Car Tech: What's your favorite alternative fuel?
- 4/24/07 5:45 PM
Regenerative braking - cool, not hot
by albizzia - 5/11/07 6:12 PM In reply to: Hyper-Capacitors by FredMarsI'm afraid you've way underestimated the effort needed to spin a working generator, and misunderstood the way regenerative braking works.
Regular brakes use friction to convert mechanical energy (the motion of the vehicle) into heat, which is dissapated into the air, wasted. If regular brakes are applied too long, they can overheat and fail, with potentially disasterous results.
Regenerative braking uses a generator to convert mechanical energy directly to electrical energy at an efficiency over 92%.
Converting mechanical energy into heat and then converting that heat into electricity would be grossly wasteful, arount 10% efficiency, and would be just as subject to failure as regular brakes. It just isn't done that way.
As I said, the engineers at Tesla Motors looked at putting solar cells on the car, and concluded it was not practical, given the high cost of solar cells today. It was the high price, not the weight! Now, if the price was to drop from the current $3 to $4 per watt to $0.80 or less per watt, then the modest gain in miles could be worth a more modest cost.
Huh?
by FredMars - 5/25/07 9:24 PM In reply to: Regenerative braking - cool, not hot by albizziaWhat part of induction pits addition friction (drag) on the rotation of the axle? What powers the generator is regenerative braking? The problem is not an issue of energy, it is an issue of using the proper device for the efficiency. An electric motor that is powered via magnetic induction and capacitive discharge, can actually generate more energy than it consumes (See US Pataent 3,890,548 Edwin Gray's Pulsed Capacitor Discharge Electric Engine) which would effectively make this whole topic moot.
Please don'r use that rhetoric of what is possible because I KNOW that we can get off the use of burning fuels altogether. And Tesla Motors is negotiating with a Texas company that designed "Ultra-capacitors" that thye claim holds more energy per cell than Lithium Ion and is completely solid state, requiring only minutes instead of hours to recharge.
The GM EV1 was a smashing success that was killed by the oil/hydrogen fuel lobby in the state of California. No, I didn't get that all from "who Killed The Electric Car" but I do remember that it was mentioned at the end of the movie.
So long as people believe the propaganda of the incumbent industries, we will remain slaves to it. Wake up and smell the crude, and stop believing that it smells like roses.
I do not understand this.
by Andy77e - 7/3/07 9:25 PM In reply to: Huh? by FredMarsCrack pots are everywhere today it seems.
Alright, I'll bite. If a free energy device can be built, and you have the patent number, and clearly there's a number of these schematics out there, them make one and show it working.
That dude has a website with his "free energy" device on it. Tell him to release his specs so we can make one of our own. You all claim the reason these are not on the market is because of money. Big (whatever the least theory is) has prevent them from coming to market. Great, you have a chance to prove your here for the good of the human race... release all your specs so we can make one of our own and when we do, we'll demand it be allowed on the market.
Otherwise it's all a shell game, a snake oil fraud, or you are just as greedy to refuse to release your documentation. I'm betting the former.
There are way too many well learned scientist all over the world to claim that XXX company here in the US has prevented all free-energy machines world wide from coming to market. And especially since there are at least a dozen or so nations whose governments would jump on a free energy device to make money on it. With Russia's screwed up economy, they'd love to find a free energy system they could use to pull their sorry country out of the gutter and at the same time screw up the global economy for everyone else.
You think Iran wouldn't use a free energy device if it could? You bet they would. It would tilt the whole middle east over in their favor. This is whole thing is a joke. You all should put up, or give up. There thousands of you guys, start building these things and send them everywhere, or give up on trying to overthrow the laws of thermal dynamics.
The "Laws" of Thermdynamics
by FredMars - 7/4/07 11:38 AM In reply to: I do not understand this. by Andy77eWhich LAws are you referring to? Moray, Tesla, and now Bearden and Berdini have demonstrated devices that our powered by the aether energy that is is always on. Fleishmann and Pons demonstrated cold fusion. Farnsworth built a "fusor" device that produced over-unity gain back in the 1950's. These devices are NOT fantasy or science fiction, they use the energy that is always there.
The Earth is a dynamo that produces vast amounts of electrical energy via its magnetic fields. A resonant circuit is used to utilize that energy. Problem is, once devices are built, there is no more wires and monthly bills. Tesla demonstrated this to Westinghouse,but old george needed J. P. Morgan's financial support which was denied. MOgan though that Tesla would but General Electric out of business by offering free electricity. He told Tesla that he was in the business of selling power not "antennae" so that is why the technology has not been developed.
Also, the United Stated Patent and Trademark Office REFUSES to grant a patent for a device that "claims" perpetual motion or more output that input. Theyt feel that science has not accepted such claims, therefore it cannot exsist. Yes, snake oil is what they say, and yet these devices exsist.
My friend Bill tried to patent a device that has been recently discussed here regarding H2 on demand, yet the US government says that it cannot be used because it is a explosion hazard. Bill's device did use a small tank (one liter) to provide H2 for starting, and maybe it was that tank that was dangerous.
