The basic principles of internal combustion engines haven't changed in 100 years. The basic principles of thermodynamic engines haven't changed in 250 years. However, anyone who thinks that modern internal combustion engines are much like those of 100 years ago in terms of their engineering finesse doesn't really know much about them. I read a couple of papers recently about capturing unused fluid-dynamics cycles to make exhaust systems more efficient. This is stuff Ford never knew. My expertise has been used on high-end automotive engines, plus I have hands-on experience with a 1917 Ford engine. Dismissing the former as nothing more that 100-year-old technology is pretty naive.

Just last night, I read an interesting article in Kitplanes magazine (the July 09 edition) on turbo-compound engines. While these may not be viable for use in cars due to the wide range of RPMs, they were some of the most efficient airplane piston engines made. However, the rise of turbine engines cut development of turbo-compound engines short. There were several turbo-compound engine projects starting in WWII but the most successful was the later model Wright R-3350 radial engines (up to 3500 HP out of 3350 cubic inches with very good cruise fuel consumption specs).

When people go to the National Air and Space Museum and look at the Flyer enshrined in glory, I tend to look up at the smallish glider hanging from the ceiling, where the real breakthrough occurred.

The Wrights figured out 3 axis control with their 1900 glider (more of a kite). After bad results with their 1901 glider based on Otto Lilienthal's airfoil data, they built their own wind tunnel and tested airfoil sections. They found that Lilienthal's data (considered the best in the world at the time) was wrong. The result was their very successful 1902 glider. The big breakthroughs with their 1903 Flyer was the propellor. When the Wright Experience tested an Wright propellor in a wind tunnel, it was found to be within 1-2% as efficient as modern props. Their first engine only produced about 12 HP. Without an efficient prop, the plane would've never left the ground. Like they did with the airfoil, the Wrights found that existing propellor design was insufficient so they invented their own. In the process, they probably invented aeronautical engineering. Pretty amazing for two young men from Ohio who never even graduated high school.

Indeed. In 1977 I could do ALL the maintenance (including removing the engine) on my '69 micro bus by myself. My 2004 xterra I can't even identify most of the parts on the engine.

Suggesting that the technology has not changed in 100 years is at best disingenuous. It has made HUGE leaps just in the last 30 years.

I didn't realise that, I have read the Roswell Incident By Charles Berlitx, and William more, and it mentioned an interesting account by a man called Gerald Light who claims that Eisenhower visited Edwards Air force Base to view the wreckage of a UFO.
People have mentioned the advancement of computer technology. I'm 39 years old and can remember what it was like 30 years ago technology wise. There was nothing around then that you would recognise now, except for the basics like TV and radio, and even they are changing now. Back in 79, the first games consoles, such as the Atari 2600 were starting to appear and probably early desktop IBM computers there finding their way into the office. The kind of technology we have become used to today was still two decades such as broadband, in fact even ten years ago Broadband wasn’t about, I think I got my first broadband in 2002 something like 250kps speed. Looking back we have come along in leaps and bounds with certain technologies, whether this is the result of research from Alien craft recovered over the years is still uncertain.

__________________

No, it's not uncertain at all. You can trace the progress of the computer field quite clearly, and none of the new productions requires a single iota of alien technology.

__________________
Friendly Rabid Atheists (mostly)

It isn't at all uncertain to the engineers who built them. "Broadband" is based on technology from the 1960s. It's not at all difficult to understand and doesn't require great epiphanies without visible support.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Ah, Charles Berlitz.
Very good at languages but a consumate perveyor of piffle.
Take what he wrote with a large pinch of salt.

__________________
Talkie Toaster: The question is this: given that God is infinite and that the universe is also infinite, would you like a toasted tea-cake?

Yes, you do. Please explain why computers are in every respect like automotive engines.
I'll be more happy to. But don't you see huge gap yourself in development of Combustion Engine vs Computer technology?

