# New power source coming



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

*SMALLEST PETROL ENGINE* 
















SCIENTISTS have built the smallest petrol engine, tiny enough to power a WATCH. The mini-motor, which runs for two years on a single squirt of lighter fuel, is set to revolutionize world technology. It produces 700 times more energy than a conventional battery despite being less than a centimeter long not even half an inch. It could be used to operate laptops and mobile phones for months doing away with the need for recharging. Experts believe it could be phasing out batteries in such items within just six years. The engine, minute enough to be balanced on a fingertip, has been produced by engineers at the University of Birmingham. Dr Kyle Jiang, lead investigator from the Department of Mechanical Engineering, said: “We are looking at an industrial revolution happening in peoples’ pockets. “The breakthrough is an enormous step forward. “Devices which need re- charging or new batteries are a problem but in six years will be a thing of the past.” Other applications for the engine could include medical and military uses, such as running heart pacemakers or mini reconnaissance robots. At present, charging an ordinary battery to deliver one unit of energy involves putting 2,000 units into it. The little engine, because energy is produced locally, is far more effective. One of the main problems faced by engineers who have tried to produce micro motors in the past has been the levels of heat produced. The engines got so hot they burned themselves out and could not be re-used. The Birmingham team overcame this by using heat-resistant materials such as ceramic and silicon carbide. Professor Graham Davies, head of the university’s engineering school, said: “We’ve brought together all the engineering disciplines, materials, chemical engineering, civil engineering, and mechanical engineering. “What better place to have the second industrial revolution in nano-technology than where the first took place, in the heart of the West Midlands.


----------



## livesteam53 (Jan 4, 2008)

Interesting Mikey. 
Running goggle I came up with it being April 11th, 2006 when I see it was 1st reported. 
http://gleez.com/articles/did-you-know/smallest-petrol-engine 
So does that mean next year?


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Oh woof.....bad juju


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Original story was in 2003: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article80219.ece 

So the machine should have become ubiquitous in 2009


----------



## John J (Dec 29, 2007)

You know this is going to drive up the price of Lighter Fuel


----------



## pete (Jan 2, 2008)

You tellum jj!!!


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

The conspiracy theorists would tell you that the technology was bought up - then buried - by the battery making companies. hehehe


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

I call BS on this one. There isn't enough energy in a squirt of lighter fluid to power a laptop or phone for months like they claim. Plus to have it run on it's own for ages is one thing...to actually produce useable power (ie. electricity) means now you need a generator connected to it of some form...and then let's see how long the power lasts. There is only so much energy in a squirt of fuel. 

Keith


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

The easy way to know this is bs is that there is no way to get rid of the heat. Producing power by burning always involves heat. There's no radiator, and they talk about putting it inside things and people. 

Also, combustion produces byproducts of gases and liquids. Where did all of that go? Your watch would inflate like a hot air balloon. 

I believe enough research will take you back to a date of April 1 in some year. 

Greg


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

Greg, where does it say, that this gimmick is supposed to work through combustion?


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

True, it could be a catalytic reaction, but again it would have to be exothermic to generate power, so it's true there would be no combustion byproducts, but there would be ones from the catalytic reaction. 

But you are right, the volume of the byproducts in a catalytic reaction could be smaller than the original, unless they were gaseous, so I am technically incorrect there making that generalization. 

I have also ignored the possibility of an endothermic reaction, but the negative change in heat would cause similar problems to those of my assumed exothermic reaction. 

Since no one has come up with a catalytic exothermic or endothermic reaction using gasoline with any significant caloric output, I made these generalizations. 

Sorry. 

Greg


----------

