Talk:Directory:Transonic Combusion -- TSCi Technology

Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 14, 2016 at 9:48 pm.

  • One error has been found on this page. Administrator will correct this soon.
  • This page has been imported from the old peswiki website. This message will be removed once updated.

Discussion page for Directory:Transonic Combusion -- TSCi Technology

Image:Transonic Combustion module 95x95.jpg
Latest: Directory:Fuel Efficiency > Directory:Fuel Pre-Heating for Mileage Improvement > Directory:Transonic Combusion -- TSCi Technology - Transonic Combustion, a finalist in ARPA-E's Energy Innovation summit, has a proprietary process that involves a catalyst and bringing the fuel to the "supercritical state" prior to injection into the cylinders, so that no droplets remain, and essentially all the fuel is burned, not wasting any, while also reducing emissions. (PESWiki March 9, 2010)


post here

(Just click on the "There was an error working with the wiki: Code[1].)

Let's Get Off Fossil Fuels Completely!

On March 09, 2010 10:08 AM Mountain Congress:Member:Tai Robinson wrote:

OK, so lets continue to use toxic petroleum fuel that kills humans from the bad emissions. Lets just choose to use less of it. So we are saying here, with this device that doing "less bad" is a good thing!!!!!!!

Wake up and chose a cleaner, safer, local fuel that costs less money than toxic petroleum!

Lets start doing "more good" by collecting methane that would otherwise escape into the atmosphere and burn it as fuel instead. They already do this in Norway, Sweeden and even Mexico with trash bags and used garde hoses!

- - - -

On March 09, 2010 10:17 AM Mountain Congress:Member:Tai Robinson wrote:

No matter how much you try to clean up a long string, hydrocarbon fuel, you can not make it any cleaner than what you started with, which is toxic poison.

This is not a new energy device by any means, this only allows some people to feel good about continuing to burn a toxic fuel. No matter how much you inmprove fuel efficiency, if you are burning a toxic fuel you are still doing a bad thing. Petroelum is the enemy, burning les of it and doing "less bad" is only continuing the problem and holding that petroleum nozzel in the veins of the people.

Time to pull the nozzel out and choose ANYTHING but petroleum. Anyone can drive petroelum free right now and save money on their transportation fuel expense if they want to. It just takes indivdiual responsibility, something poorly missing in todays society.....

- - - -

On March 09, 2010 10:49 AM NEC member, Congress:Founder:Sterling D. Allan responded:

Hi Tai,

While it is ideal to get off polluting/toxic fuel completely, the reality is that there are millions of cars on the road that are not going to just go away any time soon. This technology enables them to operate more efficiently. That is worth a lot and is deserving of our recognition.

- - - -

On March 09, 2010 11:01 AM Mountain Congress:Member:Tai Robinson wrote:

It is not likely going to retrofit old cars already on the road. This technology would be for brand new cars. Brand new cars would be better off being built from the factory, on the assembly line for a clenaer, safer, local fuel, namely CNG. For all the cars already on the road, natural gas is the best, most cost efective soultion.

Petroleum is the enemy!

any option other than it is the answer.

do not suppor tthe continued ude of gasoline and DIEsel

put your money to use supporting local comunities, buying clenaer, safer, local fuel that costs less money.

- - - -

On March 09, 2010 11:22 AM Mountain Congress:Member:Tai Robinson wrote:

It is not ideal to end the petroleum nightmear, it is essential! The "alterntives" already exist. but they will always be on the sideline if they are continued to be called alternative, when in fact the cleanr, safer, lcoa fuels are the origional fuels engines were designed to run on. this is nothing new, it takes no technological silver bullet, the fuels are here, the parts and pieces are here, engines love to run cleanr fuels because they then go longer between oil changes and they last longer.

Why is this so hard for people to comprehend?

Maybe becaue they watch to much TV and belive what they are told about "alternatives"?????

Every NEC member should be driving petroleum free by now, how many of you are saving money on your transportation fuel expenses by choosing a cleaner, safer, local fuel that cost less money???? Please, chime in if you are, I want to know. If you are ready to lower your transportation fuel expense, call me, I am ready to help you make the switch.

- - - -

On March 09, 2010 11:50 AM NEC member, Congress:Founder:Sterling D. Allan responded:

It's hardly economical when a switch costs $15 - 30,000

- - - -

On March 09, 2010 12:00 PM Mountain Congress:Member:Tai Robinson wrote:

$15,000 to $30,000???? what are you smoking?????

A CNG fuel system starts at $8,000 for a pasanger vehicle with all the proper safety components. We have a tripple taxation in effect that we need to eliminate from the undue regulation from teh federal government to bring the cost down some and we need to build more of these to bring the cost down further, but..... even at todays prices, the fuel savings alone can be recouped in as little as 20,000 miles of driving. You also get to save money on maintence, and your engine last longer which has value.... You get to drive in the car pool lanes with a single occupant saving time and you get to park at downtown meeters for free!!!!!

Wake up and choose to drive clean. It is about 1/4 the price per mile of using toxic gasoline once your fuel system upgrade is paid for.......

