion engines.

Search around on the web, you'll find a few compressed-air powered vehicles. They all suffer from severely limited range for the volume of their air tanks. Bear in mind that some people want the world to think they've just discovered the solution to use of fossil fuels and will tell you practically anything to 'prove' their point.
 
oldguy
9/24/2009 7:51 PM
I have heard that crock about Big Oil blocking technology since I was a kid, and that includes the turbine car.  A few points to ponder:  There were no emission standards when the cars were built.  None.  Sure it could burn anything liquid, but what was coming out the tailpipe?  In the early 60's, no one cared. 

Also, Decades of studies by the military and civilian users of turbines have proven small turbines are just not very good.  Tolerances and clearances between moving and fixed fins are tough to maintain on a small unit.  Also, inproved efficiency comes from higher temperatures.  You need nickel and cobalt alloys to run at those temperatures, and those are very expensive and hard to work with.   And a turbine wants to spin at 50,000 RPM or higher.  You think transmissions are expensive now? 

Conspiracy theories are fun, but usually don't add up.  If Big Oil was so powerful, why has the price dropped by about half in the last 14 months?  And why do they pay some of the highest corporate tax rates of any industry?  Exxon had there best year in history in 2008.  They made about 8% profit on sales, BEFORE they paid their Federal and State income taxes.   My corner gas station does better than that. 

An electric vehicle that will hold two adults, meet all safety standards in place and move at highway speeds, and go 600 miles on a single charge is a pipe dream.  On average you need 15 to 20 horsepower to keep a car moving at 60 mph.  Without allowing for accelleration, which eats up power, that's 112 kilowatt-hours.   Take a look at the battery statistics on the Tesla, or Volt, and realize you are talking 12 to 20 times what they have. 

I supplied things to the car industry for three decades.  I would love to see a viable long-range e-car.  Not going to happen.  Best bet is an on-board charger like these cars. 
 
Mr. Dudeman X2
11/1/2010 6:25 AM
The reason that old 60's turbine chrystler died out was because it handled like a aircraft carrier, not because of big oil.  With only a massive turbine, it took turns like a semi and had all the acceleration of a jumbo jet.  Turbines are great because they will utilize any combustible fuel mixture, but they are slow as hell.  The Lincvolt will fix this by pairing the power of a turbine with the ability of an electric motor to provide instant torque and acceleration.  I hope that the Lincvolt will go the way that Audi's E-tron is headed and put an electric motor in each wheel.  The E-tron is a full battery car but has a spine crushing 3000 foot pounds of torque.  I'd love to see the Lincvolt pull that off. 

Mrdudemanx2
Subscribe to ideas