Car Tech: What's your favorite alternative fuel?
- 4/24/07 5:45 PM
The industry
by Zpunk - 5/5/07 7:34 AM In reply to: Swapable Batteries are an answer by jrj90620A problem is an industry standard. Getting all the car manufacturers to agree on a standard battery size, voltage, and chemistry so that they are interchangeable. That way you pull into a "recharge station” and pay your fee, swap out your battery and drive off.
No need for a common core i think
by dre.caruana - 5/6/07 1:59 PM In reply to: The industry by ZpunkWhat about just having a battery, no matter about the value, but also have a transformer in the car or whatever. I am no technical person, but if the batteries could work on a capacitor principle, you would only need to charge for a second or two. Longer lasting batteries should be charged overnight.
Industry Standard
by FredMars - 6/25/07 7:29 PM In reply to: The industry by ZpunkThe only real issue is who will be the first. Sony Blu-ray and the rest HD-DVD have been battling for consumer choice. It seems like the underdog will win (Sony Blu-ray). The same philosophy applies in other industries. U. S. automakers are dying. If they don't start to produce fuel efficient vehicles soon, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc. will be the top three automakers in the world.
There are many methods that can get us off of oil, but the American people are led fed and led by the media, and the media caters to the industries that pay those large advertising budgets. You want to know why we are where we are? Follow the money. We are all duped into believing that fuel efficiency is something that has to be developed over years. Truth is, we can have 100+MPG now, as they did back in the early parts of the 20th Century. It is all a matter of how the fuel is used. Because of the gross waste of fuel in motor vehicles, we now have platinum based (expensive) catalytic converters that just burn up all the wasted fuel. A really simple solution can be applied to any internal combustion engine (no not diesel because that fires on compression) by introoducing the fuel as a hot vapor into the combustion cylinder. There are two minor problems with the technology.
1. The vapor must be cool enough so that it does not exploed on the compression stroke, or at least not until the spark plug fires.
2. The fuel cannot be heated/vaporized until it is going into the cylinder because that is also an explosion hazard.
So the answer is to use a vortex that will vaporize the fuel in the manifold as it enters the cylinder. The efficiency will eliminate the need for a catalytic converter, which will more than offset the cost of re-engineering intake manifolds, and in addition to lowering the cost of building the vehicle, you will save thousands anually in fuel costs.
In the meantime, automakers can start looking at the cutting edge technologies in electric motors, battery/capacitor storage, and solar/wind/regenerative braking, etc. to extend the range between chargings.
Built on a Lotus Elise chassis and appointed like a Lotus sports car, The Tesla Roadster is quite a remarkable auto even at $92,000.00. But keep in mind that it has a 248HP 3-phase electric motor that dleivers that HP and torque 0-13,500 RPM. It'll get ya to 60 MPH from a standstill in about 4 seconds. Although they have rather heavy Lithium Ion cells in their ESS (Energy Storage System) they are talking with a Texas company that is touting a new "Ultra-capacitor" as a battery replacement. It should reduce the vehicle weight as they are lighter than Li-Ion cell for cell, and can be charged in minutes instead of hours. They also sue regenerative braking to get the range to about 200 miles between charges. I can see that doubling within the next 2-3 years. Tesla Motors claims their car gets the equivalent of 130+MPG at less that 1.3 cents per mile. That will certainly keep the bucks in your wallet. Even with the 980 Li-ion cells, it onlt produces about one-sixth the polution of a "normal" fuel car.
What we need are more forward thinking people like Tesla Motors' founders to start making competing electric vehicles, and with higher ranges between charges. Maybe they will figure out what Nikola Tesla did and their cars won't have to be recharged at all.
Now before anyone jumps up and down and starts yelling that's sci-fi stuff, do the research on aether energy, and why Einstein was wrong (at least he didn't give the whole story before he died) about the vacuum of space.
Cars have changed
by Zpunk - 7/21/07 7:27 AM In reply to: Industry Standard by FredMarsYou stated that;
"Truth is, we can have 100+MPG now, as they did back in the early parts of the 20th Century"
The early cars weighed a tiny fraction of what they do today. They sometimes had only a single cylinder engine, The original Daimler, the First auto, had a single cylinder and used and evaporation chamber where the air bubbled through the benzene to produce the fumes to run the engine. With such “minimal engeneering” high mileage is possible. However, try to run a 3 ton behemoth like a Ford Excursion at 75 mph down I-80 that way. I will never work. Our problem is we as a society will not come to grips with the idea that we are inherently WASTEFULL.
