So let me this stright in 2057 we will still be using gasoline. Did the producers of this show ever heard of globle warming. Not to mention that while many country already have universal health care. America will still be using the "survival of the fittest" approach. Well thats just great. Oh and they can monitor my pee. So they can know that i hammered the other night and cancel my health care clam. Oh and now you can track my every move i make while im out or at home through my clothing and camera. Oh and your be able to connect everything up to the internet. So you can track me even more and So my refrigerator can buy grocerys. Even if i dont have the money in the bank.
You know alot of this reminds me of some movies ive saw like V for Vendetta, Fahrenheit 451, and 1985. Alot of the stuff you show is pretty interesting. But the idea of a world where anybody can be tracked and have even less privacy then we do now is not one of them. Oh and the part where everything is hooked up to the internet so you can have a city wide shutdown to be pretty stupid.
With Greater power comes greater risks and greater responsibilities.
There are many versions of that saying, that's my own; And it's true. I'd be willing to give up some of my privacy to have that safety net of an ambulance come to my aid when I'm incapacitated. But, as mentioned in another thread, it is pretty rediculous to have your insurance denied because you got smashed the other night.
Being that this program is speculation based on trends in current scientific advancement, nothing's to be said certain about this. What isn't taken into account is how the public acceptance and willingness changed into that setting, the politics of the past, and what tragedies would set the public into that willingness to give up their privacy for security.
Take a look at the event 9/11. During that time the general public was out for the perpetrators. We allowed for something called the Patriot act to be passed. (Personally I have always thought that it was the worst piece of legislation to be made into law.) This allowed for our government to essentially do anything, and it is how a one branch of government to go over the heads of the judicial branch of government to spy on it's own citizens.
This all needs to be taken into account, so the question goes from, "why give up my privacy," to, "how much is too much?"
[quote]So let me this stright in 2057 we will still be using gasoline. Did the producers of this show ever heard of globle warming. Not to mention that while many country already have universal health care. America will still be using the "survival of the fittest" approach. Well thats just great. Oh and they can monitor my pee. So they can know that i hammered the other night and cancel my health care clam. Oh and now you can track my every move i make while im out or at home through my clothing and camera. Oh and your be able to connect everything up to the internet. So you can track me even more and So my refrigerator can buy grocerys. Even if i dont have the money in the bank.[/quote]
Seems like you watched the show with an already biased opinion of what it was going to say and what it was going to offer. It seems like you chose to ignore what you wanted and chose to hear what you wanted.
Choosing, like it seems like you have already done, will not be limited in the future. Choosing cannot be limited, unless we all literally become robots and cannot think for ourselves. You will still be able to choose to turn off or simply not except all the new gadgets that will be coming out. Many people in the past thought that the internet would allow anybody anywhere to look up a person and instantly know basically anything they wanted to destroy that person. Such as any criminal records, genetic information, bank accounts and passwords, etc. That didn't happen, as the internet developed so did security for it.
You would be an example of one of the people saying that the internet was the worst idea ever developed and there would be no such thing as security or privacy.
[quote]You know alot of this reminds me of some movies ive saw like V for Vendetta, Fahrenheit 451, and 1985. Alot of the stuff you show is pretty interesting. But the idea of a world where anybody can be tracked and have even less privacy then we do now is not one of them. Oh and the part where everything is hooked up to the internet so you can have a city wide shutdown to be pretty stupid.[/quote]
Movies are not the best thing to be arguing from, sure they offer views of the future, past, and present, but those views generally come from only a few people who really aren't educated on things they're trying to tell a story about. Movies come from Hollywood; Hollywood isn't the best source of information.
All of what they showed is possible in the future, but we can still limit the progress or speed it up. We control where that technology goes and how it is used.
How is something that is hooked up to the internet a stupid idea? It allows us to share and receive information much faster, and like what has happened with computers and the internet, security will be developed for it.