Start with a new vehilce and you go 20,000 miles between oil changes..... that will save you a bit of $$$ and lower your relaince on petroelum further.

- - - -

On March 09, 2010 12:15 PM NEC member, Congress:Founder:Sterling D. Allan responded:

Don't deride me, Tai. The $15 - $30k is the cost of a flex fuel conversion, according to you.

So a CNG system starts at $8k. That's still hardly in the affordable range for most people, especially in this economy, when people (including NEC members) are barely making it from paycheck to paycheck.

This Transonic system is getting the attention of the auto manufacturers (partly because of the mainstream coverage and interest it has generated). They can't ignore this one. The momentum for green solutions is pushing them to have to adopt it. So it is very likely that we will begin seeing this technology built into the new automobiles by the industry. I think the NEC should help in that process by also recognizing this as a great breakthrough that can make a huge difference.

- - - -

On March 09, 2010 1:24 PM Mountain Congress:Member:Tai Robinson wrote:

This "less bad" technology gets mainstream attention because it uses PETROLEUM!!!!!!

Renewable energy, cleaner fuels and new energy devices will never be allowed to prosper under the control paridigm. The main cause we all need to stand up for is to restore our Republic. The direction our country is headed is tyranny with complete control. The media, is controled by the CFR, the banksteers, CFR, the white house, CFR. The common enemy to our Republic is the CFR. Oil companies are protected because they pay their "protection" fees in the way of certification through the epa... epa is teh biggest enemy to the clenar fuels because they mandate dedicated fuels vehilces only. Those who know they are a voluntairy organization are not afrfraid of the badges their enforcement officers brandish because they have no ground to stand on. Others are very scared and comply. Maybe that is where you got your inflated price from..... An epa "certifed" CNG conversion starts at $12,000 and usually ends up costing $18,000 or more to put in enough fuel storage cylinders to get teh range you would require out of a mono-fuel vehicle that can only run on one fuel.

I have no products in the range you state..... A hydrogen system starts at $30,000 because of teh lowe volume of manufacture of teh componenets that are to higher pressure and tighter tolerances than a CNG system. Yes, $8,000 is a bit to pay up front, but bring your eyes up off the dirt in front of your toes and look down the road a ways and you save a whole lot by not having to buy petroelum for teh future. It is like paying for your fuel up front and then getting cheap fill ups for life. Actually quite a good deal. This up front cost is why "conversions" are a hard sell...... "conversions" really only make sense on big trucks, SUV's that get poor fuel economy. So, we have the solution to your precieved roadblock. Turn-key vehilces. If you are looking for a new vehicle, we go buy it for you at auction, slightly used, with say 10,000 miles on it, install the fuel system upgrade and sell it for high blue book. this way you only have one payment, the way people buy cars anyway, and this can be done to any car, even small economy cars make economic sense to upgrade.

Multi-Fuel vehilces belong in the top 100, right near the top because they work in todays infrastructure while paving the highway to a cleaner fuel future.

Sterling, you need to stop drinking the kool-aide. Your focus on the unobtainium is the dealth to what really works today. While you focus on what might work, you ignore and actually hurt what really works today, is available, does save money and would get us all a lot further. If you put all the wated energy you have spent on things that dont work, into something that does, we would all be better off. You could have income, we could be growing business and making profits that could be re-invested in the future tech.

Again, Multi-Fuel vehilces belong on the top 100, right near the top. Multi-Fuel works today and helps make a better tomorrow.

Now that is far better than just doing "Less Bad" by getting better fuel economy from a toxic fuel that is KILLING humans!!!!

- - - -

On March 09, 2010 4:09 PM Mountain, Congress:Founder:Sterling D. Allan responded:

My roll isn't to be satisfied with and promote the solutions that presently exist. Though we do give those coverage. I'm a pioneer by nature, and that is what PES is about. We're explorers. There are technologies out there to be found (and being found) that will drop the energy price point to 1/10 what we're paying for from the grid, while being clean, reliable but most of all breaking our dependence on a central power that has grown corrupt.

- - - -

On Tuesday, March 09, 2010 5:03 PM Mountain NEC member, Congress:Member:Francis Giroux wrote:

I’d love to have a CNG fueled car and a place to fill it for ¼ the price per mile of gasoline. I drive a $1000 car, have for many years. I only spend 7 cents per mile for fuel. If CNG will cost ¼ of that, I’d have to drive 160,000 miles to pay for the $8000 price tag. There are NO CNG filling stations in upstate New York where I live. If there were, by the time I drove 160,000 the price of CNG would be as high as gasoline per mile. That’s what happened to all the truckers that enhanced their Diesel truck with cheap CNG. Now they will never recoup the cost of their CNG system because once demand for CNG went up, so did the price. I know we have natural gas here in US but we need it for other things too. If we all changed our transportation fuel to CNG we’d have a big shortage. Why don’t we just drill for the oil we already know we have under our feet? I know Tai will say its toxic because he make money on CNG conversions. Show me the toxicity of carbon dioxide and water vapor.

