| Author |
Message |
    
Darthane
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 - 09:32 am: | 
|
New12r...you're right, but also wrong, if that makes any sense.
Yes, there are other ways to increase fuel economy besides actual 'alternative' fuels.
The problem is the American people as a whole are not willing to embrace them, as they generally result in smaller, lighter, less-gizmo-ridden and aesthetically pleasing vehicles.
We're getting there, but a ship this size doesn't turn on a dime. Until we've changed course, the auto manufacturers will be forced, literally, to expend huge amounts of money attempting to make today's land barges as efficient as possible because that's what people WANT (and, despite what moron tree-hugging hippies in California will tell you, some people actually DO NEED those large gas-hogging vehicles for a variety of reasons).
Our government is a HUGE part of the problem as well, what with their overregulation of all aspects of transportation. There are diesels galore in Europe that make plenty of power, are plenty of fun to drive, are insanely efficient compared to our equivalent small vehicles, and are actually quite 'clean' - but they do not meet the ridiculous US standards and manufacturers see no profit in redesigning them to do so. |
New12r
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 - 09:57 am: |
|
The problem is the American people as a whole are not willing to embrace them, as they generally result in smaller, lighter, less-gizmo-ridden and aesthetically pleasing vehicles.
Yup, I agree there! We are the only country with "Image Awards".
My response was to Blake about how the auto makers are spending sooo much to be more efficient but are obviously over looking the simpler stuff.
(and, despite what moron tree-hugging hippies in California will tell you, some people actually DO NEED those large gas-hogging vehicles for a variety of reasons).
I have worked in construction and know first hand SOME folks NEED this stuff, not a soccer mom who drives to the mall and back alone in her oversized gas guzzler. |
Mr_grumpy
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 - 10:03 am: |
|
Virtually every improvement in vehicle technology gets tested by the road transport industry before being refined & reduced in size to the passenger car sector;
Turbo diesels, common rail injection, bio fuels, etc etc,
It's a whole lot easier to fit all the equipment for testing on a 40 ton truck & given the amount of fuel consumed it's much easier to spot the difference, I'd think that if this system worked that well, transport operators would already be running it!
Current generation trucks here in Europe are "Euro5" emissions standard & are some of the cleanest most economic vehicles on the planet, most using urea based fuel additive such as AdBlue, or exhaust gas recycling. |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 - 10:11 am: |
|
JayVee...
How would burning gasoline (with losses) to turn a motor (with losses) to turn an alternator (with losses) to break the bonds between Hydrogen and Oxygen (with losses) help you?
The power you get out of the hydrogen and oxygen will be less then the power you used to break them apart... and that neglects the losses of the gas - motor - alternator steps.
The "burn saltwater" video has thus far only showed that you can set something on fire with a big microwave. Perhaps amusing, and burnt saltwater no doubt smell a lot better then the last bag of popcorn I set on fire, but not the foundation for a new energy policy 
If somebody could figure out a catalyst that would make water break apart with less energy they you get from sticking it back together or burning it up, then you have solved the problem. Unfortunately, I think you have also created a perpetual motion machine in either case (as I believe burning hydrogen results in creating water).
I'd be for some genetically engineered algae circulating in big fields of glass spheres and generating hydrogen as a byproduct... it might not be the most efficient solar power, but it might be cheap and easy, and would certainly be gentler on the environment then drilling and refining.
Or some magical super efficient and dirt cheap "electric solar shingle". That could go a long way (though I will still need fossil fuel). |
Warlizard
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 - 10:13 am: |
|
I wouldn't take anything the 2nd worst President( Lincoln being THE worst ) says seriously. He was a joke and still is. I remember how he embarrassed us by letting those towelheads keep our citizens hostage forever. The same day Reagan was inaugurated they were released. Ronny threatened to kick the sh#t out of them if they weren't freed. Thank God for Republicans! |
Hexangler
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 - 10:49 am: |
|
uh...Lincoln was a republican. |
Xl1200r
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 - 10:57 am: |
|
I think the idea behind this is not anything to do with how much energy it takes break water apart vs. how much you get when it goes back together, but more along the lines of that your car is making the extra electricity anyways, so why not use it for something?
Imagine if we could use all the heat a gas engine emits to power a secondary drive system...
