Building an electric... bike!? (electric motors)

Trouble is, the Rankin cycle doesn't give you anywhere near the same energy output as the Otto cycle.

Someone worked on this and came up with a modified steam engine that improved on teh Rankin cycle, using supercritical pressure (3200psi) and temperatures of about 1200 deg F. Nasty thing to have in an accident though ...

See here for some more info:

I've looked where the article should be and couldn't find it. I did find this one though (each link is one page):

It prints better than it looks on a computer screen too. Not much in the way of practical info though.

Allan

Inflation, value of money roughly halves each 10 years, however, if oil had kept pace with inflation since the mid 70's it woould be around $140 per barrel and petrol would be arounf $2.50/L.

If it was possible to work the real value petrol is about 10% cheaper in real terms over last 30 years, prob only 5% cheaper from last 10 but there are going to be all sorts of debatable factors in that equation.

Although people in UK are paying around $2 per litre already, we have it quite good despite fact most of income goes to government coffers to pay for problematic capital works like tunnels or a nuclear power plant

There are going to be many anomalies in any change in value, nothing keeps pace the same as any economic average, your income level has its own issues, some might be situational, who knows.

I thought that estimate was every 23 years? Anyway...

We use about 51 Litres per week. This costs us about $58.14 when it was about $1.14. Now it's $1.40 (or is it even more today?), which means we now pay $71.40 - $13.26 more. Our income hasn't increased and add to that the extra expense from other things being dragged up because of extra freight costs...

Personally, I hope they keep right on going. The faster and higher the better. They've taken it too far and the cutting of their own throats has begun. The more expensive fuel is, the more people will say I won't pay this anymore and just dump petrol altogether.

Going by our figures (which are lower than most folks), that's a yearly petrol cost of $3713, a 2-year cost of $7426 and a 3-year cost of $11,138. (And that's assuming it doesn't rise any further, which it will.) So assuming it will go up further, for the price of about the next 2.5 years worth of fuel, I could convert a car to electric today.

Now all I've got to do, is discover how you get something like that passed for rego and I'll get started. ; )

Allan

The problem is that there isnt anything else thats affordable at the moment.

As long as the vehicle isn't modified (safety wise) there shouldn't be a problem with rego. Brakes are a problem though, they must be power assisted which means that you either get a pre power assist brake model or install a vacuum pump. The other problem is where do you fit all them batteries?

I've been reading the last couple of days and there's some great batteries coming out. One was a new type of lead acid that's half the weight - and cheaper than lead acid I think. Another one I saw was like a sandwich of tin foil with what looks like ribbon cable for terminals (can't remember the name of it now), but it was lightweight, high current/capacity and only lost 1% capacity after 1000 recharge cycles.

The best lithium-ion variants have an energy density approaching to that of petrol, ie 9000 Watt hours per litre or for the battery per kilo...

Its possible that they might get even better, and even at that point that much energy in something the size of a brick could be pretty dangerous - the instantaneous discharge of that much equivalent electrical energy in that package if it were punctured could be disastrous.

However, even if we did have a one kilo brick that could store say 5000 Watt hours of energy, it still needs to get charged plus the amortised energy (CO2) of making it in the first place is not to be sneezed at, plus later on the cost of recycling it...

Seems the Carbon-Hydrogen bond is the best energy carrier and probably why we function so well because of it...

Throw away the Oxygen-Hydrogen one, its too low energy and too dangerous and any politcally motivated group that builds H2 buses just hasnt done their basic physics and risk assessment analysis.

Side note not many people are aware of. There is more hydrogen and more energy in a litre of petrol than there is in a litre of liquid hydrogen, even if you could get it as a liquid.

The trick would be to retain the energy density of the carbon-hydrogen bond and recycle the carbon, nature has been doing it for billions of years and has never had to go the nuclear route. I think we can do the same in far less time and in fact there are probably ways to use the CO2 produced in the short terms as a major component of building materials something nature has also been doing for billions of years...

So wouldnt it be incumbent upon us as caretakers of the planet to:-

a. Use liquid fuels as the infrastructure for distribution and use in internal combustion engines is already in place and by that paradigm I mean renewable liquid fuels. b. Determine how to extract CO2 from the atmosphere to reduce the greenhouse effect c. Sequester CO2 temporarily from large power projects which have the momentum of using fossil sources. d. Convert this CO2 into building material, presumably to construct infrastructure for a and c above. e. Engineer biological organisms to implement b and d above, again this is something that nature has been doing for billions of years.

Hold on while Allen goes down the back shed and knocks something up. Sounds like a real good DIY project that anyone can tackle.

HAH! ; )

Its not that hard, well as it appears, taking each item in turn:-

a. Is already in place, minor changes might be to add greater capacity for oxygenated fuels like alcohol and methanol, lots of plastics and industrial plants already use and produce those chemicals so the methods of storage and transport are well known, consider this part already done for most part.

b. Nature has already been doing this for ages, there is a huge ocean sink, although this is harder it may well be the lowest priority item in comparison with the others. Genetic engineering of fast growning trees such as Pawlonia for example along with kelps and other seaweeds is going to bear more fruit than much we can do on land. Kelp is is pretty high demand not just for toothpaste.

c. Sequestering isnt also that hard though there are better places in the word for it than others depending on geological factors. Not difficult to separate O2 from N2 from air before feeding it to a combustion chamber for producing heat for electricity, the resulting gas is mostly CO2 and H2O, they are also easy to separate. We need political will along with an alternative economic model that includes serious use of carbon credits.

d. We have heaps of sulphates in the ground already, if it were possible to strip the SO2 from Calcium, Potassium and Sodium and replace it with a carbonate then we have a heap of limestone, a great deal of sulphates are used in inductrial processes though I'm not sure how much mroe than carbonates. Its an option worth checking though. I also understand there is research into methods to produce composites, ie Bond carbonates to existing sulphates, there is a whole area of inorganic complexes that may well be a suitable way to absorb CO2 and use the product as a structural material, not an area I am expert in but having seen odd inorganics for the last 30 years I think its worth pursuing.

e. Genetic engineering is growing by leaps and bounds, also need political will to pursue this with more gusto perhaps along with a focus.

