Bob Peterson said:
You are making a completely unwarranted
jump between a sound concept (of
which there are a lot) and the concept being
commerically viable (very few
ideas ever make it that far).
Usually because of vested interest rather than the concepts being flawed.
Some concepts that will only give a marginal advantage are naturally
dropped.
Suggesting that some kind of government
mandate is the only thing that will force car
makers to use the QT is the
same as saying it is no good and would
only be useful if people were forced
to use it.
You put "people" and auto giants in the same pot. The "people" want
vehicles that are safe, cheap, cost little to run and don't pollute the
immediate and global environments. Auto giants only look at the bottom
line. Do not put them both in the same group.
probably not what you meant to say.
its pretty obvious you have
little clue about how the auto industry
has to work to be successful.
You are joking of curse.
You can't take a flyer on something that
barely even has a prototype at present
and decide to switch out all your powerplants
to some future version of that
prototype. No one even knows if the QT is
even viable yet.
What must happen is that government people must assess viable alternative
and set limits that will encompass them and leave behind the current
antiquate crop of iron lumps. You don't regulate to one technology or type.
I am unaware of any innovation that has a proven track recoird that they
have not gone with. Electronic ignition, fuel injection, tansaxles, front
wheel drive, etc, etc. It just takes a long time to get from the pre-design
phase where the QT is now to the commerically succesful phase. 10-20 years
is not that long to get there.
Missedcthe point. The core concept of the current piston power unit is
flawed - that is plain for all to see. It is a heat engine, as heat is its
major product with BHP a by-product. It is highly inefficient and dirty.
Electronic ignition and fuel injection systems is technology that plasters
over the cracks. The cracks making little overall improvement to
efficiency. The cracks are still underneath.
Its full of BS and fluff. That does not mean that it can't eventually
become commerically successful, only that it is
a LONG way from where it is
now to where it needs to be.
So, it is a long way off, so it should be dismissed? Please? If we all
adopted that attitude Frank Whittle would not have invented and produced the
jet engine. The concept was there, it was viable, so he was given a small
staff to do some r&d with the Rover car company making some of the first
prototypes. It was a hell of a long way off in the 1930s.