I read a popular mechaincs article once where a guy built a 6 stroke engine. The first four were exactly like a regular 4-stroke engine. The 5th stroke actually injected pure water, which expanded and turned to steam to push the piston down, and the 6th was it coming back up. 33% increase in fuel economy right off the bat. |
Greenlantern
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 - 10:59 am: |
|
uh...Lincoln was a republican.
The first President of the party and one of the best of the breed imo. |
New12r
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 - 11:38 am: |
|
I read a popular mechaincs article once where a guy built a 6 stroke engine. The first four were exactly like a regular 4-stroke engine. The 5th stroke actually injected pure water, which expanded and turned to steam to push the piston down, and the 6th was it coming back up. 33% increase in fuel economy right off the bat.
Yup, Jim Crower!
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID= /20060227/FREE/302270007/1023/THISWEEKSISSUE |
Xl1200r
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 - 12:13 pm: |
|
uh...Lincoln was a republican.
To be fair, both parties tend to swing back and forth through history as to where they stand on the conservative/liberal scale.
Yup, Jim Crower!
Amazing stuff. THESE are the ideas I'm greatful to be able to watch develop. I also remember something about a hydrolic-assist hybrid system, where slowing down and braking would drive a pump to pressurize a tank which would release it's pressure to assist in acceleration. Not sure if that went anywhere. |
Darthane
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 - 12:20 pm: |
|
Hybrids already incorporate a similar idea, though not quite as direct (regenerative braking).
The problem with most hydraulic systems is that they are large and heavy, two things we're trying to avoid in order to become more efficient.
As with everything else, the problem is that the energy generated from this process is nowhere near the amount expended to get there in the first place - and why a LOT of R&D dollars go not into completely new technologies, but into improving those that already exist. As noted above, a standard ICE produces vastly more energy than is actually used to propel the vehicle. We already harness some of that in the form of the climate control system and hydraulics such as power steering, but a lot of effort goes into figuring out how to use more of it, or to produce less of it in the first place. |
Jayvee
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 - 01:36 pm: |
|
(Message edited by jayvee on May 01, 2008) |
Gohot
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 - 02:17 pm: |
|
There is this thing called ( Johnson Noise ) esentially is is the movement of atoms and electrons, or the lack of, which occurs at absolute zero where the atoms and electrons are stationary, as temp increases the atoms electrons and protons all become proportionatly more active until they reach full activity at our ( room temp ) though more heat means more activity. There is a fellow that just a short fiew years ago came up with a diode array, inother words a continuous line of linked nano diodes, which worked on the Johnson noise aplication. He was getting impressive voltage from these devices, were you to develop a diode aray to then power an electron cascade generator, you could produce voltage and amperage suficiant to seperate oxygen and hydrogen. both aparatus's could be built presently to take up about 3 cubic feet of space in the vehicle. Charles Brown was the inventor of the diode array about 1999-2001-2002 somewhere back then. It can be done and fairly cheaply if the carmakers wished, but it's unlikely to happen in the next 4-5 years when the economy rebounds some and gas cost flucuates downward giving Americans hope that it'l drop to where it used to be.........and that my friends ain't ever goin'a happen}} |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 - 02:37 pm: |
|
The electric power isn't negligible. Power is work. The work done by your engine to generate X amount of power is the same amount of work that you could do if you fed that amount of electricity into an electric motor. Or it would be, if all the conversions were 100% efficient, but they ain't, and each step looses something.
If it was a net gain, I could take the mechanical energy the motor is producing, feed it to an alternator to generate current, then feed that current into a motor, which then spins my alternator.
Scale it up, and you no longer need the gasoline engine at all. Just get the alternator spinning, which makes current to spin the motor, which spins the alternator, and away we go. Your only problem is figuring out how to get rid of all that extra energy
The fact that it doesn't is why we have gasoline motors spinning alternators, not vice versa
You are not boiling the water, you are splitting the bond between the hydrogen and oxygen atoms. This is a well understood process, and scientists can use the atomic structure of the atoms to tell you:
1) Exactly how much electricity and water it will consume.
2) Exactly how much hydrogen you will accumulate.
3) Exactly how much oxygen you will accumulate.
The math all works, from the atoms through the volumes generated and the work done... there are no mysteries, and it is one of the ways industrial gas producers make gas to sell.
