Re: Any rich suckers out there?

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by chuckcar, Jun 16, 2010.

  1. chuckcar

    chuckcar Guest

    Evan Platt <> wrote in
    news::

    > 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) )
     
    chuckcar, Jun 16, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. chuckcar

    richard Guest

    On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 23:56:50 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar wrote:

    > Evan Platt <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >> 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"
     
    richard, Jun 16, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. chuckcar

    rf Guest

    "richard" <> wrote in message
    news:1ff4o1uy0egks$...
    > On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 23:56:50 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar wrote:
    >
    >> Evan Platt <> wrote in
    >> news::
    >>
    >>> 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?
     
    rf, Jun 16, 2010
    #3
  4. chuckcar

    chuckcar Guest

    richard <> wrote in
    news:1ff4o1uy0egks$:

    > On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 23:56:50 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar wrote:
    >
    >> Evan Platt <> wrote in
    >> news::
    >>
    >>> 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) )
     
    chuckcar, Jun 16, 2010
    #4
  5. chuckcar

    chuckcar Guest

    Evan Platt <> wrote in
    news::

    > On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 00:31:41 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <>
    > 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: <>

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

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

    QED

    Now who's the idiot?

    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
     
    chuckcar, Jun 16, 2010
    #5
  6. chuckcar

    Aardvark Guest

    On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 00:31:41 +0000, chuckcar wrote:

    > hydralic


    WTF?????



    --
    I'm Josef Fritzl, and No Windows was my idea.
     
    Aardvark, Jun 16, 2010
    #6
  7. chuckcar

    Mike Yetto Guest

    Alec Lourmier <> writes and having writ moves on.
    > On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 09:04:38 -0700, Evan Platt
    ><> 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.
     
    Mike Yetto, Jun 16, 2010
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Ken Briscoe

    OT: Sony suckers well, suckers

    Ken Briscoe, Dec 2, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    418
    Consultant
    Dec 2, 2004
  2. Networking Student
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,399
    vreyesii
    Nov 16, 2006
  3. richard

    Re: Any rich suckers out there?

    richard, Jun 15, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    443
    Aardvark
    Jun 16, 2010
  4. Spagat

    Re: Any rich suckers out there?

    Spagat, Jun 15, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    432
    Spagat
    Jun 15, 2010
  5. thund3rstruck

    Re: Any rich suckers out there?

    thund3rstruck, Jun 16, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    423
    thund3rstruck
    Jun 16, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page