I'm sorry, I forgot where you obtained your degree in engineering and worked in the field of commercial engineering for long enough to justify the expectation that all sectors of commercial technology should progress at a uniform pace.
Yea, actually you should be sorry, you didn't forget, I didn't earn any degrees, let alone engineering degree from anywhere.
I don't have justify nothing. If you think you can explain discrepancy of progress among various scientific fields, fine, I'd like to read it.
Yes I do claim Computer technology went ahead with lightspeed compared to progress of combustion engine or propulsion (Rocket) technology.
I think you'll be disappointed to know that I am not tying this to any UFO crash story. I was just being sarcastic, in case you didn't notice.

Amazing how we took highly advanced alien technology, and reverse engineered it to the very basic transistor, then slowly pretended to develop it into what we have today. It must have been hard to not release too much at one time and give away the big "secret".

Perhaps you should reacquaint yourself with the rules of this board...and the rules of grammar concerning the use of double negatives.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Not a "pinch", more like a salt lick.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Dismissing the former as nothing more that 100-year-old technology is pretty naive.
I do respect your expertise, I don't even know what the hell is under my 08 Landrover's hood, I can't recognize anything.
Having said that, 1917 Ford could run probably 40mph comfortably. With my Landrover I can go up to 120MPH probably and climb those hostile dirtroads with pretty good ease.
I got my first Mac in 1980. Now I have a Mac with 32inch display, where I can see the world instantly, the photoshop I have can transform any picture with an ease that no one could dream 25 yrs ago. look at any aspect of this technology, not even Arthur C Clarke could envision the leap of Computer technology, although he did very well in his imagination of our exploration of Solar system. We failed him, his imagination did not fail him.

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

I just have to love your rules, why don't somebody justify first before they are answering a question? Do rules only apply to newbies?
Or are you in the habit of ganging up on newcomers?
Here I see the relevance of double negative null & void when someone answers a Q. with a Q.

If anything, proponents of this idea think too small. If our "advanced" technology were back engineered from crashed saucers, then why don't we have faster than light star drives? Why don't we have aircraft capable or instant right angle turns? Instead of progressing naturally, why hasn't our medical and engineering knowledge advanced exponentially?

You can never get a "straight" answer from proponents when you ask questions like this.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Your grasp of technological history is lacking. I suggest you read up on where that technology comes from, its roots, and why your 32 inch display is not really amazing at all. In fact your Mac isn't either. Its all based on technology humans have had and invented - no giant leaps. Just continuous progression.

__________________
---"Why do things have to suck so bad?" a friend once asked me.
"Because space is a vacuum and that's a lot of suck." I replied.
(Actual quote)---

Good point. A fantastically advanced space craft would ostensibly be equipped with a fantastically advanced first aid kit and/or a fantastically advanced tool kit (for minor "road side" repairs at least). I haven't seen quantum leaps in development on those fronts, either.

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Also a transistor is essentially a tiny on/off switch. Just as all internal combustion engines go 'bang' on the inside. But as JayUtah said there IS a world of difference between a modern engine and one from 100 years ago.

Transitors get smaller, we push the limits of design and manufacturing and eventually we create integrated circuits. People decide to see what these things can, design their own, and what do you know the VIC-20 comes out. (Just an example) Other people see the success, design their own chips, and the market does the rest. Nothing odd about that.

If we went from vacuum tubes to 32-core 128-bit cpus in one year then yes, odd. But that didn't happen.

Do you know why you can't identify what is under your hood? Its because you don't understand modern engines. At least *learn* about them, their history, the changes in emissions requirements and so on that has led to what you see under there now.

__________________
---"Why do things have to suck so bad?" a friend once asked me.
"Because space is a vacuum and that's a lot of suck." I replied.
(Actual quote)---

How about turning this around? If say a Global Hawk had landed somewhere in 1947 what could have been reverse engineered from it? As a Global Hawk is presumably much less advanced than an alien space ship, built by humans, and for this scenario it would have landed safely rather than crashing reverse engineering it would be far easier than from a crashed alien vehicle.

__________________
"Any Sufficiently Analyzed Magic is Indistinguishable from SCIENCE!" -Agatha Heterodyne

"Any technology, no matter how primitive, is magic to those who don't understand it." -Florence Ambrose

Not possible. Do you mean 1984?

