OT: how far we've come?, 35 years of non-progress Options

[byndbad914]

this o/t thread is turning into a pretty good one (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif)

I grew up in Iowa, and that crap-ass ethonal was "everywhere" in the 80s and pretty much everyone around me agreed that a) it was the goverment's way of subsidizing farmers in that it promoted them using empty land to grow corn, 2) being alcohol and given the amount of rubber in the fuel systems at the time, it tended to erode the lines and carburetor seals on 70s and earlier cars, so it tended to plug/ruin the carb and require a rebuild, and c) 2-3mpg was a pretty 'standard' loss in mileage... but what is really significant about that is that is against a car getting 15mpg, not 30mpg. So you had more like a 15-20% loss in economy.

Of course, the second is foregone, but the other two points are still relevant IMO. And, of course, that was a blended fuel as well - not 100% ethanol.

In the short term (say next 10-20yrs), I am on my own bandwagon of high-pressure diesels which are really efficient and powerful (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/smile.gif) Of course, there tends to be a big premium to pay on a car/truck with a diesel as well, which is unfortunate. Really why I bought the Lightning I have instead of a diesel F250 - the Lightning makes a ton of power and cost $15K less. So I have a long way to go to break even on the fuel mileage redux. If the Lightning were a supercharged clean burning diesel with similar power but 20-30% more mpg for $5-$7K more though, I would be stoked to have it.

Here is a link to the Audi - now that's what I am talking about

http://car.kak.net/modules.php?op=modload&...rticle&sid=4888

Audi makes some seriously nice turbo diesel cars in Europe

[Katmanken]

Here is a wild one. When in college, one of my professors was big on the Powersat poposal. This was a proposal to build a satellite with about 25 square miles of solar cells, collect solar energy and beam it down to the earth via microwaves.

Microwave power transmission/reception efficiency has improved to where it is quite feasable to do this. Dr. A suggested beaming the microwave beam down to someplace where it could do no harm- say a imddle eastern desert near the sea and use the power to seperate hydrogen and oxygen from seawater. Release the oxygen and liquify the hydrogen. Use the port facillities already in existance and use the liquid natural gas tankers to transport the liqid hydrogen to burn.

Dr. A was a nuclear physicist, one of Dr. Teller's 12 disciples, and on the shuttle review board. He always said they were gonna lose at least one shuttle.

Burn one hydrogen with two oxygens produces..... water vapor... (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/idea.gif)

Ken

[riverman]

QUOTE (kwales @ Mar 8 2006, 05:16 PM)

Here is a wild one. When in college, one of my professors was big on the Powersat poposal. This was a proposal to build a satellite with about 25 square miles of solar cells, collect solar energy and beam it down to the earth via microwaves. Microwave power transmission/reception efficiency has improved to where it is quite feasable to do this. Dr. A suggested beaming the microwave beam down to someplace where it could do no harm- say a imddle eastern desert near the sea and use the power to seperate hydrogen and oxygen from seawater. Release the oxygen and liquify the hydrogen. Use the port facillities already in existance and use the liquid natural gas tankers to transport the liqid hydrogen to burn. Dr. A was a nuclear physicist, one of Dr. Teller's 12 disciples, and on the shuttle review board. He always said they were gonna lose at least one shuttle. Burn one hydrogen with two oxygens produces..... water vapor... (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/idea.gif) Ken

Sounds good on paper. But wouldn't we be adding energy to the earth's atmosphere by doing this?

The solar energy collected and then beamed to earth would be solar energy that would have missed the earth anyway. But by collecting it and then transporting it into our environment it has to go somewhere. Since energy can not be created or destroyed and we would be importing this energy from outside earth's own energy cycle, would not the end effect be further global warming and increased environmental damage?

[alpha434]

QUOTE (riverman @ Mar 8 2006, 02:31 PM)

QUOTE (kwales @ Mar 8 2006, 05:16 PM) Here is a wild one.  When in college, one of my professors was big on the Powersat poposal.  This was a proposal to build a satellite with about 25 square miles of solar cells, collect solar energy and beam it down to the earth via microwaves.   Microwave power transmission/reception efficiency has improved to where it is quite feasable to do this.  Dr. A suggested beaming the microwave beam down to someplace where it could do no harm- say a imddle eastern desert near the sea and use the power to seperate hydrogen and oxygen from seawater.  Release the oxygen and liquify the hydrogen.   Use the port facillities already in existance and use the liquid natural gas tankers to transport the liqid hydrogen to burn. Dr. A was a nuclear physicist, one of Dr. Teller's 12 disciples, and on the shuttle review board.  He always said they were gonna lose at least one shuttle. Burn one hydrogen with two oxygens produces..... water vapor... (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/idea.gif) Ken Sounds good on paper. But wouldn't we be adding energy to the earth's atmosphere by doing this? The solar energy collected and then beamed to earth would be solar energy that would have missed the earth anyway. But by collecting it and then transporting it into our environment it has to go somewhere. Since energy can not be created or destroyed and we would be importing this energy from outside earth's own energy cycle, would not the end effect be further global warming and increased environmental damage?

It's controlled energy. I'm sure it would be ok, as long as the "exhaust" also finds it's way back into space.