- - - -

On March 09, 2010 5:31 PM Mountain, NEC member, Congress:Member:Leslie R. Pastor wrote:

I've been following the dialogue, and my take on this is simple. That it is still not ready for prime time players. So why the need for ranking, if it is not viable today, (available for consumer consumption/usage?). This is still very much academic, and is not a subject-matter, relevant to our purpose.

We have technologies that are already current, available and consumer ready.

What we don't have is consumer consciousness regarding significant alternative technologies (Tesla/Bedini/Bearden) that are already viable/available/marketable, such as the 10 pole monopole, which does energize/charge batteries.

Free (radiant) Energy is available NOW..........

- - - -

On Wednesday, March 10, 2010 2:06 AM Mountain, NEC member, Congress:Member:Sepp Hasslberger wrote:

I have voted "not top 100".

Making an inherently bad technology more appealing by increasing its efficiency will prolong the use of that technology in time and will therefore prevent the emergency of clean and high-tech alternatives. I think that argument makes eminent sense.

Sterling, why do you think that the Rockefeller family venture fund invests heavily in this technological development? I believe that deep down, you know the answer.

Let's leave it at the feature of the technology on PESWiki. They don't need our endorsement to make it. They've got all the support they could ever want, both from the US government and from the controllers (the Rockefeller interests). Why give them our endorsement, when the mission of the NEC is to foster radically new, game changing technologies? This tech is a distraction on the way to proper new energy technology.

- - - -

On March 10, 2010 6:57 AM, NEC member, Congress:Member:Francis Giroux wrote:

So Tai says “Choose anything but Petroleum” and Sepp says petroleum is “an inherently bad technology” because of the Rockefeller family.

So we should choose coal or wood or camel dung like other countries are using? Or maybe we should turn off the electricity because J.P. Morgan and heirs are monopolizing it and can use it to control us.

Why is making the century old technology that brought us out of the dark sky age of coal smoke, even cleaner and more efficient, a bad thing? You must be duped by the Global warming nonsense that CO2 is a pollutant. Hey what do you think burning CNG produces, GREEN HOUSE GASES (CO2 and H2O). Even if you use hydrogen in a fuel cell car you produce GREEN HOUSE gases (H2O). Even if you outlaw cattle because they fart too much green house gas (CH4), other sources of dietary protein (beans) will make YOU fart green house gas instead of the cows.

We didn’t have all these objections to the small but mighty engine. What does that burn?

Until we have some verified Zero Point Energy devices that will fill up the top 100 spots on our list, we need to rank what we have for improving technologies that we may not like. I hate coal smoke but I wouldn’t ignore clean coal technology. I hate funding our enemies by purchasing petroleum from them but, I will not ignore a technology that enables me to spend less on petroleum. I hate cutting down trees for firewood but if someone comes out with a clean way to process wood for energy I would not ignore it, even if the “masters” had a monopoly on trees.

You that have a financial stake in a technology can’t see the bias in your comments but the rest of us can. At least Sterling tells us when he has a financial interest in a technology, then keeps his bias fully disclosed. Let’s all try to do the same. Let the vote on a controversial technology determine whether it ends up on the T100 list or not.

But don’t stop having this healthy debate, on the science, and on the politics, of every new technology.

Retrofit Requires Model-Specific Not Plausible

On March 09, 2010 11:12 AM NEC member, Congress:Member:Richard George wrote:

This device remains 5+ years from commercialization. It would need to be integrated into designs for each car model. Given automotive regulations, this only makes sense for new cars, not retrofits. They have to successfully sell it to various automakers who then have to use it. This is a very hard sale with long odds. Likely impact is minimal. Hence - not top 100...

- - - -

On March 09, 2010 11:58 AM NEC member, Congress:Founder:Sterling D. Allan responded:

The company has been successful in talking to auto manufactures, having two on board so far. So your argument does not stand.

They've been able to bring sufficient clout to the field to get noticed.

- - - -

On March 09, 2010 12:38 PM NEC member, Congress:Member:Richard George replied:

They themselves state 2014 as the expected delivery date. A lot can happen in 5 years. It is still only for new cars. It takes ~20 years to turn over the entire US auto fleet AND that assumes normal economic conditions. Add a great depression worse than the 1930s, it will take longer. This will have zero impact for at least five years. Then, it needs widespread adoption (another unknown) well beyond the letter of intent stage. My argument still stands. Not Top 100 at this time. We can revisit it when it is actually used in a product one can purchase.

- - - -

On March 09, 2010 1:03 PM NEC member, Congress:Founder:Sterling D. Allan responded:

While I will admit that there is some merit to your case, here is why I will still say Transonic deserves to be featured in our T100.

Their level of fuel efficiency improvement: 50-75%, is a huge accomplishment that can have carry-over credibility to others such as the hydroxy people who are seeing improvements in mileage but have been having a hard time getting people to pay attention because they assume the automobile manufacturer's have already done whatever is possible to maximize fuel efficiency.

So while they might rank low in the time to market category, they rank high in other important areas, especially credibility and significance of their science.

Time to market is just one of the 10 criteria.