Comments by "Guinness" (@GuinessOriginal) on "This Genius Invention Could Transform Jet Engines" video.

  1. Mathew Cherrystone the failures is the crucial bit. Gonna require more maintenance, which if not done correctly will lead to disasters. Bound to happen
    13
  2. Anything that takes thirty years to design must be complicared. Complicated shit goes wrong and needs maintenance.
    10
  3. Hellothere _1 you dont think? 30 years to design and build a gearing system inside a jet engine sounds like a shit load of extra complexity to me. And commercial pressures to turn the maintenance round quickly, esp when the jet is older...
    9
  4. Hellothere _1 right, so the engineering is complicated. And its inherently prone to failure. Just dont sound all that great to me. 30 years work to make a maybe 15% improvement seems like a poor return. Its like the internal combustion engine. The model T ford did 25 miles to the gallon. 100 years later, the average modern car does on average 25 miles to the gallon. It seems to me that significantly improving the efficiency of oil driven engines isnt something that people are investing too much into really.
    8
  5. Marc83Aus thats not a ford. Its not even an american car. And lab tests and actual real life urban road performance are worlds apart. Power is not the point, its effiency.
    5
  6. Justin Davison cell phones last 2 years. And cars break down a lot more than planes. Not exactly suitable relisbility for flying, is it? They're not very good analogies I'm afraid. At the risk of being obvious and rather overstating my point, if developing a gearing system for a jet engine takes 30 years it must be really complicated. The last place you want a really complex high maintenance system is in the only thing keeping you in the air, especially if there's only two of them. Sometimes things are overengineered, with people so focused on what they could do they don't stop to think about whether they should. The $20m dollar pen that works in space nasa developed in the 70s is a case in point. Besides which, what has america got to do with anything? Do you think its the only country inventing shit? In terms of patents per capita its prettty low, isreal, britain, finland and norway to name but a few are above it.
    3
  7.  @miscbits6399  so despite all the advances of modern materials and manufacturing techniques, all vehicles are far heavier than model ts? Even smart cars? Even if that's the case, which I suspect is not always, its still a, very poor return in that the net effect is no improvement to the average mph of the average car in over a hundred years. It's almost as if there are created interests that don't want an increase in efficiency
    2
  8.  @44hawk28  Almost indestructible in almost every application... Hmmm. Ok then. Not sure exactly how indestructable that makes it. I remember them saying the same thing about a big boat once. So why isn't it in planes yet? Maybe you need to retrain all your ground crews on engine maintenance and that's expensive. Boeing is probably offshoring a software fix to avoid retraining to a cheap Indian 3rd party supplier to get around it.
    2
  9. Bram Moerman yup, 25mpg. Pretty much what the average American car gets on average.
    2
  10. ***** oh right youve got a smart phone from 5 years ago have you? Its called built in obselence, bit like your brain
    1
  11. Steve S cool
    1
  12. barracuda7018 you just added that to wiki
    1
  13. TsLeng you are one of those dumb ones who calls other people dumb because you don't realise what they're saying and how much dumber you are. The model T ford got 25mpg on average. The modern American car doesn't get a whole lot better than that. The reasons are obvious. Anything else you say is just a dumb straw man. I bet you look up to worzel gummidge
    1
  14.  @jon782  yep but the fact remains in over a hundred years of the internal combustion engine powering the car, the fuel economy has barely moved. It's almost as if they want us to keep buying lots of oil.
    1