Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > Re: Any rich suckers out there?

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Any rich suckers out there?

 
 
chuckcar
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-15-2010
Evan Platt <evan@*******************************> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> From another froup, I'll give you two guesses who posted this. Any
> rich suckers with $50k?
>
> I think I've come up with a fantastic idea for a new engine. One that
> requires no expendable fuel and creates no emissions.
> In the good old days of steam train engines, their existed a type of
> engine
> that had two opposing cylinders. Steam would sent into one piston
> causing
> that piston to move. In doing so, vacating any air in the other
> piston.
> When piston 1 is filled, piston 1 is closed, piston 2 opens and piston
> 2 is
> loaded. husly creatng a rocking back and forth movement, which in
> turn,
> moves the external arm that moves the whhels.
>
> My engine works on the same principal. But instead of steam, I will
> use
> oil. Yes oil. Above each piston will be a holding tank for the oil.
> Some
> sort of compression device would be needed to drive the oil into the
> piston.
>
> I fiugre if Edison took 10,000 experiments to make a lightbulb, I
> figure I
> can do the same.
>
> If interested in investing, I will need each person to invest a
> minimum of
> fifty thousand dollars. I should have a working model in about 20
> years or
> so.
>

It's been done. The only difference in your idea is that you don't
compact the size of the engine with a crankshaft. And you'd have to have a
*very* complicated linkage for anything more than a two cylinder design.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsby-Akroyd_oil_engine

And BTW oil is gasoline that hasn't been refined yet BTW. Gasoline
consists of a few hydrocarbons around octane, whereas unrefined oil
is *all* of the liquid ones that exist - among other nastier things.
Motor oil has *some* of the higher hydrocarbons taken out to decrease
thickness and other substances added to improve usefulness.

--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-16-2010
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 23:56:50 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar wrote:

> Evan Platt <evan@*******************************> wrote in
> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> From another froup, I'll give you two guesses who posted this. Any
>> rich suckers with $50k?
>>
>> I think I've come up with a fantastic idea for a new engine. One that
>> requires no expendable fuel and creates no emissions.
>> In the good old days of steam train engines, their existed a type of
>> engine
>> that had two opposing cylinders. Steam would sent into one piston
>> causing
>> that piston to move. In doing so, vacating any air in the other
>> piston.
>> When piston 1 is filled, piston 1 is closed, piston 2 opens and piston
>> 2 is
>> loaded. husly creatng a rocking back and forth movement, which in
>> turn,
>> moves the external arm that moves the whhels.
>>
>> My engine works on the same principal. But instead of steam, I will
>> use
>> oil. Yes oil. Above each piston will be a holding tank for the oil.
>> Some
>> sort of compression device would be needed to drive the oil into the
>> piston.
>>
>> I fiugre if Edison took 10,000 experiments to make a lightbulb, I
>> figure I
>> can do the same.
>>
>> If interested in investing, I will need each person to invest a
>> minimum of
>> fifty thousand dollars. I should have a working model in about 20
>> years or
>> so.
>>

> It's been done. The only difference in your idea is that you don't
> compact the size of the engine with a crankshaft. And you'd have to have a
> *very* complicated linkage for anything more than a two cylinder design.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsby-Akroyd_oil_engine
>
> And BTW oil is gasoline that hasn't been refined yet BTW. Gasoline
> consists of a few hydrocarbons around octane, whereas unrefined oil
> is *all* of the liquid ones that exist - among other nastier things.
> Motor oil has *some* of the higher hydrocarbons taken out to decrease
> thickness and other substances added to improve usefulness.


Nice try. But I'm not talking about a combustible engine here. The oil is
simply moved from the holding tank to the piston. Thus, one never needs to
refill the tank.


--
I learned my lesson well. You can't please everyone, so you got to please
yourself.
- Ricky Nelson from "Garden Party"
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
rf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-16-2010

"richard" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:1ff4o1uy0egks$(E-Mail Removed).. .
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 23:56:50 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar wrote:
>
>> Evan Platt <evan@*******************************> wrote in
>> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>>
>>> From another froup, I'll give you two guesses who posted this. Any
>>> rich suckers with $50k?
>>>
>>> I think I've come up with a fantastic idea for a new engine. One that
>>> requires no expendable fuel and creates no emissions.
>>> In the good old days of steam train engines, their existed a type of
>>> engine
>>> that had two opposing cylinders. Steam would sent into one piston
>>> causing
>>> that piston to move. In doing so, vacating any air in the other
>>> piston.
>>> When piston 1 is filled, piston 1 is closed, piston 2 opens and piston
>>> 2 is
>>> loaded. husly creatng a rocking back and forth movement, which in
>>> turn,
>>> moves the external arm that moves the whhels.
>>>
>>> My engine works on the same principal. But instead of steam, I will
>>> use
>>> oil. Yes oil. Above each piston will be a holding tank for the oil.
>>> Some
>>> sort of compression device would be needed to drive the oil into the
>>> piston.
>>>
>>> I fiugre if Edison took 10,000 experiments to make a lightbulb, I
>>> figure I
>>> can do the same.
>>>
>>> If interested in investing, I will need each person to invest a
>>> minimum of
>>> fifty thousand dollars. I should have a working model in about 20
>>> years or
>>> so.
>>>

>> It's been done. The only difference in your idea is that you don't
>> compact the size of the engine with a crankshaft. And you'd have to have
>> a
>> *very* complicated linkage for anything more than a two cylinder design.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsby-Akroyd_oil_engine
>>
>> And BTW oil is gasoline that hasn't been refined yet BTW. Gasoline
>> consists of a few hydrocarbons around octane, whereas unrefined oil
>> is *all* of the liquid ones that exist - among other nastier things.
>> Motor oil has *some* of the higher hydrocarbons taken out to decrease
>> thickness and other substances added to improve usefulness.

