duh...he started a company dedicated to genetically engineering a combustible lemon....so he could burn life's house down....with a lemon!

Viewed a lot of lemon party pictures, have you?

Don't tell me what I can't use math for!
I'll use math to make a combustible lemon, then I'll come burn your house down....with a lemon!

I've always found it annoying when people refer to hydrogen as a new "fuel", especially when they're referring to hydrogen produced by electrolysis. Using electrolysis means that the theoretical limits are that you can get as much energy -out- of burning hydrogen as you put into splitting the water. The traditional meaning of fuel is the exact opposite, that you can get more energy out of combustion than you have to put into creating the fuel.

TLDR - Hydrogen is an energy storage technology, not a fuel. It competes against batteries, not against carbon fuels.

No, no, no, no, no.
Not the first car by 50 + years. Just the first internal combustion engine powered car. Electric and steam power both came well before this.
I love old school tech, but I can't upvote such incorrect information.

Um...but, again, before Ford made internal combustion viable, the electric car was center stage, almost alone on the stage....even with the horrible batteries they had in the 1800's. Granted, there weren't many other options besides steam.

It's well past time for it to return imo.

It's not just sad it's criminal that before it got a second shot it had to prove it could beat combustion engine vehicles in every way, not just ecologically and economically, but in every performance metric as well. Now that it has, I still expect major pushback from both car and oil companies and their lackeys. Fingers crossed that they fail this time to rig the system again.

PS, are you using speech to text, is there a problem with the Russian to English translation program you've been issued, or should we be worried about Wernicke's aphasia? ;-)

Most airliners have wings designed to be used in low transsonic. They can't effectively go faster. They would literally lose lift if they went faster. Their wing shape is made to only delay the onset of shockwaves on top of the wing (flat-ish top), allowing it to safely creep closer to mach1 than otherwise, but not to operate within/past mach1.

Fan/propeller blades themselves are also mach limited.
(They can be designed to be supersonic, but then you end up with something like this... which in hindsight nobody wants : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_XF-84H)
A subsonic airfoil in a fan/propeller, operating near/at supersonic speed, loses the ability to move/redirect air, due to shockwave disruption of the airflow.

Fans/propellers with subsonic blades that spin at subsonic speeds are effectively speed limited. They lose efficiency above ~500 mph, where they begin to stop generating thrust as they travel faster. Their pitch has to increase higher and higher, until they are no longer much of an airscrew and more of a 'feathered' configuration.

Supersonic jet engines use intake devices (such as shock cones) to decelerate incoming air to subsonic speeds, so the compressor (itself a fan, i.e. a highly multi bladed propeller) can operate on that air to compress it and feed the engine combustion chambers.
Airliners have no intake devices to decelerate incoming air, and they would lose engine compression when entering near mach1 speeds.

Furthermore, their bypass fans (which are glorified propellers) would stop providing thrust.

You would need to design different planes (like the concorde). You can't just throttle up a modern airliner and go faster [than X limit] - like you can in a modern car.

-scheherazade

This is kind of annoying to me. The only grid this guy is living off of is the electrical grid. He's got guns and ammunition, vehicles, boats, internal combustion engines, gasoline, oil etc etc. Take away civilization and he will, of necessity, start to revert to pre industrial living fairly quickly. He's not some eco warrior or rugged individualist protecting nature, he's living off of everybody else's little corner of paradise.

All about that combination of combustible + surface area.

Nice.
I wish they paid more attention to the combustion chamber. Most people don't know what a hemi is beyond a powerful motor. The hemispherical combustion chamber produces far more power than a normally shaped one. Even partial hemispherical combustion chambers (semi-hemi) can seriously increase the power of most motors....but also decreases the fuel efficiency.
I use a semi-hemi cut 1776 VW motor in my race buggy, and it outperforms much larger motors.

This seems like a no brainer to use for direct injection, then you would just need enough air for combustion to get things going.

They're using port injection, so without the engine turning there's nothing to pull the fuel into the cylinder.

I love all this technology though, I'm a real petrol head but I really do think this is the dying throws of the internal combustion engine. Electric motors just have so many advantages and the disadvantages are disappearing fast.

I've heard camless engines don't need starters. They just squirt a bit of fuel into a combustion-cycle (down stroke) cylinder and fire the plug.

*quality wow! A literally combustible engine ... have I now seen it all?

A lot of people don't know that hay may spontaneously combust if it's stacked when wet, but that guy should have.

Wouldn't have anything to do with Nitrogen removing all oxygen from the combustion? \= |