Industrial gas producers are aware that gas burns, and are aware that they could buy generators to burn that gas and convert that energy to electricity.
If there was an economic way to take water, convert it to hydrogen and oxygen, use some of that hydrogen and oxygen to break apart more water into more hydrogen and oxygen, and have some sort of net gain at the end of the day, you would see gas manufacturing plants on every street corner, with a big water pipe going in one side, and gas lines going out the other. It would be the holy grail of energy.
(and in fact, "burning" or "oxidizing" hydrogen results in... wait for it... water! )
Its easy to take pot shots at Detriot, but up until this year, a hybrid made no sense whatsoever. Pay an extra $20k for your car, so that you can save $10k on fuel, but then spend another $10k to replace the batteries after 100k miles. Even with a big tax subsidy (read: take my money and give it to somebody else) it was not cost effective.
I have not seen the math lately, but even with hybrids getting a lot better, and gas up to $4.50 a gallon, I *still* think hybrids are a net loss over the life of the car. Compare a hybrid to a tercel, or worse yet an old Honda Civic CRX that managed to sell for $10,000 new and got 40MPG, and Hybrids are just an interesting way to waste money.
I seem to recall the "break even" point being something like $6 or $7 per gallon. At that point, a hybrid costs the same as an efficient economy car.
But I would love to see some new figures... the hybrids are getting a lot better and gas keeps going up, and battery technology keeps improving. Make sure you price in the projected lifespan before mandatory battery pack replacement. |
Darthane
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 - 02:47 pm: |
|
"How much extra gas does it take to play your radio, or run your heater blower, or both? Negligible, right? Use that same amperage, wattage, whatever you call the juice, to 'bubble' (whatever the process is) the water into it's two components.
If it only gives you one or two mpg increase, that still seems like an inexpensive net gain.
Detroit is not all that interested in greater mpg, where was their plan for when gas hit $4 and their sales plummeted? Did they roll out some high-mpg cars they'd been developing all along, for the day when trucks and SUVs stopped selling? No, nothing. Did they really NEVER IMAGINE that their "bread-and-butter" would stop selling? Hard to believe, but the evidence is right there in their current product offerings. Hybrids have been available from Toyota for almost 10 years, how many from Detroit? Two models, both SUVs, getting about 30 mpg !
Now that's foresight. (not!)"
~~~>Jayvee
1) I'll bet you dollars to pesos that it takes a LOT of juice to break down water into its constituent parts. A high-powered blower requires ~25A @ 12V DC. An average alternator at freeway speeds on a hot day will output something in the 120-140A range. That's 1/5th of the total output of the alternator for ONE device. Now think about how many other things are running in your car at any given moment. Yeah, chances are most of them only draw an amp or two, but believe me, it adds up FAST.
I've spent an unfortunate amount of time looking at alternator output curves versus vehicle load demand lately due to some new options available on the Lincoln program I'm working on. It's a high-output alternator (200A) and the vehicle is still MORE than capable of draining the battery if you turn everything on. Trust me, your vehicle can use all the juice its alternator pumps out and then some. It's a very soft science to try to balance the output versus the 'real' loads a vehicle's electrical systems will see.
In other words, all that extra juju you seem to think your car has simply doesn't exist, and certainly not in the quantities necessary to do molecular conversions.
2) One or two MPG increases are found in many places, and most of them you probably wouldn't associate with an increase in fuel efficiency. Electronic power steering is one (there goes another big chunk of your juju!), turbos are another (even more juju!). That last one seems very counterintuitive, since turbos generally decrease gas mileage, but if you step down from a naturally aspirated V8 to a turbo V6 that makes the same HP/torque numbers, you can see the gain.
3) Trust me, I'm right there with you on the gas mileage thing - I recently mothballed my pickup and bought a compact for precisely that reason - but to generalize that the American auto manufacturers don't care is just a blatant falsehood.
The American auto manufacturers face a horrendous hurdle - US. Like I said before, WE THE PEOPLE dictate what they make. Unfortunately, WE THE PEOPLE can change our minds quickly and based on a wide variety of factors, some nebulous and others concrete - and most of which are nearly impossible to predict more than a couple months in advance. THEY THE MANUFACTURERS of RIDICULOUSLY OVER-REGULATED, COMPLEX MACHINES cannot change that quickly. Two years ago people were buying pickups and large SUVs at record paces. They couldn't change then, because compacts weren't what people were buying, and the profit margins are slim enough on them in the first place that already or nearly bankrupt companies couldn't gamble that way.