>
> Nice try. But I'm not talking about a combustible engine here. The oil is
> simply moved from the holding tank to the piston.



And where do you get the energy to move this oil from the holding tank to
the piston, assuming said piston is resisting a bit because it is eventually
having to make wheels go round?


 
Reply With Quote
 
chuckcar
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-16-2010
richard <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:1ff4o1uy0egks$(E-Mail Removed):

> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 23:56:50 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar wrote:
>
>> Evan Platt <evan@*******************************> wrote in
>> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>>
>>> From another froup, I'll give you two guesses who posted this. Any
>>> rich suckers with $50k?
>>>
>>> I think I've come up with a fantastic idea for a new engine. One
>>> that requires no expendable fuel and creates no emissions.
>>> In the good old days of steam train engines, their existed a type of
>>> engine
>>> that had two opposing cylinders. Steam would sent into one piston
>>> causing
>>> that piston to move. In doing so, vacating any air in the other
>>> piston.
>>> When piston 1 is filled, piston 1 is closed, piston 2 opens and
>>> piston 2 is
>>> loaded. husly creatng a rocking back and forth movement, which in
>>> turn,
>>> moves the external arm that moves the whhels.
>>>
>>> My engine works on the same principal. But instead of steam, I will
>>> use
>>> oil. Yes oil. Above each piston will be a holding tank for the oil.
>>> Some
>>> sort of compression device would be needed to drive the oil into the
>>> piston.
>>>
>>> I fiugre if Edison took 10,000 experiments to make a lightbulb, I
>>> figure I
>>> can do the same.
>>>
>>> If interested in investing, I will need each person to invest a
>>> minimum of
>>> fifty thousand dollars. I should have a working model in about 20
>>> years or
>>> so.
>>>

>> It's been done. The only difference in your idea is that you don't
>> compact the size of the engine with a crankshaft. And you'd have to
>> have a *very* complicated linkage for anything more than a two
>> cylinder design.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsby-Akroyd_oil_engine
>>
>> And BTW oil is gasoline that hasn't been refined yet BTW. Gasoline
>> consists of a few hydrocarbons around octane, whereas unrefined oil
>> is *all* of the liquid ones that exist - among other nastier things.
>> Motor oil has *some* of the higher hydrocarbons taken out to decrease
>> thickness and other substances added to improve usefulness.

>
> Nice try. But I'm not talking about a combustible engine here. The oil
> is simply moved from the holding tank to the piston. Thus, one never
> needs to refill the tank.
>

So the truth reveals itself. Richard *is* Evan.

Then what do you use for fuel and how is it original? You probably don't
want hydralic action in cylinders. Shock is *very* bad for crankshafts and
their equivalents. Crankshafts are made of harder steel. That means more
brittle in most cases. Shock is exactly what breaks them.

--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
 
Reply With Quote
 
chuckcar
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-16-2010
Evan Platt <evan@*******************************> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 00:31:41 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>So the truth reveals itself. Richard *is* Evan.

>
> PS: You've frequently been called richard the st00pid Jr. or chucktard
> the st00pid, so ... Might want to remove your foot from your mouth and
> your head from your ass.


But *I* never replied to replies to him with *my* nym as if I *were* him.
*You* did. QED.

*Evan's* original post:
Message-ID: <(E-Mail Removed)>

My reply:
Message-ID: <Xns9D98C87416BE6chuck@127.0.0.1>

*Richard's* reply to my post attempting to explain "your" idea.
Message-ID: <1ff4o1uy0egks$(E-Mail Removed)>

QED

Now who's the idiot?

--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
 
Reply With Quote
 
Aardvark
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-16-2010
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 00:31:41 +0000, chuckcar wrote:

> hydralic


WTF?????



--
I'm Josef Fritzl, and No Windows was my idea.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mike Yetto
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-16-2010
Alec Lourmier <(E-Mail Removed)> writes and having writ moves on.
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 09:04:38 -0700, Evan Platt
><evan@*******************************> wrote:
>
>>A combustible engine?
>>
>>I'm hoping you mean combustion engine.

>
> "In. One hundred. Yards. Turn. Left."
> "Ok, I'll just take this exit here..."
> ****KABOOOOM****
>


You have William Shatner's voice on your GPS?

Mike "kewl" Yetto
--
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice they are not.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
rich:dataTable - rich:dataScroller Hollow Quincy Java 5 01-02-2012 08:59 PM
Re: Any rich suckers out there? richard Computer Support 8 06-16-2010 07:34 PM
Re: Any rich suckers out there? thund3rstruck Computer Support 0 06-16-2010 02:46 AM
Re: Any rich suckers out there? Spagat Computer Support 0 06-15-2010 10:43 PM
OT: Sony suckers well, suckers Ken Briscoe MCSE 1 12-02-2004 10:33 PM



Advertisments