Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

About the Oil Crisis – Brainstorming Solutions –
2008 Cricket Diane C Phillips
07-29-08

The basic problem I see is this – most of our mechanical power and propulsion systems are based on combustion. This means that we are still harnessing the discovery of fire to translate into our mechanical work mechanisms.

In each translation there is a significant loss of energy and efficiency. With each gear and armature, there is a loss of energy. Rather than amplifying power input, our current systems degrade that input at each juncture of change from source to output.

As the basis for engineering and science, surely there has already been discoveries about natural and cosmic phenomenon beyond creating fire, heat or combustion.

If petroleum is atomized to the nano particle level, isn’t the surface area of combustion increased? Or does something else occur at that point? Do we have to continue living with exotic chemical combinations in our air or can we harness them for transportation fuels?

Could we use reflexive skids under our existing cars rather than tires to decrease the effects of friction and no longer need to push our vehicles against the ground surface? Is there really a need for that many moving parts in vehicles’ mechanical systems? Are we only doing it that way to support businesses that are no longer viable?

Do we require controlled blasts to move pistons as a reaction of combustion (fire) or could a chemical reaction do that? Couldn’t a plasma reaction ionizing the air inside the combustion chamber of existing vehicles move the pistons with less energy and greater efficiency? Wouldn’t that make better sense along with restructuring a certain degree of complexity that has over the years been used “under the hood”?

Even water given a pressurized environment contains enough power to move the mechanical workings of a car or pull a load, such as required by trucks. The idea that we have not progressed beyond the discovery of fire must be wrong with the time, knowledge and money that has already been put into our understandings of physics, etc.

When do we utilize what has been developed, considering the costs associated with keeping the status quo?

If –> two powerful magnets holding in stasis a plasma reaction of carbon nanoparticles, then could an electron swarm be culled from this reaction and for how long with what input?

Why not use hovercraft technology on land for vehicles’ motion?

With as much nitrogen derivative compounds in every city’s air from car and truck emissions, it would seem this is a better fuel source that is available. Under a pressure system, the change of neutrons could occur releasing great quantities of power to harness. Or, using the basis of energy in temperature change, could harnessing of these nitrogen compounds create a fuel source for another kind of kinetic engine?

There are many chemical reactions which yield energy in transmutation. Isn’t there anything that industrial slag from one process which would combine with that of another to produce power by chemical reaction rather than combustion?

We also have methane from landfills that are abundant. Can this be used to fuel existing systems for cars and trucks, as is being done by some industries? Is it really necessary for the habits of filling up the car with gasoline to remain the same for people to feel comfortable?

Would there be anyway to create a distribution network in a timely manner for alternative fuel stations such that there would be convenience to using them? Could these be offered by a retail chain whose locations already exist that is not a gasoline retailer but possibly a discount merchandise retailer instead? There are groceries and discounters that have huge chains nationwide that could simply add an island of alternative fuels in their parking lots, perhaps by subcontracted businesses. Would they do that?

In 1992, Popular Mechanics magazine, there is a Nissan vehicle (car) that was announced in full working model that ran on 100% electricity. It is now 2008. Every car manufacturer has working models that have been shown at one time or another for fully electric cars, light trucks and other mechanical marvels, including lawn mowers, power tools, heavy load movers and others. Why aren’t these available to the market considering there has been more than enough time to do all the tests on them to date?

What conflict of interest is placing our car and truck manufacturers on the list of beneficiaries to the petroleum industry’s continued profitability extreme? The extreme has been a complete monopoly on the market and the compliance in the vehicle manufacturing concerns to keep the current petroleum based systems in place indicates some deep pocket advantage to them. This has kept the status quo in place despite every evidence of its detriment across several areas of impact and concern.

There are laws of physics which have some interesting possibilities for motion and propulsion. Some of these have been pursued by scientists and engineers. Some have been designed into systems already but they are not on the market. It appears that the entrenched powers in the marketplace have been undermining the introduction of these new technologies and uses of the new understandings of physics for market-ready products, particularly in transportation uses.

Unless pollution that is currently prevalent everywhere is somehow harnessed and utilized to power modern living, there will be no turning back from the damage that has already occurred. The time has passed already for assessing, studying, testing, figuring, analyzing and in fact, all that has been done at this point. Possibilities exist that simply need to be put into play now.

Written by Cricket Diane C “Sparky” Phillips, 07-28-08/07-29-08, Cricket House Studios, USA

Advertisements