Re: eer

I saw a recent article in Scientific American (or was it New Scientist?) about hydrogen. If I remember correctly it discussed hydrogen in the context of our total need for energy and how to use and transport that energy efficiently. I believe they concluded that if we manage to figure out how to make a lot of hydrogen cleanly then the best use for it is not in cars. It would be better to use it for local power generation and home heating - and use the oil saved in our cars. I was a bit surprised but there you are.

200+ miles is very acceptable for second cars use.

I believe I read the Jester cost only £6000 to make one off.

No hydrogen gas stations either.

Further, there's no good means of duplicating

You mean something as quick as "unplugging" the battery and fitting a new one? Batteries do wear out so it's likely that battery packs will be rented items anyway.

Oh I agree it's not an SUV but it's a heck of a lot better than the car companies seem to manage with their all electric cars - it just seems like they ain't really trying.

Reply to
CWatters
Loading thread data ...

"CWatters" wrote : : 200+ miles is very acceptable for second cars use. :

My "Second Car" will go 400 miles while towing a 6000 pound trailer, can your dream car do that?

Reply to
Roger Gt

--
What's on the trailer, a huge gas tank?^)
Reply to
John Fields

: >"CWatters" wrote : >: : >: 200+ miles is very acceptable for second cars use. : >: : >

: >My "Second Car" will go 400 miles while towing a 6000 pound : >trailer, can your dream car do that? : : --- : What's on the trailer, a huge gas tank?^) : John Fields

My Sail boat! Fixed Keel Cruiser.

Reply to
Roger Gt

context

to

and

Not surprising; hydrogen is difficult stuff to distribute, deliver, and store, and so not well suited to being placed in relatively small quantities, in a very large number of individual devices, operated by "regular people."

Yes, but as I said - the device you pointed to really doesn't compete with what most people mean by "car." It's more of a competitor to a motorcyle or a scooter - the only real advantage it has over either of those is that of being enclosed. It has virtually no cargo space as far as I could see, and certainly isn't something that you'd want to take out on a major highway; in short, it's something that one or two people might use for short urban runs, a "getting to work and back" sort of vehicle.

Yes, but again compare that to a truly comparable vehicle - say, a motorcycle in the 250-500 cc class.

rented

You're talking about removing and replacing something that will likely weigh a fair fraction of a thousand pounds, if not more - and will also, just to complicate things, likely have a significant (dangerous) amount of residual charge at the time it's being replaced. I fail to see how that will compare to the convenience of simply driving up and sticking a nozzle (or even a power cable) into the appropriate receptacle on the vehicle, loading up on the energy needed, and driving off. The latter is something that just about everyone can do right now, as in self-service gas stations.

Further, in the "remove and replace" scenario, the "gas station" (battery station?) will have to have a fair number of fully-charged batteries on hand, ready to go, and some system for delivering those to the vehicles in a timely manner (not to mention the problem of testing and recharging the spent batteries coming in - and the slower THAT goes, the more charged batteries will have to be kept on hand). Besides being a serious change to the existing infrastructure, there are also safety and cost-of-inventory issues likely to come up here. It's going to be hard to beat the "dig a big hole and stick a tank in it" model for the storage of gasoline.

Like what? The "all-electrics" I've seen from the major manufacturers have all been attempts at created reasonably competitive vehicles, not glorified golf carts.

What's so bad about a hybrid electric, anyway? It's certainly going to be FAR more efficient than current IC vehicles, can be made in a range of competitive types/sizes already, and fits the existing infrastructure. In addition, a small, relatively constant- speed gasoline engine is a lot easier to make efficient AND clean than one that's charged with being the direct drive power for the wheels. A hybrid layout in which the electric motors supply most or all of the actual driving power would also be much more readily adaptable to alternate (although still chemical) fuels.

Bob M.