The 200 MPG carburetor was built but it too is a dangerous device because it vaporizes the fuel before entering the intake manifold and that can cause an explosion. Today with fuel injection, there is a modification that can be made using a vortex action that will vaporize the fuel as it eneters the combustion chamber, thereby eliminating the explosion danger. This will yield that 200 MPG, but as I was told by a Ford engineer, I won't see it on a Ford in my lifetime. Why? Why not make a vehicle that can get such great mileage? Honda is currently selling a Civic that it claims gets over 50 MPG highway, yet the American Automakers say it is not reasonable for Congress to mandate 35 MPG over the next ten years, because they could not produce such an engine with "current" technology.
You tell me about "laws" of thermodynamics, that have nothing to do with the reality of energy. If the Big Bang theory is true, from that moment on, the Universe began to die, the energy decaying at a steady rate, yet measurements indicate no such decay.
Paul Brown created a reactor that used "spent" fuel and produced electric. NASA uses K40 (a radioactive potassium) for betteries that last tens of years. What is powering the Spirit and Opportunity rovers on Mars? Solar? H2? Biodiesel? I doubt any "fuel" woiuld have lasted this long.
There is a device in Switzerland that has been producing electric power for a small Christain community now for about 25 years. Why doesn't others do the same? I DON"T KNOW! Why do we drive on a parkway and park on the driveway?
Myths aside, real science does not mean that those that came before us figured it all out and we are left with the fruits of their labors. New discoveries are made daily. Just as the auto was slow to replace the horse, and the computer gradually was accepted by business, so it is with "new" energy technology. Tesla demonstrated the "power" of the cosmos. He and others discovered subtle ways (as nature uses) to coax the "cosmos" to give up electrons. They are always there, he just provided a means for them to flow.
Perhaps the discovery of fire was not the greatest achievement, rather the biggest mistake. It provides a very inefficient method of provided energy, heat or light. There are many theories that have been postulated by many smart men and women over the centruries, but like history, the textbooks are written by the victors, not necessarily those that are correct.
The Earth vibrates at a known frequency. A quartz crystal that is cut and mounted to resonate with the Earth will produce a small electric current. A coil wrapped around a ferrous core nmagnet will also produce current flow. These are facts of physics, not fiction or snake oil.
Natural forces begin as nudges, subtle changes that build tremedous forces such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and lightning storms. We use brute force to coerce nature instead of using the subtle methods demonstrated by nature itself.
Just as it was known that the world was flat, so it is with "known" science, that you cannot get more output than input, and with losses due to a variety of "physics laws" output MUST be less than input. Yet we do have experiements that have demonstrated an over unity gain, and these experiemnts have been repeated.
Just because we don't know how, does not negate the possibility of tapping into the Sea of Energy (Henry T. Moray) that is all around us and in between every atom of matter.
Electric is the only form of energy that does not require the destruction of something to gain utility power. You don't have to burn, pollute, sweat, or get someone else to sweat for you. All that is required is thinking outside the "norm" or accepted belief system in place.
h2 is great for volcanic nations
by wyliefool - 5/3/07 5:13 AM In reply to: H-y-d-r-o-g-e-n ?? h2 is obsolete by albizzialike Iceland. All the geothermal power you could ever want. So for them, h2 production is carbon-neutral, and then some.
For us, it's a little more complicated. Hopefully in the last 25 years they've improved the technology for nuclear power plants.
Geothermal Electric Island?
by albizzia - 5/11/07 6:38 PM In reply to: h2 is great for volcanic nations by wyliefoolGeothermal power and hydropower cannot produce H2 directly but can produce electricity directly. The combined efficiency of water electrolysis and fuel cell and compression of H2 fuel for storage is less thatn 24%, but the combined efficiency of charger and battery is 85%. Advanced batteries can drive an electic all the way around Iceland nonstop with charge left over. Electric cars give better performance than H2 fuel cell cars. H2 fuel cell cars cost several times more than the most expensive electric cars...
Why would the people of Iceland choose the more expensive more wasteful poorer performing H2 "solution"?
Ah, but the oil companies want to sell this profitable new H2 fuel...
H_Y_D_R_O_G_E_N
by numba1craze - 5/3/07 7:13 PM In reply to: H-y-d-r-o-g-e-n ?? h2 is obsolete by albizziayou are entirely correct but your forgot something that is very important and has been tested many times but still can't seem to be Eradicated. The, i would say, biggest problem with H2 is the blowing up factor. hydrogen is a very explosive elemnt and when crammed into a car and under extreme pressure it has the potential to make a big boom if you were to be hit. To be honest if there were no more car crashes then this wouldnt be such a big problem but there i always some moron who drives wrecklessly on the road and pays for it by losing his car when it crashes or someone who just had bad luck that day and got rearended. if you were one of those people there would be no way that you could walk out of any of those accidents with minor bruises, scrapes and cuts, you would be blown SKY HIGH, other than the cost of making hydrogen and the factor that i just wrote, the way that Hydrogen is supposed to burn sounds great for the enviornment and if we could rule out both factors I'm sure a lot of people would by it, look how decent the hybrid cars did. there is atleast four hybrid cars on a road, people just enjoy them.
