Re: Thanks for Patent help.
- From: spambait@xxxxxxxxxx (Doug Miller)
- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 23:47:07 GMT
In article <df0315$9uu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, nicksanspam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>Doug Miller <spambait@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>...The reciprocating cylinder design is inherently less efficient --
>>*considerably* less so, in fact -- than a conventional piston engine
>>for one simple reason: the mass of the reciprocating parts is far higher,
>>and therefore correspondingly greater energy is wasted in reversing their
>>direction 'x' times per second. It simply *can't* be more efficient
>>than a conventional design.
>
>Sure it can, with good bearings and balancing.
Not without violating the laws of thermodynamics, it can't. It simply takes
more energy to reverse the direction of a moving two-kilogram mass than to
reverse the direction of a one-kilogram mass moving at the same velocity.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Thanks for Patent help.
- From: nicksanspam
- Re: Thanks for Patent help.
- References:
- Thanks for Patent help.
- From: Christina Peterson
- Re: Thanks for Patent help.
- From: Dave Hinz
- Re: Thanks for Patent help.
- From: Christina Peterson
- Re: Thanks for Patent help.
- From: Doug Miller
- Re: Thanks for Patent help.
- From: nicksanspam
- Thanks for Patent help.
- Prev by Date: Re: hornets
- Next by Date: Re: Conmen
- Previous by thread: Re: Thanks for Patent help.
- Next by thread: Re: Thanks for Patent help.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