Reply to
Bob Myers

Electronic electricity repository is an utterly unworkable, crackpot energy "concept" that apprently aims to entertain the readers of this group by being posted over and over and over again, despite it having been completely discredited ten ways to Christmas a long, long time ago. It has absolutely no validity at all, and is about as likely to be used for "storing electrical energy from any source" as, say, an elephant is of flying to the Moon on Cavorite wings. EER is supposedly intended to accommodate such things as electric vehicles, home heating, etc., but since it's being proposed by someone who already admits that he knows nothing at all about this field, we really, really do have to assume that it's being presented here mostly as a weak attempt at humor. The funniest example of where "EER" would utterly fail to work is the EV - Frank's crazy notion of an electric car that would run on an "ever- accumulating" power source. That is to say, this nutcase - but fortunately, no one else who possesses two brain cells to rub together, thinks that any and all sources of electrical energy -- including "diffuse sources", whatever the hell THOSE are supposed to be -- could be collected, combined and stored in the form of capacitance. Never mind that Frank doesn't understand that energy isn't stored "in the form of capacitance" in the first place, or even the first thing about how capacitive storage actually works - this is HIS IDEA, by Gawd, and it just seems SO damned attractive (to him) that it simply MUST be right! But, wouldn't the capacitor plates be bigger than the vehicle? Well, yes they would, but that's just the first in a long, long line of both practical and theoretical objections to this absurd idea. Of course, Frank has some idea - how this idea was obtained is unclear, although we can't put recreational pharmaceuticals out of consideration at this point - that a way to increase the surface area of the plates

*within a small perimeter* could be fashioned. Never mind that this wouldn't have the slightest impact on the energy density capabilities of the capacitor in question, something that can easily be demonstrated by anyone who even barely passed freshman geometry - again, this idea is one which Frank is clearly in love with, and therefore it MUST be right. And apparently, there simply isn't room within Frank's brain for troublesome trivia like basic algebra, geometry, or physics. Some might suggest that Scanning Tunneling Microscope Technology might be used to find those locations within Frank's cerebrum where such things might still reside, or we could possible even employ nanotechnology to accomplish this (although this seems like a very cruel thing to do to a nanobot) -- but clearly, to locate his understanding of these topics, we'll have to use SOME methods that could identify items roughly halfway to the molecular level. Doing this -- identifying such massive ignorance within a small perimeter -- is the heart of any attempt to understand the source of "eer". Such a project is undoubtedly needing a commitment of funds roughly equal to that of the Human Genome Project, which admittedly is taken on faith - and success could be many years away.

I mean, just consider the level of absurdity we're up against here. Frank believes that "the object is to configure the plates and dielectric so they all fit like Jell-O in a mold, and to make these all small in perimeter -- while yielding enormous surface area" - as if, again, that is somehow going to increase the amount of energy one could store in a given volume. We would also have to somehow understand how a statement like "it is expected that about 15 sources of renewable energy (solar, wind, wave, etc.) would be able to contribute to the 'eer pool' of stored electrical energy" has anything at all to do with the problems, no, the impossibilities, in what is being discussed here. In time, though, an examination of how stupidity and ignorance can be stored in this way could effectively replace Saturday Night Live and Comedy Central combined as a source of much of the nation's entertainment.

NOTE: EER absolutely, in no way, breaks the Second Law! It doesn't have to, since there so many OTHER laws that it would have to break to get even halfway toward being a viable concept.

If you're as tired of seeing this nonsense as some have claimed, you may want to take it up with:

Frank Lincoln snipped-for-privacy@cs.com snipped-for-privacy@aol.com snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com

...but don't expect the rest of us to join you in this. We're having too much fun laughing at this stuff!

By the way, In case you hadn't noticed, Frank is VERY weak with computers. And physics. And math. And just about any other subject you'd have to understand in order to actually make a contribution in the field of energy generation and storage.

But, as he says, "this is no more than a guess from a novice" and "there are some mistakes in here", showing that, if nothing else, he is truly a master of extreme understatement.

In one sentence, he is saying that, despite all evidence and arguments presented by those who actually DO understand these subjects, that a very, very advanced capacitor is possible, regardless of what those stupid ol' physics texts would have you believe.

But it's by no means an energy concept.

And no, there is no 21st Law of Thermodynamics. Once again, we already have more than sufficient laws to show what nonsense this whole EER thing is.

But there IS a 21st Century Law of Crackpot Behavior. Simply stated, it is, "No energy concept involving capacitance shall ever be considered as unworthy of posting over and over and over again, no matter how silly it is or how many times it has been utterly discredited."