By the early 1980s, the so-called Moore's law was well known, and it was considered likely that it would continue to apply for at least a couple more decades. I wasn't the only one who extrapolated trends based on that, and no, current computer capabilities aren't beyond my what I could then imagine. While they are impressive in some ways, I was expecting that these chip densities would get us a lot more. I was hoping that by now we would be getting to seriously advanced AIs. All in all, I'm a bit disappointed that we haven't gotten farther than we have.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Off topic for a moment...for a "driving" vacation, I decided to take along one of those "air in a can" tire repair kits, thinking that if I had a flat, it would get me to the next town without the "hassle" of changing a blown tire. About 20 miles from home and I had a flat...but it wasn't just a hole in the tire...the tire completely disintigrated...the "can of air" did me no good at all.

No "moral" really...just thought of it when I read "minor road side repairs".

OK...back to topic...

.

No...the rules apply to everyone...and if you make unsupported claims, you will be asked to support those claims with evidence.

But you should know this already if you have read the rules.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

I'd be really curious to know how computer technology was aided by analyzing the wreckage of a crashed flying saucer. Were the aliens carrying an ultraviolet lithography plant on the craft or something?

Most the other major aspects of computer technology that I can think of were already in place long before the Roswell crash - the basic principles were worked out in the 1800s, the first transistor was built in the 1920s, the mathematical foundation was articulated in the 1930s, the first programmable machines were built around 1940 (with the first really workable one completed in 1941), ENIAC came along in 1945, and machines using the Von Neumann architecture came along by the end of the 1940s (but were designed by the time ENIAC came online).

So that leaves integrated circuits as the only major technological hurdle I can think of that wasn't tackled until after the Roswell incident. . . but that goes right back to the question at the start of my post. How would we have learned how to make them from the Roswell wreckage unless the ship was, for some unfathomable reason, carrying photolithography equipment?

The following are some select quotes from a good article detailing the origins of this myth that Berlitz and Moore no doubt failed to mention (assuming they even bothered to research the case)…

[pay particular attention to the very last snippet]

http://www.ufologie.net/ce3/1954-04-usa-edwardsafb.htm

All I can say is I hope you didn’t pay too much for that book…

__________________
Men go and come but Earth abides.

The rules apply to whoever can read them. And membership is based, partially, on the ability to read.
You walk into a cage of tigers with a steak around your neck, you draw a crowd.

__________________
Friendly Rabid Atheists (mostly)

Suggesting that the technology has not changed in 100 years is at best disingenuous. It has made HUGE leaps just in the last 30 years.
What'd you do last 30yrs with combustion engine? Did you go 0 to 60 less than a second?
That's what Computer Technology did as comparison.

Not even remotely comparable. And shows how little you know about both technologies.

But yes there are vehicles that go that fast. Have you never heard of them? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_fuel_dragster
I suggest seeing them in person. It is quite a sight.

__________________
---"Why do things have to suck so bad?" a friend once asked me.
"Because space is a vacuum and that's a lot of suck." I replied.
(Actual quote)---

You walk into a cage of tigers with a steak around your neck, you draw a crowd.
I don't want to confront you. Actually I feel pretty free, you two choices; (first one is the best)
#1-Ignore my posts (if they lack intelligence behind)
#2-Censor/ban me, which is not warranted

Have you never heard of them? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_fuel_dragster
I suggest seeing them in person. It is quite a sight.
I stand to be corrected, actually there's a dragster which can go that fast.
For a second I thought you were going to mention a Indy car or something.

Indy cars use rather advanced engines as well. I won't pull Nascar into it as I think they have it backwards. (I'm not a fan of 'displacement' or pushrods). The point is that IC engine technology is, indeed, rather advanced. And it has become that way through a traceable series of events and technologies developed by clever humans. Just like transistor tech, silicone, and so on.

__________________
---"Why do things have to suck so bad?" a friend once asked me.
"Because space is a vacuum and that's a lot of suck." I replied.
(Actual quote)---

Given the physical limits of a combustion engine, what improvements would you expect in the last 30 years?

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

This is the most ridiculous claim that I have to prove.
How I am going to do that? Tell how combustion engine evolved from using pistons or even how we quit using gasoline and started using plasma?
Is that what should I say?
I stand by my claim. Gasoline & combustion Engine is still here.
Computer technology went crazy in comparison.