| Author | Message | ||
     Steveford |
I'm holding out for the nuclear powered bike Made In Italy. When the proprietary part made in China fails and the bike goes into partial melt down mode your friendly "local" dealer two states away will inform you that it's on back order until five minutes after doomsday because everyone is on vacation but it sure does look sexy even just sitting there! | ||
| Zacks |
Sifo - the capacitors that we were using were some kind of low leakage design so they didn't release all the energy at once, but still charged in seconds. And could move 3000lb pallets, run the sensors and communications for 12 min on a charge. Batteries at -10F have a short life and this instead was the solution. Obviously need to be upscaled for a vehicle application. The capacitor bank is in a box about 16x6x6 though so not huge. | ||
| Needs_o2 |
GRAPHENE!!! https://www.graphene-info.com/graphene-supercapaci tors | ||
| Sifo |
Apparently the new Tesla has fart mode...  | ||
| Jaimec |
Right now I can see only ONE thing that would make electric vehicles as convenient for long trips as a gasoline or diesel engine, but it is highly unlikely at the moment. A STANDARDIZED battery form-factor that can be easily swapped out by the user and battery replacement stations as pervasive as gas stations. You'd drive as far as you can and when your battery was signaling low, you'd pull into one of these stations, swap out your depleted battery, install a fully charged one, pay a nominal service fee, and continue on your way. Just like many of us do now with propane tanks for our grills every summer. | ||
| Ourdee |
Or we could use propane. | ||
| Ebutch |
Propane explosion in car  | ||
| Jaimec |
Not a viable solution as it still produces carbon dioxide. About the only thing I can think of that we can safely burn without contributing to greenhouse gasses is hydrogen.  | ||
| Ebutch |
Electric cars Tooooo  | ||
| Ourdee |
 | ||
| Aesquire |
The exhaust from Hydrogen burning is water vapor. A far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. The good news is that we now know that Greenhouse gas emissions aren't that big a deal in climate change. That the planet could use some warming to hold off the Ice Age. And that we now have conclusive proof that Capitalism is a far better system for saving the planet from human ecological ruin than authoritarian socialist systems. Defence of the above truths. Decades of computer models assuming high risk factors for CO2 have shown the assumption wrong. (Counterpoint) There's been a lot fewer models on H2O risks, because the Con mythology specifies CO2 as the villain. More research is needed, but we wouldn't be able to ramp up conversion to a Hydrogen Economy before knowing if it's a Bad Idea. The temperature Today is on the near peak of the current ice age cycle. Not an especially high peak, either, looking at the last half dozen cycles. We are below Northern European Optimum temperatures, colder than the Medieval & Roman warm times. We are in a cold times sunspot cycle. So we have multiple reasons to Want minor global warming, or at the least, not getting colder. ( note: it's Two degrees here. f winter ) If we do discover social engineering methods to control the climate, ( as the Con demands/assumes ) that aren't theocratic dictatorship life ruining regimes, that ( see proof #3) won't work, anyway, we should use them carefully. We aren't smart enough yet to do so safely. Judging from published results in CO2 emissions by the mainstream media, communist dictatorships have the worst ecological problems, while they improve in direct correlation with standard of living, freedom of speech, and gun ownership. ( I could have picked another multiplier, video game design, and the numbers are close ) I could show you the math, but it's freaking obvious. Apply a matrix of the 3 factors, use percentages, use a spreadsheet, pile pebbles. | ||
| Court |
I'd be interested in both the math and the source. I have a friend, a College Professor, who is a Climate Change advocate. I've been unmoved, citing some of the chicanery with some of the studies and so forth. I'd like to populate my intellectual quiver with some solid factual data and evidence . . . it seems elusive. | ||
| Aesquire |
Now, I LIKE the Hydrogen Economy idea. Really like it! No more soot, no more gasoline leaking into the groundwater. It's a Clean Dream! But. It's a leaky gas you have to make, and storage in your motorcycle isn't mature yet. You don't want high pressure tanks that shatter in a crash, or Liquid Hydrogen. ( shudder. ) We can assume a 21st century hydrogen filling station to have interchangeable hydride modules.... Just as we assume interchangeable battery modules. ( and our assumptions haven't proven out, yet. But it also took time for other technologies to mature ) And because it's probable that hydrogen release rate from a hydride matrix is temperature dependent, I can imagine "hot shot" modules, the attendant ( probably robotic in High wage areas ) plugging in "steaming hot" modules ready for maximum output immediately, at extra cost, of course!  | ||