All the above needs a serious improvement in basic along with advanced education, I am just not use that the OBE system is focused along any lines to generate intellectual muscle to address the above points

You can calculate it, though you need the indicated inflation rate for each year, you cant just average the rates. We've had years where inflation was 15%, now its about 5%, it all is subject to compounding, easy to raise things to a power. Similar to this:-

If I put 1000 in bank for 10 years at 5% then how much would I have at the end if I dont take anything out etc. So iirc:-

Final Amount = 1000 x 1.05 ^(10)

ooorppppsss - Somehow news reader thinks I pressed ctrl-s...

Sorry for break, here is the rest of my post:-

Some think the real inflation rate is closer to 8%, then put those figures in and you get, for one dollar:-

$2.16 = $1.00 x (1.08)^10

You can interpret this as:-

$2.16 of money now is the same buying power as $1 was 10 years ago if the average inflation rate is approx 8%. So from the way this exponent works its clear that even a slight rise in the inflation rate propogates through to a large loss of value. Or if you use it for income from interest - a high capital value...

The 'estimate' you have for 23 years can be worked backwards to arrive at the average inflation rate, if you see this as a halving of value then:-

$2 = $1 x (rate)^23

log 2 = 23 x log rate

log rate = (log 2) /23

log rate = 0.013

therefore:-

rate = 1.031

In other words, there is no f..... way that the inflation rate has been 1% for the last 23 years !

So I stand by my observation that the value of money 'roughly' halves each 10 years - more or less by not much ;)

You can tweak your car to use a bit less fuel, drive it very gently when its still warming up, tweak the AFM to make it a little leaner, keep your tyres at highest practicable pressure, keep windows closed where possible to reduce drag over 70 Km/hr, use air con only sporadically, make sure your fuel system is as new with no evaporative leaks etc

Not going to go up that much though, cost of gas is still very very low, the differential will mean the average fixed price for oil wont be that much more than it has been for last 30 years - taking inflation into account, there will be speculation and swings but the average wont change much until gas also goes up a lot, that is a bit unlikely.

The money in conversion wouldnt be worth it

Better to use biodiesels, home produced fuels, trailer of wood and wood gas production such as was used during 2nd world war, that method was actually quite effective, though meant dragging a trailer around, maybe these days wood gas fueling can be miniaturised a lot.

Most materials suppliers of things like pipes and valves will point you to tables or specs, just need a bit of math skills and if in doubt ask them, and/or go to traditional boiler suppliers/manufacturers, you can get a heap of skills from a TAFE course for boiler making too, it is really easy to find out the basic data - the trick is to focus on it for a few minutes so it makes sense. Do this in concert with BMEP for an engine and one soon finds out just what pressure and flow you need to make any particular piston engine perform well enough from a steam source.

You dont need qualifications to build one for your workshop or to research but you sure do if you sell, install etc for anyone else..

Road Traffic Authority would surely be an issue so for that, get a classic car from 60 years ago as a starting point ;)

Poor efficiency, average locomotive was about 7%, reminds me of the largest ones built in USA, 6000 hp at around the late 1930's, that means they threw away a *huge* amount of heat to develop 6000hp to pull cariages, yep they did have overweight people even in the 1930's

Yes, have seen pictures of these during my research. What freedom we give up for the sake of convenience!

If money halves every 10 years, petrol should be approx $0.96 per litre since the mid seventies.

Halves in value, means twice as many dollars for the same amount...!

See my other post re calculating using exponent on % inflation...

This is why petrol (and oil) is actually cheaper now - in real terms.

Yes, I based my calculation on that. In 1976, I was paying just under 0.11 per litre. So, in 1986, it should have been 0.24 /L, then in 1996 it should have been 0.48 /L, therefore 2006 it should be 0.96 cents per litre.

So you are saying the average inflation rate between 1976 and 1986 was 8%, I think it was more like 15% or thereabouts but, even it was an average of 8% there were wild swings to 15% or more, this cannot be averaged as its an exponential calculation :(

Also between 1986 and 1996, I seem to recall it was more like 10%

However, since 1996 the inflation rate has been between 5 and 9% more or less, I also recall the petrol price was around 80c/L, so doubling that puts it at $1.60/L which is more than the $1.32 I paid yesterday and that was the basis for my comment.

My statement of doubling each 10 years is a broad brush estimate and I went on the last 10 years or so in that petrol iirc, was around 75 to 80c/L.

Anything further back from that, when we had quite a lot higher inflation really needs a year by year calculation as an average just wont work because averaging the rate then applying it to the exponent calculation wont result in the same figure as taking it year by year when there are wilder swings, its pretty clear why thats the case - compounding...

The other complication is that the government added parity pricing, funnily enough that seems to have returned it (petrol) to correlation with inflation, prior to that it was lagging behind significantly and migth well have been undervalued in psychological terms, had it been done earlier the truer cost of the fuel from the perspective of long term environmental damage might well have been factored in.

Petrol is still far less in Perth than it is in Europe.

There are always going to be heaps of anomalies, the general case is only sufficient for the odd pub debate not so much for detailled analysis but then the detailled analysis isnt that hard either...

har har, I just had a thought, if we did use wood directly with some miniaturised gas extractor it certainly would dampen Howard's plan to tax alternative fuels, can you imagine a senate session where the various types of wood come up for discussion,