..::MIKE::..
FORGET THE Batteries!
by gr8leather - 6/25/07 8:03 AM In reply to: H-y-d-r-o-g-e-n ?? h2 is obsolete by albizziaNo need for batteries or high pressure tanks. There is a new alternative being developed. It is real, and soon will be running a pickup truck - stay tuned.
If interested in what's happening, check out this site:
http://cscinventorsclub.blogspot.com
c-o-u-l-d-b-e-c-o-m-e-a-n-e-w-p-r-o-b-l-e-m
by rgirwin - 5/3/07 1:07 AM In reply to: H-y-d-r-o-g-e-n !!! h2 is where it's at by prodesmaHydrogen can became very nasty, if used massively in cars and similar vehicles.
The problem is that it will partially leak (no way to avoid it in a massive fleet of privately owned cars), get in the atmosphere and contaminate in new an dangerous ways. A little known problem, I am afraid, but very important and that concerns the whole concept of an Hydrogen-based society.
Hydrogen for cars
by germaic - 5/3/07 1:35 AM In reply to: c-o-u-l-d-b-e-c-o-m-e-a-n-e-w-p-r-o-b-l-e-m by rgirwinHydrogen is not a good lead for cars.
A 2.0 Liter engine would produce only 85 Horse Power (50% of diesel/Gazoline engines).
Storage and distribution would be extremely delicate. This gaz would have to be cooled at -253 °C to stay stable in liquid state for about 15 hours. After that the molecule, the smallest in the world will vaporise and leak to the atmosphere despite the best gaskets. The content of the tank would be lost in about 10 days.
In fact, the Hydrogen like electricity is not a source of energy, it is a way to store the energy. Very easy for electricity, very difficult for hydrogen.
Both must be produced and the ideal would be to produce them from an energy which does not produce greenhouse gases is is renewable like solar, wind or fusion reactors.
I believe that electricity is the energy of future for cars.
The infrastructure to distribute Hydrogen is a MAJOR barrier
by avanabs - 5/3/07 6:18 AM In reply to: H-y-d-r-o-g-e-n !!! h2 is where it's at by prodesmaH2 has one great characteristic, its totally non-poluting in consumption. Otherwise as a fuel, it is a really poor choice, for a long list of reasons, including the fact that producing it consumes polluting fuels in huge volumes. Further, no one has figured out how to distribute the stuff.
While hybrids are far from perfect, your "auto industry insider" clearly has an ax to grind...perhaps works in a major (looser) Detroit auto company???
Alternate fuel
by ronspruell - 5/3/07 7:10 AM In reply to: H-y-d-r-o-g-e-n !!! h2 is where it's at by prodesmaI to agree that Hydrogen is the fuel to use but in the form of a hydrogen fuel cell and totally electric DC cars. Why they the manufactures could put 4 pancake motors on each wheel and we would have full time 4 wheel drive. All of the electronics could go into the chassis so the consumer could change out the body type to anything he or she would like. If you want a pickup truck just bolt it onto the chassis, if you want a 4 door car just bolt on to the chassis. I am an electronics technician and I can tell you that we have drives DC drives that are very small and can drive 400 hp DC motors so we have the electronics and we have the fuel cells all we have to do is get the oil company lobbyists out of Washington and we can have what we need. You know what the by products of the hydrogen fuel cell is? oxygen and water.
oxygen?
by thomasaddley - 5/6/07 5:20 PM In reply to: Alternate fuel by ronspruellByproduct is water, not oxygen, it burns oxygen, creating a chemical process that binds the two products together to make water, hence H2O. 2 parts hygdrgen, 1 part oxygen
General Motors
by dre.caruana - 5/3/07 7:30 AM In reply to: H-y-d-r-o-g-e-n !!! h2 is where it's at by prodesmaGM have a prototype. I don't know what it's called. There is no engine, everything is in an 11inch deep 'body', so the CEG is low, giving more stability. What's more, it produces water as the exhaust, and some 80 or 90KW of energy from the hydrogen cells. Inside its really roomy, and there are no pedals or anything. The steerring has two levers on each side, which you rotate for accelleration, kind of a motorcycle, but vertical instead of horizontal and in both hands at once. To break you squeeze. I really liked it. It will be great for us, the playstation generation, cause it's really like playing. The windshield is so large its "like driving a patio". I saw it on you tube, by top gear. You can search fo it too.
General Motors H2 Concept
by FredMars - 5/3/07 11:27 PM In reply to: General Motors by dre.caruanaYes, it is either a fuel cell or hydrigen fuel concept vehicle. With the new battery technology, the EV cars GM had in the 1990's (but since destroyed) was not a bad vehicle, but the C.A.R.B. (CAlifornia Air Resource Board) which initially madated zero emissions, rescinded their demands and the electric car was pronounced dead.
How about a magnetic motor? Based on the Wimhurst design it could theoretically run forever without fuel.
Fred Mars
Corvallis, OR
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
|
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