[lapuwali]

The "costs more energy to produce than it puts out" argument is bogus, IMHO. Motor fuels don't have to be net positive. We're not trying to fight a war with entropy here, we're just trying to provide a cleaner way to power mobile devices like cars. We can't (reasonably) use solar or nuclear in a car directly, but we can use them indirectly to create useful fuels like ethanol or hydrogen.

Returning to the original point of the post, I suspect we'll start seeing turbos on cars again as a commonplace item. The big problem with using very small-displacement engines to power cars is a lack of torque. HP basically defines how fast you'll go, but torque roughly defines how quickly you'll get to that speed. Cruising at 60mph in a typical car requires about 10hp. Accelerating to 60mph in a reasonable time-frame, however, requires about 100ft/lbs of torque (varies on the weight of the car).

For normally-aspirated engines, torque roughly scales with displacement: 50-60ft/lbs per liter, varying mostly with breathing efficiency. So, a 2.0 makes about 100ft/lbs, but a 500cc engine only makes 25ft/lbs. Enough to get a bike moving, but not really enough to get even a small car up to speed quickly enough to suit most people. A turbocharger, however, can provide a huge increase in torque when it's needed. A 500cc engine can easily make 50hp, allowing for a cruising speed in the 80mph range. A turbo 500 will allow you to cruise with the efficiency of a 500, but can produce the 100ft/lbs of torque while you're accelerating.

The electric hybrids are trying to do something similar (esp. Honda's Insight, which only had a 1.0 triple), but using electric "boost" instead of turbo "boost". This is, IMHO, misguided. A turbo captures otherwise wasted energy to boost power. The electric hybrid loads the IC engine even more to produce the electric power to store into batteries that add yet more weight that hinders the very acceleration you're trying to provide. Honda seems to have some corporate hole in its head about turbos (when was the last turbo Honda offered in the US?), so we're not likely to see one from them.

The Europeans haven't jumped on the hybrid bandwagon, yet, at least not publically. The Americans are doing so in a limited way. Only Toyota and Honda have done so seriously, and Toyota only has one viable product out now, where Honda has several.

[newto914s]

When you think about it, the basic design of the internal combustion engine hasn't really changed in 100 years. I would think if car manufacteres were to try one or both of these ideas they easily could make a 100mpg car.

http://www.autofieldguide.com/articles/050302.html
http://www.coatesengine.com/engine_of_the_future.html

personaly, I buy into the biodiesel idea, and would love to see it happen. I figure you make Bio-diesel out of soybean oil in Mid-Ohio, sell it to truckers for $1.50 a gallon,(not to get rich, but to brake the backs of the D*cks running the Oil extortion) and the main stream will se that it's possible, and stop buying gas cars. It won't solve all our problems, but will release their hands(middle east) from our balls

[lapuwali]

QUOTE (newto914s @ Mar 8 2006, 03:35 PM)

When you think about it, the basic design of the internal combustion engine hasn't really changed in 100 years. I would think if car manufacteres were to try one or both of these ideas they easily could make a 100mpg car. http://www.autofieldguide.com/articles/050302.html http://www.coatesengine.com/engine_of_the_future.html

The reciprocating piston Otto engine has lasted 100 years because it works. There have been scads of ideas during that time to replace it, but the only one that made it to production was the Wankel. Most of the other ideas had other serious problems the inventors overlooked or ignored. Most new designs take many years of serious effort to develop to the point where they'll really work in a mass-production environment, and last for decades of use. The Wankel took a LOT of work before it was really useful, and it still has some pretty significant shortcomings.

The only other IC engine produced in serious numbers is the gas turbine, which isn't well suited to directly driving a car. It IS well suited to driving a generator, and has proven itself very useful in aircraft. A small turbine driving a generator to charge batteries to make electric motors push a car around is a valid idea, and it's been pursued, to some extent. Great thermal efficiency, smooth-running, instant flex fuel capability.

[TimT]

My daily driver is a diesel p/u

I run BIO every chance I can, during the colder months I run B20, in the warmer months I run B100

It costs the same as Dino diesel though.

[rick 918-S]

We tried the ethenol in the Titan when the gas went over 3.00 gal. Milage went from about 17 to 13!

[bd1308]

well look at it this way....

we're taking money out of OUR pockets, and giving it to oil lords in the middle east for something we MUST HAVE.

yeah there's a mileage difference, but you have to look at it this way...

Companies pay people to work, and those people go to the gas station to put gas in thier cars. People in the middle east get the money from the sale of gas(well crude oil which is then refined yada yada) but just in the sale of gas (and some other products--Steel for example) money doesnt go back into the US economy.

If bean farmers made BIODIESEL (indirectly or directly) they could sell it to the gas stations for a profit. Well when people fuel up thier cars, US PEOPLE benefit from this. US people pay US people money for gas. Or steel. It makes sense to me, but i just woke up.

E85 is offered here in KY in one station, and i've yet to try it (exhaust rusts out and rubber FI seals go bad) but if i got those in check i'd love to try it.

b

[Mike D.]

QUOTE (rick 918-S @ Mar 8 2006, 04:42 PM)

We tried the ethenol in the Titan when the gas went over 3.00 gal. Milage went from about 17 to 13!

How much did it cost?