Lose the corporation hangup.
<<<<<<
Look at their record.
I am part of that record of advancement although I only worked for
their small subcontractors. I was able to observe how they operate
without being sucked into it. I don't defend everything about them,
particularly personnel policies.
As for their record of technical innovation, just look around yourself
at the labels on everything. Then visit a second hand store to see
what was available 10/20/30 years ago. See the whirlwind of change??
<<<<<
What is this whirlwind of change you are on about. Computers have made a
massive impact, but have stabilised over 15 years, to the meteoric advanced
of the 10 years before. One auto combustion engineer said to me, that
computers have prolonged the life of un-eco products. Without computers
(management systems, etc) they would have had to have gone back to blank
sheets and start R&D on new products.
The case for Segways is still open.
If you want to seriously investigate the ins and out of highly
economical transportation alternatives then look at small motorcycles.
They fade away as each developing nation's population becomes able to
afford cars.
That is because town cater for cars.In Medieval town in Europe bikes are
still the way to get around.
Only because I won't confirm your prejudices.
I do not have prejudices. Have you looked?
They have a vested interest in making a profit.
You got that right.
When a truly better idea comes along they
adapt or die, because another company
will pull ahead with it.
The auto giants perpetuate the inefficient IC engine. Only a few companies
around the world actually make them. I see none of them embracing new
technology wholescale. Some are into EVs and the likes, in case. Just as a
Stirling engine was about to be sold in an AMC in the 1970s. Imagine 35
years of development of a Stirling engined car? Once oil prices dropped
they dropped the production plan.
Look at
the history of personal computers. Dell
and Apple won, IBM went along
grudgingly, DEC failed because Ken Olsen
guessed wrong. DEC had once
been the brash young startup with their minicomputers.
That was nothing to do with advanced technology, more to do with pricing,
image, etc. DEC machine were as good, if not better, than successful IBM.
Not at all, they just keep very quiet about it.
Chrysler did some good work with a small team on two-stoke units about
15 -20 years ago. The units were feasible, the Neon was scheduled to have
one. All just forgotten and put back in the cupboards. The Japanese were
doing R&D on two-stokes for cars with low emissions and good fuel
consumption, and they thought they needed one in case. They never took up
the two-stroke because of the moped image, nothing to do with technology.
We have seen no advancement on the market with nothing available.
"Ceramic materials for gas-turbine engines have been in development for
decades"
There is nothing new about this. Maybe they should look at things
differently this time. Turbines are in buses now turning gennys power
electric motors. Maybe the need for ceramic turbines has now passed with
advanced motor in wheel and batteries.
GM was burned badly on the Wankel
when they didn't foresee that it
would fail future emissions requirements
The Wankel was a flawed design. Other rotor designs were about which were
superior - even a two-stroke. The worse one was chosen. The flaws are well
known and these can be ironed out if they want to. The Quasiturbine appears
to have done that.
External combustion was a superior way. Steam and Stirling always had
greater potential. How much R&D did Ford do on Stirlings and Steam with
flash boilers?
EVs are now the way forward or advanced hybrids - small companies like Tesla
have shown the way.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/08/the_hybrid_mini.php
http://www.pmlflightlink.com/archive/news_mini.html
I still think there is much to be done in compressed air, especially in
brake regen.
