h a l f b a k e r yI CAN HAZ CROISSANTZ?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
This vehicle comes standard with chimney-style exhaust, cast-iron bumpers, and a very loud horn. It's almost big enough to crush small SUVs, but is still street-legal. The only available colors are Blackmetal Black (TM) and Locomotive Red (TM).
The fuel is pure, 100% American-produced coal. A
state-of-the-art grinder pulverizes the fuel before injecting it into the cylinders of a specially designed coal-burning Diesel engine (available in 6, 12, and 24 cylinder models). An array of lead-acid batteries store extra power from the alternator and regenerative braking to aid in accelaration.
A small diesel tank is provided for those pesky cross country trips outside coal-producing regions. The fuel can actually be anything that burns and can be powderized...
(Switchgrass-optimized models available for the Midwestern Market)
(?) Use wood pellets instead
http://www.sunmachine.com/animation.htm
[kbecker, Dec 06 2006]
what he said
http://query.nytime...5A15751C0A964958260
[afinehowdoyoudo, Nov 19 2007]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
All garage owners / mechanics will die due to over exertion. Every minute they will receive enough vehicles with engines badly eroded by ash in fuel. |
|
| |
Coal is wrong, but you are on the right track, get bakeware. See link for a CO2 neutral solution, using 100% New England grown wood pellets (The web site uses some Alpine slang, but you should get the point). |
|
| |
I'd like to see owner/driver powered
SUVs - this is where their moronic
owners have to cut bits off themsleves
to use as fuel for these hideous climate
wreckers. |
|
| |
[Xenzag], you're a bloody troll. |
|
| |
Xenzag, and what makes you think you would be safe from these people? Why would you not be the next poor soul traded for cash? |
|
| |
I think [verdashi] is right about the ash. A vast improvement would be to move the coal so that it burns outside the cylinder. Furthermore, water could be converted to steam, and so provide pressure for turning the engine. |
|
| |
External combustion engine? Are we
going
backwards here? Coal is NOT CLEAN!
even
if it is plentiful in the United States and
it
doesn't matter what the commercials
say.
Go ahead and get some black lung. |
|
| |
And i'm with Xenzag. The only reason I
would dare consider an SUV is because
there are hummers on the roads and
golly
I don't want its wheel in my back seat. |
|
| |
I don't get the "ecomobile"? Do you
mean to say Economic mobile? (because
coal is cheap?), or ecologically friendly
mobile? Which it would not be. |
|
| |
//External combustion engine? Are we going backwards here?//
No, no. I propose it as an improvement of the idea. It wouldn't make that much difference to the efficiency, would it? |
|
| |
It's an 'ecomobile' because it's an alternate take on the idea friendly to the right wing (essentially a 'Solid Fuel Hybrid' It's convertible to biomass, reduces dependence on foreign oil, and can be powered by domestic fuels while not failing to pay homage to the railroad and steel industries). |
|
| |
If only Ayn Raynd was around to appreciate the beauty of this... |
|
| |
Pff. Coal. My SUV gets 4 miles to the baby harp seal. |
|
| |
Harp seal? Mine is powered by snail darter caviar, with a Northern Spotted Owl turbocharger. |
|
| |
Baked, look for an old military duece-and-a-half with tri-fuel fuel option though I don't think the bumpers were cast iron. I am sure they were thick enough to resemble cast-iron. The army developed them just in case the oil supply was cut. I bet they could be converted to run on flour per the separate post. I'll try to find a link. They all need new bronze worm drives for the coal feeders.
PS [BunsenHoneydew] killed me with the baby harp seal post. |
|
| |
The only reason external combustion isn't as (or more) efficient than internal combustion is because it was never developed fully. Theoretically external combustion actually has a higher maximum efficiency.
The only reason it wasn't developed fully was because of the warm up time for the original steam cars (1/2-2 hours) a soluble problem with flash boilers or energy storage.
A slight problem exists with energy density for a lot of fuels, but since it can burn anything, you can always refuel by picking up deadwood from the side of the road.
Thus external combustion is not necessarily a step backwards. |
|
| |