Consumers control what the producer’s sell. That is also evident in the future of technology and the progress of it.
mjohn ive got to say in magikballs defense that from what techs ive seen projected over the next century the world is going to be a sad sad place. if we keep going the way we are where no one who has the vast resources and funding to really make breakthroughs in science just throws all their money on a very small cell phone or a set of spinning rims or their fifteenth car or their fifth multimillion dollar house then we are going to be the society we are right now fifty years later. a society so bent on commercialism that environmentalism and everything else important in the world takes a back seat. science these days hasn't solved much it's only figured out how to make smaller ipods and cell phones. and also in magikballs defense if we are still using gasoline by 2057 ill tell you what happened or what has changed in the last fifty years...nothing. the same people who control our economy would still be controlling it then which is a definate disaster to the future. have you ever heard of fuel atomizer systems put on cars that increase fuel economy by at least 20%. if automobile makers were really worried about us getting good fuel efficiency out of our vehicles then why isn't every vehicle produced with one? There has to be a day where somebody breaks the mold of what business ethics really stands for because right now there is no such thing and we all know that. you can argue that this point has nothing at all to do with the future, but we all know that it does especially if we are talking about automobiles and alterative fuels.
[quote]mjohn ive got to say in magikballs defense that from what techs ive seen projected over the next century the world is going to be a sad sad place.[/quote]
Really? What you've "seen" projected?
The future is unpredictable, that has been proven time and time again by the people who just keep on trying to predict it and keep on getting it wrong. In other words nobody has any idea of what will be happening 50 years from now, including the shows that you got these ideas from.
[quote]if we keep going the way we are where no one who has the vast resources and funding to really make breakthroughs in science just throws all their money on a very small cell phone or a set of spinning rims or their fifteenth car or their fifth multimillion dollar house then we are going to be the society we are right now fifty years later.[/quote]
LOL, I guess you haven't been paying attention to the real world or what has been happening in the scientific community then? I'll give you a hint, there's a he11 of a lot more research going on that just regular consumer products.
[quote]a society so bent on commercialism that environmentalism and everything else important in the world takes a back seat.[/quote]
Commercialism is what keeps the world going, that isn't going to be taking a back seat ever. Environmentalism won't be taking a back seat anywhere in the near future either.
[quote]science these days hasn't solved much it's only figured out how to make smaller ipods and cell phones.[/quote]
LOL, again you haven't been paying attention to the real world, have you? In fact, scientist may have found the miracle cure for cancer that they've been looking for. The full report was released awhile a go and further testing is being continued.
[quote]and also in magikballs defense if we are still using gasoline by 2057 ill tell you what happened or what has changed in the last fifty years...nothing.[/quote]
Really? 50 years a go we were still using gasoline, and I'm pretty sure at least something has changed.
[quote]the same people who control our economy would still be controlling it then which is a definate disaster to the future.[/quote]
Consumers control the economy by telling the producers what they want and what they will buy. There is no grand conspiracy between the oil companies and the car companies, the car companies are out to make money and will sell whatever will make money.
[quote]have you ever heard of fuel atomizer systems put on cars that increase fuel economy by at least 20%.[/quote]
Yes, I have. It's a scam. If you had any idea of how an internal combustion engine worked you would know this.
[quote]if automobile makers were really worried about us getting good fuel efficiency out of our vehicles then why isn't every vehicle produced with one?[/quote]
Is the fact that it's a scam a good enough one?
[quote]There has to be a day where somebody breaks the mold of what business ethics really stands for because right now there is no such thing and we all know that. you can argue that this point has nothing at all to do with the future, but we all know that it does especially if we are talking about automobiles and alterative fuels.[/quote]
Please do go on about business ethics and alternative fuels.
i never said that consumers weren't the problem behind most of our problems, they are. people pay no mind to this problem thats why i dont like the program is because no one really wants to hear about a solar powered or battery powered car that has a max speed of 60 mph everybody wants to hear that they are going to be flying through their hometown instead of driving down a street even if that means they still have to use fossil fuels. it's more exciting a concept to the general concept you know that and i think that focusing on that flying car is what numbs the public to alternative energy sources part of the reason why we are behind and i think we are is because of the consumer we dont want to change. but i also think the lack of awareness of what is out there is also what drives that desire not to change. and fuel atomizers arent a scam because a man once invented a fuel atomizer system for a fiero that got 50 miles to the gallon and it was even more powerful than the v-6 that the factory model had offered and the company never wanted to produce them. i wonder why. they couldn't argue that it was too expensive to produc because all it was was a couple of ducts and some wire brushes it wasn't that complicated and it worked so take your ignorance somewhere else if you don't know what you are talking about.