Yes we are!
by FredMars - 7/21/07 5:57 PM In reply to: Cars have changed by ZpunkThat is how we got started, by burning for heat and light. At least that is what is common belief. I think the whole burning fuels was actually a stop gap measure to compensate for destroyed technology.
It may be that our "ancient ancestors" were for more technologically advanced than we are presently, and that science is just being rediscovered by those physicists that think outside the box. But it is a wasteful society that we have deleveloped and live in.
Think of the energy it takes just to deal with the mounds of waste we produce from packaging materials alone. Add all the egg shells and coffee grinds to the banana peels and citrus fruit rinds, and we have a mess. Composting and recycling has helped, but it has grown more expensive to deal with recycling. Much of the cost rise it due to increasing transportation costs (fuel) and the energy costs (fuel) to process the recycled waste.
Fuelless technology is the new paradigm, but I don't know that it will be a reality in my life span. And the shame of that is not that we cannot develop the technology fast enough, but rather the politics of greed demands that we don't upset the status quo of the energy industry. Truth is, just as the auto replaced the horse and buggy, new technology creates new industries of support products and services.
Perhaps another cahnge is due. Changing the way we think about energy and where it comes from.
Cars have changed by far
by Andy77e - 7/22/07 1:03 PM In reply to: Cars have changed by ZpunkYes we can have 100+MPG now. In fact, GM made a 100 MPG car in the early 80s. The Saturn project produced this car in 1981 I believe.
Making a car that gets good gas mileage is nothing amazing, nothing new. In fact, I personally could make one myself.
But there are a few problems, namely the fact no one would buy one. People are not so hung up on gas mileage as some of the posts on this forum suggest.
The car needs to be able to hold a number of people. The car needs to hold luggage and have cargo space. The car needs to be fast and have good acceleration. The car needs to be able to go a good distance. The car needs to be safe. The car needs to be good looking.
This is what killed the 100 MPG Saturn project (which later became the Saturn name brand). The 100 MPG car had only 2 seats, minimal cargo space, was not very safe and didn't meet government safety standards, had no real acceleration. Any buyers? No, and that's the point.
I also have a huge issue with your broad brush accusation of "wasteful". How do you know this? I would wager most people have a reason for buy the car they bought.
For example, a friend purchased a Mountaineer. At first glance that could be considered wasteful. But he purchased it because he planned on using it for a kids camp. He takes loads of children every week to a kids camp. He also now has 3 children, so he needs a large car. He also takes long vacations with his family, where a smaller car would not do. So that isn't wasteful. How do you think you know so much to make a judgment on what is wasteful?
Another family I know of has a full size conversion van. If you saw him going to work in it, you'd think he was wasteful. What you didn't know is he has 9 children and a stay at home wife who doesn't have a car. He needed the full size van.
Yes humans in general are wasteful. However I have a problem when idiots think they have any ground to judge how "wasteful" others are. Judge yourself.
I was not intending to judge
by Zpunk - 7/26/07 7:10 AM In reply to: Cars have changed by far by Andy77eI am sorry if my words convicted your conscious of something. The things I stated were the same that you did. The technology that moved cars 100 years ago will not work with today’s cars. They have changed. Seat belts and crash protection has reduced car fatality greatly since the 1960s. but at a cost. Weight. To go back would be imposable. However, some of the more popular cars today are not utilitarian. High power cars like the ford Mustang are fast powerful fun to drive, and do not get very good mileage. True? How about the Hummer? I realize there are people who would have a need for a heavy duty 4 wheel drive vehicle like that but, you and I both know there are a large number who buy products like this just to impress. Could this be why the US, with 10 to 15 % of the worlds population uses somewhere around 80% of the oil? I too own a van. I have 5 children at home. We need it. However I also own a 1989 ford escort I bought for $800.00. It now has 175,000 miles on it and it gets 36 miles to the gallon. I drive this daily to and from work. To replace it with a new vehicle that gets 38-40 would be a vast outlay of cash that would take years to recoup with the modest increase in mileage.
Charge at night
by dre.caruana - 5/7/07 1:03 PM In reply to: recharge time by gilligan888I wouldn't think you'd do 350 miles in one day... Even so, with these newer more advanced batteries being tested, you will probably not exceed the limit. You can charge it at night if it takes long, or maybe carry a spare with you.