Freud could not have seen this coming, but then in his day, there was not the multitude of diffuse (and obtuse) forms of crackpot thinking that we are forced to contend with today.

There is NO way around this Law. By that, I mean that there is apparently nothing we can do but continue to be subjected to Frank's endless postings, and take whatever meager enjoyment we can from them. There is simply no way to begin solving the "diffuse" (at best!) nature of his understanding of the subjects at hand before we would be able to put the energy behind his constant posting to work in any effective way. Say, basket weaving or bowling-ball polishing.

Just remeber that, in Frank's little world, and no matter what any of us say, this will remain "A goal......an idea......a prediction......." Crackpotism is easy, and there is no shortage of such here.

After all, we ARE talking about someone who seriously believes that, thanks SOLELY to his Marvelous Invention,

"We don't need oil. We don't need batteries. We don't need internal combustion engines. We don't need fusion. We don't need hybrids. We don't need hydrogen-powered cars. We don't need ethanol. We don't need natural gas. We don't need methane. We don't even need efficiency. We don't even need conservation."

I ask you - could one even hope for better evidence of the absurdity of this whole idea than THAT?

Reply to
Bob Myers

I don't understand the advantage of hybrids which are basically gas powered vehicles. The only advantage I see is the gas engine runs at optimal RPM, and braking is done by the electric motor acting as a generator which recovers some of the kinetic energy. The car may also be lighter weight than normal.

But so what? If I drive my little truck at 65 MPH for 2 hours at optimum RPM without using the brakes, I get maybe 25 miles per gallon, which is nowhere near the 70 MPG of the hybrid at the same speed.

Actually, I haven't checked my truck milage under optimum conditions, but I doubt it's anything close to the hybrid.

So what makes the hybrid so efficient compared to the normal IC?

-Bill

Reply to
Bill Bowden

---------------------- Hybrids are able to operate their engine at its optimum performance at all times, and recover some energy by regenerative braking. Together these offer about 60% increases in efficiency over your truck, which doesn't get those conditions, but must vary its efficiency and operate at various rpm's and torques.

-Steve

--
-Steve Walz  rstevew@armory.com   ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!!  With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public
Reply to
R. Steve Walz

If you only get 25mpg under such conditions either you have the most enefficient truck currently available or your 'little truck' is about 40 ton glw.

Reply to
R.Lewis

: > >It is simply not yet practical to produce a pure EV, battery : > >powered, with acceptable range to compete with gas-powered : > >IC vehicles. The hybrids can actually better the purely-IC vehicles : > >already, and can be produced at a reasonable cost, so that's : > >what we're seeing now. : >

: > I don't understand the advantage of hybrids which are basically : > gas powered vehicles. The only advantage I see is the gas engine : > runs at optimal RPM, and braking is done by the electric motor : > acting as a generator which recovers some of the kinetic energy. : > The car may also be lighter weight than normal. : >

: > But so what? If I drive my little truck at 65 MPH for 2 hours : > at optimum RPM without using the brakes, I get maybe 25 miles : > per gallon, which is nowhere near the 70 MPG of the hybrid at : > the same speed. : >

: If you only get 25mpg under such conditions either you have the most : enefficient truck currently available or your 'little truck' is about 40 ton : glw. : > Actually, I haven't checked my truck milage under optimum : > conditions, but I doubt it's anything close to the hybrid. : > So what makes the hybrid so efficient compared to the normal IC? : > -Bill

Currently available Hybrids are

  1. not trucks, and
  2. very underpowered for driving in traffic.

Everyone gets to decide for themselves what they will drive.

Reply to
Clarence

The engine in the hybrid is smaller. When accelerating the electric motor can help for a while. This means a smaller combustion engine.

Also the combustion engine does not need to be tuned to be resposive - the electric side can handle that.

And then there is the desire to make the whole thing efficient - I guess a truck will have the trade-off between cost and efficiency more to the cost side where the hybrid will try to be more efficient.

For example the Prius seems to miss a throttle - no intake vacuum. Instead the intake valves close at the moment the right amount of mixture is in the cylinders. This means the engine is not running as a vacuum pump all the time.

To run your truck in this mode you would need to quasi floor the pedal and drive in very high gear. but the engine will not like that - while the hybrid's engine can handle this because it is made for it.

