When cars have a life expectancy of 1,000,000 miles… (Mar, 1955)

When cars have a life expectancy of 1,000,000 miles…

chances are that research with electron diffraction will have helped make this come true

•The General Electric electron diffraction instrument is versatile and easy to operate. The unit consists of vacuum system, electron gun, power supply and complete camera assembly — all the components required to produce both reflection and transmission photographs from a wide variety of samples.

This instrument can perform numerous tasks for industry. In chemistry, for example, it can be used to study catalytic action … to analyze surface contamination as well as foreign particles. In metallurgy, it can help in the selection of corrosion-resistant materials . . . can be used to examine alloy structures and pigments. And physicists, too, find many applications for G-E electron diffraction.

Get further information from the G-E x-ray representative in your locale … or write X-Ray Department, General Electric Company, Milwaukee 1, Wisconsin, for Pub. TT34.

Progress Is Our Most Important Product

  1. Stephen says: July 7, 20104:13 am

    I don’t know about a million miles, but a car my mother had second-hand in our childhood had gone further than from the Earth to the Moon by the time we got rid of it.

  2. r peltier says: July 7, 20106:34 am

    The article fails to esplain what the The General Electric electron diffraction machine has to do with a car going 1,000,000 miles.

  3. Firebrand38 says: July 7, 20106:43 am

    It only fails to “esplain” it if you don’t read it:

    “By using this technic for research into the structures of lubricants and metals, it’s quite likely that your car of the future will have fantastic longevity.”

    “analyze surface contamination as well as foreign particles. In metallurgy, it can help in the selection of corrosion-resistant materials . . . can be used to examine alloy structures and pigments.”

    Sounds like contributing factors to a million mile car to me.

  4. jayessell says: July 7, 20106:43 am

    r: A better understanding of how steel degrades at the sub-microscopic
    level might lead to improved alloys and/or lubricants.

    It’s research!

  5. jayessell says: July 7, 20106:45 am

    FB! Our 1st simulpost!

  6. Firebrand38 says: July 7, 20106:57 am

    jayessell: Great minds think alike I guess.

  7. Toronto says: July 7, 201010:23 am

    And here I thought they were using the electron microscope to research carbon nanotube technologies to make better batteries and ultracapacitors for the car I *really* want.

  8. Andrew L. Ayers says: July 7, 20102:16 pm

    What GE didn’t seem to understand was that no automobile manufacturer in their right mind would want to sell a car that dependable.

    With that said, I own a 94 Ford Ranger with almost 200K, and a 79 Ford Bronco with probably double that (if not more; I really don’t know for sure)…

  9. Myles says: July 8, 20108:47 pm

    What GE didn’t seem to understand was the concept of effective adverstising. Saying “look, we have a neat new toy and we think someday it might be useful,” was not a good use of shareholder money.

  10. Jari says: July 13, 20101:14 pm

    They would charge a hefty price from such car. Besides the technology of the era, when one buys that kind of car would be obsolete sooner than the car wears out. Let’s see, yearly average mileage in Finland is 18000 km, which means that car would last slightly less than 90 years for million miles. Now compare eg. 1920 T-Ford (or rather 1908) and 2010 Honda Accord. Then imagine 2100….

  11. dutchuncle says: July 14, 20103:33 pm

    The comment about planned obsolescence misinterprets what this really means. It was used as a derogatory comment by UK manufacturers (for one) against US manufactureres who were, it seemed ,making “inferior” products which did not last. The US retionale however was, that it was not necessary to make products “last” because the march of progress and development made them obsolete rapidly and people would want the new versions in any case. This was at the time used to denigrate US railway locomotives. Today it is clear that computers, mobile phones, televisions etc. (most “technological” items) are outmoded long before they fail. Planned obsolescence can easily be seen as a good thing.

  12. Jari says: July 14, 20103:59 pm

    dutchuncle: Ahh, so that’s the origin of that phrase. Then again, as I have had cars made by BLMC and US cars, I have the impression, that it was a sort of last gasp, before British car industry really went down the drain… I mean, I never, ever have had so much strange faults with Brittish cars than with US cars. Althought they (US made) had their share of problems, but at least they were parts that one expects to wear out.

Submit comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.