[quote]i never said that consumers weren't the problem behind most of our problems, they are.[/quote]
No, but you specifically targeted the producers.
[quote]people pay no mind to this problem thats why i dont like the program is because no one really wants to hear about a solar powered or battery powered car that has a max speed of 60 mph everybody wants to hear that they are going to be flying through their hometown instead of driving down a street even if that means they still have to use fossil fuels.[/quote]
No, nobody wants to hear about a product that right now cannot work and is really not worth it. Solar is very expensive and you can only get so much energy out of the sun, you're limited by the surface area of a car. Right now there is no point in putting solar panel cars on the road or even trying to make them. Solar panels are no where near efficient enough and just don't put out enough electricity, there's also problems with the weather where it cannot produce electricity at night or during cloud cover or storms. Driving in a solar panel car would mean 1-2 person cars with very little comfort and room for it and absolutely no power to get anywhere. Most of the same can be said for electric cars, electric cars are limited by their battery capacity. Batteries and electric motors are not that efficient and will never be efficient enough (at least in the foreseeable future). They are very limited in range, speed, power, and comfort. Nobody is going to want to drive; they are useless right now and are not going to get rid of any pollution problems. Infact, it will just cause more problems due to the fact that all of the wires in the US will have to be replaced to handle a much higher load and voltage on the system, and many more power plants will need to be built to power every car in the US, so many that it's pretty much pointless. You are not just getting that electricity out of no where.
Flying is actually a very good idea, it will make traffic less congested, make travel times much faster, and could actually bring down pollution.
[quote]it's more exciting a concept to the general concept you know that and i think that focusing on that flying car is what numbs the public to alternative energy sources part of the reason why we are behind and i think we are is because of the consumer we dont want to change.[/quote]
For one thing, very few people are working on developing flying cars. Most are trying to develop newer and better cars built for the road. You know all those car companies out there? They're out there to make money and are spending a lot on developing newer and better cars for the public. Right now the main selling point is gas mileage.
[quote]but i also think the lack of awareness of what is out there is also what drives that desire not to change.[/quote]
What do you mean what is out there? Anything and everything are being put on cars today, well anything that's practical and actually works.
Car manufacturers are trying to make money; they could care less if the oil companies make any money at all. They are constantly developing new cars, and right now are focusing on getting more mileage.
The internal combustion engine is very limited on the power to fuel used ratio. The pistons are constantly changing direction losing a lot of the force they had and requiring more force to keep going, it's not the best design. Also, a lot of energy gets lost through heat loss also something that can't really be prevented, the efficiency of a typical car engines is around 20% it can't get much better than that.
[quote]and fuel atomizers arent a scam because a man once invented a fuel atomizer system for a fiero that got 50 miles to the gallon and it was even more powerful than the v-6 that the factory model had offered and the company never wanted to produce them. i wonder why.[/quote]
No, they are a scam. Again if you had any idea how an internal combustion engine works you would understand why. Trying to "atomize" the fuel before it gets into the engine will do nothing but waste energy and disrupt the fuel flow. If it's doing so inside the pistons again it isn't going to do much due to the fact that the injectors already get the spray down to or very close to a mist. You can only get so much out of the volume of gas put into the engine, that is already done and just about all of the fuel injected into it is burned to produce energy.
[quote]they couldn't argue that it was too expensive to produc because all it was was a couple of ducts and some wire brushes it wasn't that complicated and it worked so take your ignorance somewhere else if you don't know what you are talking about.[/quote]
Again, what would be the point of putting something that didn't work into a car?
If it did work, car companies would be all over it just to sell it and make more money.
If it were true it would be on EVERY car out on the road right now, but it doesn't.