Responding to a battery question
by Gray K - 12/23/07 8:40 PM In reply to: recharge time by gilligan888The Brits have for over 35 years used for their milk delivery trucks pallet-loaded batteries that could quickly be replaced. and charged inthe warehouse. A Scandanavian company is developing a two-seat EV where you buy the car and rent the batteries from various supply stations.
Biodiesel in any engine?
by WopOnTour - 5/2/07 8:40 PM In reply to: Even GM is looking to an electric future by albizziaI dont think so...
According the the GM and reinforced by any owners manual supplement for a 2007 GMC or Chevy truck with a 6.6 Duramax diesel engine (Isuzu with Bosch direct "common-rail" electronic injection) the MAXIMUM concentration of biodiesel permitted is 10% (in order to prevent damage to the fuel system) It's no different for most any of the other major automotive companies that offer diesel engines.
New emissions standards and ultra-low sulfer fuel standards for "on-road" diesels has meant that we wont see the ability to run 100% corn-refined or recycled biodiesel anytime soon. At least if you hope to maintain your warranty...
WOT
The article is about the future fuels
by john3347 - 5/2/07 9:10 PM In reply to: Biodiesel in any engine? by WopOnTourIn this post, you are speaking of present day automobiles and circumstances that exist today. You are not taking into consideration the conditions that would exist 5, and 10, and 20 years in the future. The electric grid can be boosted in only a few years and diesel engines can be refined to use up to 100% bio-fuel in just a short time if the market dictates such a move just as gasoline engines are now being modified to run on alcohol.
biofuel lol
by thomasaddley - 5/6/07 4:24 PM In reply to: The article is about the future fuels by john3347When you have used up all of the corn, wheat and other major crops that are grown and turned them into biofuel, WHAT, may I ask will you eat. If you're wealthly enough (own a biofuel company), you may be able to afford the very expensive foods left over from the process, but no one else will be able to.
And no you won't be able to eat meat, it no longer exists, you turned the grass the animals eat into biofuel. Probably burnt a lot of coal and oil, not to mention electricity to turn food into biofuel. Sad!
Plenty of pasture land to raise cattle...
by Cooltruth - 5/6/07 5:17 PM In reply to: biofuel lol by thomasaddleyOut here in the midwest there is plenty of grazing land for cattle. Meat would be grass fed instead instead of grain fed feedlot beef. I don't think people would starve although might have to cut back on meat. Corn is raised on whats called "tillable land" while cattle can be raised nearly anywhere that can be fenced in. I'm thinking more small, personal sized veggie gardens will offset any decrease in meat supply. The idea of solar electric powered cars may be the best idea if it can be made to work. Wouldn't have to add gas or plug 'em in!
grazing land
by thomasaddley - 5/6/07 6:04 PM In reply to: Plenty of pasture land to raise cattle... by CooltruthHaving been throughout N.America, I know that there are lots of places that livestock would still be able to graze, but with all of the tillable land being turned into bio-fuel, they would have to put our expanding population somewhere and most of our cities now are on built on tillable land, so that would leave new cities being built on grazing lands.
I happen to agree with you that if it can be made to work, solar is the answer, and as soon as they are able to figure a way to bill us for the engery that the gives freely, you can be sure that they will find a way to make it work.
Would not suprise me to find that we already have the technology to make it work, but are unable to figure a way to make money on the after market.
No I am not into the conspiracy thing, but reality says that if someone is not making money and the goverments are unable to tax it, then it will not happen
Government is a big part of the problem...
by Cooltruth - 5/7/07 2:55 PM In reply to: grazing land by thomasaddleyThey tax gasoline & road diesel which may explain why there aren't more alternatives in use already. They're spooking many livestock producers with their NAIS proposal they're trying to make into law. A lot of land which wouldn't be suitable for a city or crop production can be used for cattle, if necessary. I've got forty acres at the end of a dirt road which could be fenced & support somewhere between 50 & 60 head of beef cattle. There are many other such parcels located far enough from cities that most city types wouldn't want to live there. If government programs that pay farmers not to grow crops were ended, there'd be much more farmland brought back into production. Legalize hemp/marijuana would be a big step in the right direction to end the dependence on foreign oil.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
|
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