| Court |
One thing that folks, even those holding the most diverse opinions, can agree on is that we are going to see amazing changes. I had the great pleasure of giving a Commencement Address at Columbia University in 2009 and spoke on the topic of how change yields such amazing opportunities. One of the 4 examples I used was when my Grandmother. . . who born before Orville and Wilbur did their thing at Kitty Hawk and, prior to her death, found out . . while at my Aunt and Uncles for a party, she was the only person at the table who had not walked on the moon. The rate of change . . in terms of its perception by humans . . . is accelerating as society gains in technology, enhances our ability to assimilate and process information and has better organized ways of directing technological advance. I do recall something that Abe Askenazi once said about batteries that really brought it home for me. I won't live long enough to see much of this play out but, some here and for sure my grandkids, are going to be part of a most amazing world. If you want to know how you might be impacted by all of this ask yourself . . . the last time someone said "Made in China" did you make a joke or arrangements to learn Mandarin? Consider your words carefully before you take me to task for saying that . . . . the take away of that thought has more to do with your mind than with China. Some folks will dream, design and build motorcycles while others will be consumers and ride whatever the market makes available. All the players have their place in life's big board game. | ||
| 86129squids |
Well put, Court. I tend to value your $.02 more than most. | ||
| Jaimec |
Did a little reading on Aesquire's claims and found this. Interesting reading: https://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-green house-gas.htm However, I suspect any hydrogen used in a "hydrogen economy" could be extracted FROM water, so the net gain of atmospheric water would pretty much be nil as long as CO2 emissions are brought under control. | ||
| Aesquire |
A quick look tells me that half truth is the best you can get at that site. And not the half you'd hope for. | ||
| Sifo |
Did a little reading on Aesquire's claims and found this. Interesting reading: https://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-green house-gas.htm I wouldn't spend too much time on that site. It is likely to lower your IQ. Seriously. Ask if you want a much better (and much, much longer) discussion of water vapor. Back on subject... More or less... I assume Aesquire knows that just adding water vapor to the atmosphere will fail to make the atmosphere any "wetter". It will simply fall out as rain, draining into the oceans, causing flooding of the entire state of Florida, as well as all major coastal cities.  The real problem with hydrogen is that it's not an energy source that is plentiful. There are a few natural sources available, but they are already dwindling much like what I was told would happen with oil back in the '70s. It's getting quite expensive already. Manufacturing it tends to be very energy intensive, so that just doesn't make any sense at all. Storage is also a huge problem. It's a tiny atom that seeps out of anything you choose to put it in. I must agree with Court on changes coming in our future. Predicting where we will be in 50 years seems quite foolhardy. I hope I get to see most of that play out. What will be the next technological explosion like we have seen with the computer? I really have no idea, but it's going to be HUGE!!! | ||
| Aesquire |
Court, the science is settled. It doesn't matter. That's the official word from the United Nations. What's important is to use this opportunity to implement the one world government to control everyone. Run by the unelected & unaccountable. Like him. ( the U.N. Climate czar ) But if you need a fact based argument, ask why the Earth Warmed, then CO2 went up? The mechanism is well understood, warm water can't hold as much CO2. But the cause & effect follow time's arrow. | ||
| Ourdee |
The more I look at CO2 and H2O inter action with global temperatures it looks like a paradox. Leads me to think there is some other factor/s not figured in. But, I'm just a retired guy that keeps loosing his gig. I am always fascinated by CO2 escaping from being trapped under water though. | ||
| Midknyte |
New info from Zero https://electrek.co/2019/01/22/zero-sr-f-electric- motorcycle/ | ||
| Sifo |