[quote]that technology was also available in the 80's so tell me why it still hasnt been used[/quote]
dude mjohn you're missing the whole point..it did work and it's real. the guy was famous for his innovations with automobiles. dont talk to me like i dont know what im talking about that fiero existed it was real and it was because of a fuel atomizing system and a turbocharger and there was no energy wasted on atomizing the fuel the turbine on the turbo powered the brushes and it did work i hope you will stop trying to prove me wrong you sound like a very smart person, but other people know things too because the only thing ive seen you do on these forums is try to prove people wrong and make them feel bad for voicing their opinions on science. and for the third time this car existed and it did work. please believe me.
[quote]dude mjohn you're missing the whole point..it did work and it's real. the guy was famous for his innovations with automobiles. dont talk to me like i dont know what im talking about that fiero existed it was real and it was because of a fuel atomizing system and a turbocharger and there was no energy wasted on atomizing the fuel the turbine on the turbo powered the brushes and it did work i hope you will stop trying to prove me wrong you sound like a very smart person, but other people know things too because the only thing ive seen you do on these forums is try to prove people wrong and make them feel bad for voicing their opinions on science. and for the third time this car existed and it did work. please believe me.[/quote]
Give me proof then, a credible site.
Also, go study a diagram of an internal combustion engine, there is no roof for an "atomizer" in the entire engine that would do anything with out completely redesigning an engine.
Again, trying to "atomize" the fuel before it gets injected into the fuel injector system will only disrupt the flow of fuel and literally starve the engine. There is no room in the fuel injector system or after it due to the size and layout of it. The fuel injectors already do literally atomize it and get it more than small enough. The mix of fuel to oxygen is already predetermined in the engine, and that is pretty much all that will get you more power per stroke injecting more fuel and oxygen into the piston (say for example nitrous oxide systems). The efficiency in an internal combustion engine is already at the highest that it can basically get until you either change the fuel type or the engine.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: mjohnk11,
Magicball, we probably will not be using gasoline in 2057 by 2012 we will probably be using Hydrodgen Fuel Cells, they provide double the efficiency and the only biproduct is water.
Also solar panels are only about 20% efficient right now because they only draw energy from a small part of the spectrum. however they have discovered how to make it 80% efficient but there are problems with it such as impurities that hinder the solar panels from working properly ( also the sun each day produces about 6 times the energy used daily by every person combined it's how efficient it is that matters )
This message has been edited. Last edited by: the_free_man,
here mjohn, i got a little bit of proof but not exactly what I was lookin for: Redbeard719 Posted February 20, 2007 06:23 PM Hide Post I saw some of that show. The designer was Smoke Yunke. I believe it would be a good deal if the big three would use the system on the new cars. The oil companys would not like it but the clean air people would. Don't remember where the atomizer was mounted in the fuel system.
there is more
Mondo60 Posted February 20, 2007 08:20 PM Hide Post I saw some of that show too. Like you said it was supposed to heat up the fuel to make it more efficent and in turn make good horsepower. Maybe you can email the producers and get some more info on it. I looked on the web site but didn't find anything about that episode. http://www.powerblocktv.com/
i contacted the website but still haven't gotten a response
Dan Spring Posted February 21, 2007 08:03 PM Hide Post I remember, now. Yes, it was Smokey Yunick (deceased). The idea was to make the fuel hot, just before it was to be fed to the intake stream. This promotes greater atomization of the fuel, getting smaller droplets into a more uniform mixture. Allowing the more efficient use of the fuel allowed less fuel to be used for a given power output. This is where the power and economy picture got all rosy from. The theory is sound, and the problem has always been the practical application of it. This kind of thing makes a fuel more likely to vapor-lock, shutting down the engine. The automakers have used a device to attempt this on carbureted vehicles: the intake charge heater. You will find one between the carb and intake manifold on MANY 2.8L GM V-6's, on many Chrysler 2.2L engines, and on the Ford Escort. There are many designs out there, from here and abroad. Checking the wiring diagrams and emissions/performance information concerning this feature, would allow you an understanding of how to apply this kind of technology to your own vehicle. Smokey wrote some books, and I believe that they are still available from S-A Design.
on the same subjet. that 2057 and future car show. One thing those futurists either haven't realized or just don't care about is: what ever advances in new technology are made, the only people who will benefit from them are the rich and the super rich. for average and poor people like myself, not only won't we be able to afford the latest tech. from what has been said earlier, those new advances in spy technology will only make our lives that much harder assuming there are any lower class citzens left in that great future of theirs.