Guess what the development time for a ground-up vehicle is?
More than two years. Quite a bit more, in most cases.
...that's why their cutting deals with foreign allies to supply them with tweaked versions of already-produced small cars, it's the only slightly cost-effective, time-sensitive way to get them to market in time to make a difference. |
Xl1200r
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 - 03:02 pm: |
|
How much extra gas does it take to play your radio, or run your heater blower, or both? Negligible, right? Use that same amperage, wattage, whatever you call the juice, to 'bubble' (whatever the process is) the water into it's two components.
Electrolysis.
If it only gives you one or two mpg increase, that still seems like an inexpensive net gain.
My point exactly.
Detroit is not all that interested in greater mpg, where was their plan for when gas hit $4 and their sales plummeted? Did they roll out some high-mpg cars they'd been developing all along, for the day when trucks and SUVs stopped selling? No, nothing. Did they really NEVER IMAGINE that their "bread-and-butter" would stop selling? Hard to believe, but the evidence is right there in their current product offerings. Hybrids have been available from Toyota for almost 10 years, how many from Detroit? Two models, both SUVs, getting about 30 mpg !
Now that's foresight. (not!)
Gas temporarily hit $4 after Katrina, so it wasn't the same as the situation is occuring now.
Hate to tell you, but trucks will ALWAYS sell here in the States, bread and butter or not. Some people just need them.
Detroit offers more than 2 hybrids. The Saturn Aura/ Chevy Malibu are both offered as hybirds, the Chevy Tahoe (a full-size SUV), Chevy Silverado, Saturn Vue, Ford Escape... there may be others as well.
Would it surprise you to learn that GM has an entire fleet of hybrid city-buses cruising the streets of Seattle? Or a fleet of hydrogen fuell-cell equipped vehicles in major cities around the country?
Detroit has been looking at the MPG is a totally different light for a long time. EVERYONE does hybrids, and frankly, they're kind of a joke if you ask me. A band-aid. The problem with using half the amount of foreign oil is that you're still using half the amount of foreign oil
Go to the auto shows and see what people are showcasing. Toyota is proud of the themselves when they make a hybrid out of an existing car (basically everything in the Lexus line-up). Detroit introduces things like the Chevy Volt (extended range electric vehicle), or the hydrogen fuel cell work they've been doing for years and years.
I'm still convinced the Detroit is only building hybrids because the public is demanding them at this time, but they'd much rather be investing that into other solutions. |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 - 03:14 pm: |
|
Separating hydrogen and oxygen requires very little current. I suspect I could do it with a watch battery.
I just wouldn't be able to get much of it before the battery was dead... and if I burned that resulting hydrogen and oxygen in a tiny little generator, it would not make enough energy to recharge the battery back to where I started. |
Xl1200r
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 - 03:27 pm: |
|
Water takes a LOT of electricity to split at anywhere near the rate an "on-demand" engine would have to get it.
One thing that helps the process along is heat...more heat means less electricty need for the process to run at the same rate of production. But again, heat is made by electricity, or the burning of fossil fuels, so what's the gain...
I actually had a design worked out for a jet engine that would be injected with pure water. The internal temps would be high enough to split the water instantly and immediatly burn it.
The math worked, more or less, but there was a VERY fine operating range, the durability of the new ceramics for the conbustion chamber was unknown (needed to tolerate the high heat), and there were no materials in existance for the tail end of the engine that wouldn't just melt from the temperatures.
Ever see the white flame from a top-fuel dragters zoomies at night? That pure heat splitting the water vapor in the air and burning the hydrogen, right before your eyes. |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 - 04:03 pm: |
|
Other than the heat emitted by the voltage regulator, there is no free extra energy as you drive down the road. None. If you want to use more, you gotta press the gas pedal more to get it, no matter if that is to accelerate or turn a generator of some kind.
Even the voltage regulator heat is darn negligible and nowhere near enough to ever even register in most folks fuel mileage. You'd be much better off and more efficient to just disengage the alternator when the battery reaches full charge. That and the radiator fan too.