Thomas

Reply to
Zak

The battery in a hybrid is usually too small to power the car for very long - it's really just used to improve the efficiency of the gas engine by storing energy recovered during braking. Hybrids won't really delay the day that the oil runs out.

Reply to
CWatters

formatting link

Reply to
CWatters

Why would it be underpowered? The electric motor should have sufficient power in a small size. The gas motor may be underpowered but it isn't needed to accelerate in traffic.

There seems to be quite a spread in performance of hybrids. Chevy is offering a full sized hybrid truck that only gets 5-13% better milage. Probably not worth the extra cost.

formatting link

But VW has developed a very efficient hybrid car that gets 318 MPG which is better than a motorcycle.

formatting link

So, the spread seems to be 5% to 1500% depending on what you compare it to.

-Bill

Reply to
Bill Bowden

So, if my truck runs at optimum RPM on a flat road, without braking, I should get a 60% increase in milage.

I'll have to check that out on a long trip. A 60% increase over 20 MPG would be 32 MPG. Sounds kinda high, but maybe my truck will do 32 MPG, I haven't driven on a long enough trip to find out.

-Bill

Reply to
Bill Bowden

Just one thing missing -- to achieve optimum MPG, the engine needs to be running at full throttle. Replace the engine with a smaller one, and you've got it.

--
John Miller
Email address: domain, n4vu.com; username, jsm

If it's worth doing, it's worth doing for money.
Reply to
John Miller

You have a larger engine than would be required in a hybrid, which adds friction, inertia and mass. It also means the optimum engine rpm is unlikely to be matched to the optimum vehicle speed as well as it can be in a hybrid, as you need more power in reserve not having the electric motor to help out.

I don't get why vegetable oil isn't considered the fuel of the future. It's carbon-neutral, so no global warming. It's entirely renewable. It doesn't put anything worse out the back than a fossil-fuelled engine. Energy density is comparable to fossil oil. The engine technology is practically identical to existing engines (diesels at least). The distribution channels would require minimal modification. Perhaps once the fossil oil has run out Shell et al. will suddenly think it's a great idea...

Tim

--
Guns Don?t Kill People, Rappers Do.
Reply to
Tim Auton

There are a couple of problems here. First, your truck as a whole likely is not designed to be as efficient as today's typical hybrid. Look at the design of, say, the current Prius - not only is it a hybrid, but it also has other design features (low drag body shape, low rolling resistance tires, etc.) to optimize its performance in this department vs. what your truck does. Next - how are you determining "optimum RPM"? Does you truck have any instrumentation that provides a good instantaneous MPG indication?

Finally, though, and possibly most importantly, I doubt that the engine in your truck is truly optimized for efficient operation at a single, constant speed the same way as the engine of a hybrid could be. It can't be, since it has to be flexible enough to handle all the different conditions you throw at it in the course of driving around.

Bob M.

Reply to
Bob Myers

Not as they're currently being made, now - meaning EVs running off power generated by a more-efficient-than-usuall, but still gasoline-burning, IC engine. But the beauty of the hybrid model is that it really doesn't care what fuel, or what type of engine, is being used to generate the electricity. Once you've got a hybrid drive train in large-scale production, it's not THAT big a step to move to another (but still chemically based) generator system.

For instance - and I'm NOT really proposing this is better, because I simply have NOT looked further into this and am not expert in this field - perhaps a gas-turbine hybrid might eventually come to the market. Turbines are pretty good at handling a wide range of fuels and operating at a constant speed...

Bob M.

Reply to
Bob Myers

Yes, aerodynamics and tire friction are big factors, but the question is, why do hybrid engines obtain so much better efficiency with changing loads? Do they change RPM to compensate for load? My truck always runs between 2000 and 3000 RPM, as do most other cars, so that must be close to optimum, and it's a fairly narrow range. So, why does a hybrid engine outperforn a standard IC engine by such a large margin? They both do the same thing, with minor differences.

Yes, the truck engine is probably designed to operate over a wider RPM range and loads, but I wouldn't think that accounts for a 60% increase in milage of hybrids over normal ICs.

After all, IC engines are just pistons and valves and timing. How many changes can you make to get a 60% milage increase?

-Bill

Reply to
Bill Bowden

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.