[quote]Magicball, we probably will not be using gasoline in 2057 by 2012 we will probably be using Hydrodgen Fuel Cells, they provide double the efficiency and the only biproduct is water.
Also solar panels are only about 20% efficient right now because they only draw energy from a small part of the spectrum. however they have discovered how to make it 80% efficient but there are problems with it such as impurities that hinder the solar panels from working properly ( also the sun each day produces about 6 times the energy used daily by every person combined it's how efficient it is that matters )[/quote]
We will not be using just one fuel by then, Hydrogen is no where near a promising technology right now for a number of reasons. The only two that really are, would be ethanol and bio-diesel, but those also have their problems.
You talk about how inefficient solar is, ever looked up how inefficient hydrogen is? First there's the inefficiencies in splitting water apart into hydrogen and oxygen, then there's the problem of storing it (either by compressing it or freezing it), then there's the problem of the fuel cell's inefficiencies, and finally the inefficiencies of the batteries storing the electricity produced and the inefficiencies of the motors turning the electrical power to mechanical power.
[quote]here mjohn, i got a little bit of proof but not exactly what I was lookin for: Redbeard719 Posted February 20, 2007 06:23 PM Hide Post I saw some of that show. The designer was Smoke Yunke. I believe it would be a good deal if the big three would use the system on the new cars. The oil companys would not like it but the clean air people would. Don't remember where the atomizer was mounted in the fuel system.
there is more
Mondo60 Posted February 20, 2007 08:20 PM Hide Post I saw some of that show too. Like you said it was supposed to heat up the fuel to make it more efficent and in turn make good horsepower. Maybe you can email the producers and get some more info on it. I looked on the web site but didn't find anything about that episode. http://www.powerblocktv.com/
i contacted the website but still haven't gotten a response[/quote]
So you looked up a couple of posts?
[quote]Dan Spring Posted February 21, 2007 08:03 PM Hide Post I remember, now. Yes, it was Smokey Yunick (deceased). The idea was to make the fuel hot, just before it was to be fed to the intake stream. This promotes greater atomization of the fuel, getting smaller droplets into a more uniform mixture. Allowing the more efficient use of the fuel allowed less fuel to be used for a given power output. This is where the power and economy picture got all rosy from. The theory is sound, and the problem has always been the practical application of it. This kind of thing makes a fuel more likely to vapor-lock, shutting down the engine. The automakers have used a device to attempt this on carbureted vehicles: the intake charge heater. You will find one between the carb and intake manifold on MANY 2.8L GM V-6's, on many Chrysler 2.2L engines, and on the Ford Escort. There are many designs out there, from here and abroad. Checking the wiring diagrams and emissions/performance information concerning this feature, would allow you an understanding of how to apply this kind of technology to your own vehicle. Smokey wrote some books, and I believe that they are still available from S-A Design.[/quote]
And you now quote another post? That will not help gasoline, it is used in diesel engines, though (glow plugs).
In fact, heating up the gasoline will only make the density of the gasoline go down, meaning that you will have much less fuel being burned with each piston stroke and therefore less power. Basically you end up starving the engine.
And, yes, vapor lock would then become an extreme problem. Not to mention the fuel to air ratio would also be thrown off.
I think the one guy is thinking about Smokey Yunick's abadiatic engine (or a copy of it). It used something akin to a modified turbo to recover waste heat while completely vaporizing the fuel. It also ran at much higher temps... I think the manufacturer's didn't go with it regardless of it's supposed increased efficiency or power because of its operating envelope's effect on reliability. If you're a little slow to change the oil on a regular engine, not too big a deal. But at the much higher temps, if it starts to gunk a little - bad things happen rather quickly. The higher maintenance requirement was something manufacturers simply didn't want to risk.
As for flying cars... I'm not too keen on it, even though the initial idea is neat. Not until there's better drivers. The current trend in driving skills seems to be a big no against having flying cars. (I don't want one crashing into my house because its driver was trying to answer their cell phone while trying to keep their kids quiet.)
Make a car that can drive itself first, then maybe I'll be ok with the flying bit.