Explain why automobile manufacturers would ignore the chance to make a lot more profit and gain market share?
"Heavy" only hurts fuel efficiency in city driving. On the highway aerodynamics is king and all the major manufacturers have GREATLY enhanced aerodynamics for all but the mucho macho products (Hummer). |
Jayvee
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 - 06:56 pm: |
|
(Message edited by jayvee on May 01, 2008) |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 - 07:18 pm: |
|
New12r, How's he like the Jetta? I've got one on order. Doing my part! I'm 41st of 70 in line for the first 2009 batch.
Blake, minor correction. The voltage regulator (waste heat)is powered by the alternator powered by the IC engine. That heat comes from burning fuel. ( even the window defroster gets it's power from burning fuel )
The waste heat of combustion, as wasted in the radiator, is part of the untapped waste energy available. ( then you use a electric fan to pump it into the cars air )
The waste energy in the exhaust stream, usable by turbo's, is most of the rest.
Other than waste heat...you are right! Turning on your headlights increases fuel use. tanstafl! ( there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.... Robert Heinlein )
Here are some tips that will work better & cost less than a magic water bottle.....or cow magnets.
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/columns/c_d_s taff/larry_webster/driving_for_fuel_economy_column |
Darthane
| | Posted on Thursday, May 01, 2008 - 08:24 am: |
|
My '85 Fiero got 40 mpg, highway (80 mph by the way.)
~~~>Jayvee
A poor argument, I'm afraid, just like whomever that politician was who complained that the Model T got 25MPG and claimed that that was proof we haven't 'advanced' any in the last century.
One last time - manufacturers make what people want; or at least, what their marketing folks think people want.
Did your '85 Fiero have a navigation system, 6 airbags, active restraints, an MP3 player, power seats/windows/locks, HID or adaptive headlamps, automatic wipers, etc, etc, etc?
Probably not. As Blake and Aesquire correctly pointed out, all of these things are drains on the system that is your motor vehicle in some way, and ultimately contribute to reduced gas mileage.
People want these things. You may not, but generally speaking most cars now have got at LEAST two or three dozen features that were options twenty years ago (if they were even available). The auto manufacturers did not cram these things down our collective throats. Someone somewhere offered them and as they became more well-known they also came into much more widespread demand.
We. Caused. This. The CONSUMER. NOT the auto manufacturers. As Blake mentioned, do you really think that the auto manufacturers, whom are almost universally struggling these days, would choose to NOT produce something that they know would sell in the current climate if they could avoid it? Do you think they LIKE seeing their market share dwindle because they've operated for so long with America as their primary target (and don't tell me that WE didn't enjoy having vehicles produced specifically tailored to our demands) that they're now several years behind other manufacturers that targeted countries with different vehicle mindsets and simply transported them across the ocean to sell here now that WE want smaller vehicles?
Please stop oversimplifying things to such an extent.} |
Jayvee
| | Posted on Thursday, May 01, 2008 - 12:15 pm: |
|
(Message edited by jayvee on May 01, 2008) |
Darthane
| | Posted on Thursday, May 01, 2008 - 12:46 pm: |
|
Now you're just being purposefully obtuse.
I'm referring to your oversimplification of the REASON you can't find an American-made car you want to buy.
It is not the auto manufacturers' fault that they listened to the other 300 million people in this country instead of you. It's the other 300 million peoples'. 
Note: I happen to agree with you, which is why my new car is a Mazda3 - my only minor complaint with which is that I wish it got better gas mileage (23 in the city, 30+ when cruising on the highway).
However, I can't 'honestly' complain about that as my 3 is vastly superior in *every* way to the last compact car I owned, which was an '89 Escort - and still gets the same gas mileage.
Everything in life is a tradeoff. If you want safety, aesthetics, creature comforts, etc, you are purposefully choosing to narrow the scope of your solution. Your wants don't happen to coincide with anything Detroit makes these days, but the same might not be true in 5 years. The problem they face is this - will your wants be the same in 5 years?
Ford is reintroducing the Fiesta (my GOD they should have kept the Verve nameplate)this year, and despite my loathing for virtually all things Ford, I would have seriously considered buying it instead of my 3. It's actually a Mazda Demio (sold as the Mazda2 in some places), which I became quite familiar with while across the Pacific. |
|