The more I look at CO2 and H2O inter action with global temperatures it looks like a paradox. It's complicated. H2O is a very strong greenhouse gas. It also creates clouds that have a very strong cooling force by reflecting the sunlight back to space. CO2 is not as strong of a greenhouse gas, and happens to operate at a wavelength that H2O also operates at. Between CO2 and H2O, the greenhouse effect is already pretty maxed out in the CO2 wavelengths. They like to call H2O a feedback process though, so it's not worked into the base greenhouse calculations. Pretty silly, but it helps for the carbon hater arguments. For a long time, the models considered H2O to be a strong positive feedback. Many skeptics were not convinced they even had the sign right on the feedback. I'm pretty sure the skeptics are being proven right, but it's not the kind of thing that lends itself to laboratory proofs. There's a whole lot more involved in it, but that's the short story of it. | ||
| Aesquire |
The CO2 in the oceans business is actually simple. Cold water holds more CO2. Just look at your typical soda pop. An ice cold Dew/whatever will hold it's carbonation for a while, a hot one will go flat quickly. Look at any chart from 20 + years ago on the last few centuries, CO2 in the air & average temperatures. Skip, for the moment, that calculating an average temperature is hard, and that the proponents of you paying them taxes for CO2 lie about it. The earth has been warming over all, since the last ice age, and is near peak. The last warming short term cycle, ( right after a cooling cycle ) the temperatures went up, and Then the CO2 went up. Because the oceans warmed and released the gas. In that order. The whole notion of cause and effect don't get you rich by stealing other folks money, in this case, so that part is ignored. That's the bottom line on the whole Con. I could go on about how this Con is loved by the Communist Party USA, the history of industrial sabotage by environmental panic activism sponsored by the Soviets, and on an on. But it all works out to professional liars love Global Warming because it's so vague and easy to lie about. | ||
| Aesquire |
re: Hydrogen. There simply aren't any legit and plentiful "sources" for us to tap on Earth's surface. We can take fossil fuels, or swamp gas, or water, and separate out the Hydrogen, at a cost. The Hydrogen Economy idea is based on the fact that batteries aren't good enough yet. They will be better, next, whatever, but not yet. You can burn Hydrogen in IC engines, turbines, ramjets, boilers, etc. just like you can burn Natural gas or Propane. So, theoretically, you can substitute Hydrogen for gasoline and Natural gas in the most common uses, making electricity, making stuff hot, and running a car. ( You can even have super clean and silent Fuel cells that run on Hydrogen. The kind Astronauts run. Because they are brave. ) But you have to understand. Hydrogen is NOT A PRIMARY FUEL. It is a gaseous BATTERY. It stores energy you put into making it, it's not like oil that is itself the fuel. The two problems with Hydrogen is Storage/transport, & Manufacturing. It's a tiny molecule ( in H2 form ) that leaks through solid steel. Liquid Hydrogen has many problems, and I won't bore you with them, except to say it blows up. With experts, in controlled conditions, it occasionally blows up. We know why. And the common "solution" for storage is to make a metal hydride foam or powder or matrix that you then heat to drive the Hydrogen back out to burn it. The Manufacturing problem is really simple. No matter how fancy you make the chemistry, unless you have the magic McGuffin from this ( not bad ) Movie https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115857/?ref_=nm_flmg _act_59 You need to put a LOT more power into making the hydrogen as you get back. It's the Law. So it's a ideal battery substitute that need years of development to be useful, and Absolutely Requires Vast amounts of Cheap clean energy to make Practical. Abundant cheap clean energy isn't on the UN or any Climate Con group's agenda, at all. They are all about taxing you and making you poorer, and obedient. | ||
| Ratbuell |
And controlling your abilities to do....anything. Or go anywhere. Which, actually, is why our current 'government' types hate private gun ownership - because they KNOW the reason behind it. Sorry. Wrong thread. The H2 theory is good, but as you note, there are MASSIVE issues (things blow up). I just don't think we've found the "next, best" energy source....and I know this because, no governments are powering their military or space programs with it. Because THAT'S where anything like this will go, first. | ||
| Jaimec |
This guy pretty much touches on everything I've mentioned: https://www.motorcycle.com/features/skidmarks-live wire-your-rent-is-too-damn-high.html | ||
| Zac4mac |
Hydrogen's not that bad, #300 tanks of commercial are $150. I have one in my garage that's still 80% full that's at least 4years old. It's for my 1949 GE Atomic Hydrogen Welding Transformer. Precursor to TIG   | ||
| Zac4mac |
Oh yeah, you don't weld with the arc, the arc feeds a flame. Like acetylene but 7500 degrees. | ||
| Shoggin |
So COOL! You could be lord of all the hipsters in your area with that tool of power | ||
| Pwnzor |
Zac, that is one of the most awesome things I have ever seen. |
