| Author | Message | ||
     Darthane |
Torque of a DC motor is independent of speed, so that removes one requirement for a variable gearbox (ever try getting a car to pull from a stop in 5th gear?). Their RPMs are also not limited by things like valvetrains and other linked mechanical components, so as long as the driveshaft can withstand 18000RPM, there's no real reason to waste weight on gears for reduction purposes either (ever try running a car at freeway speeds in 1st gear?) Ceejay, the HP wars have nothing to do with need. This is America, bigger is better, remember?  | ||
| Swordsman |
Y'know, something I haven't seen mentioned is solar powered electric cars. It's possible to offset, if not eliminate, the coal power needed to recharge by installing a solar charging center. Let the system collect sunlight during the day, then feed that energy into the battery at night. Tesla Motors actually offers that system along with their car. ~SM | ||
| Darthane |
Eh...I'd love to see someone work out the environmental impact of a solar cell unit. From raw material to installation complete. Sure, once you get it GOING it's 'clean', but just how clean was it getting to that point? People seem to lose sight of the big picture when talking about things like that far, far too often. Ethanol from corn is a STELLAR example. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Last I checked, a 25 watt solar panel was 3 feet by 2 feet. 25 watts is .03 HP. And thats "peak" for the solar cell, and assumes 100% efficiency on the motor. Depressing, huh? So if that panel collected power for 8 hours but only ran your car for one hour, thats .25 HP. If we extrapolate that out to the "8 HP to hold a car at 55 MPH", then a solar cell the size of your car roof (2 of those 3' x 2' 25 watt units) that charged for 8 hours would gather 400 watts. That gives you one half horsepower for an hour. If you use it up at the "8 HP rate", that gives you 3.7 minutes of cruise (unless I missed the math somewhere). Basically, if we covered every inch of the US in solar cells, I think it would power our cars. Now what Swordsman was suggesting was converting the whole roof of your house to solar cells. That sounds better, and if you take my (possibly flawed) math above and extrapolate it out to say your house has as much surface area as 100 car roofs, then you are up to 370 minutes of cruise, which is in the realm of practicality. Except that each of those 25 watt panels (200 of them) cost $200, for a sum total of $40,000 Just because I have the trusty HP15c out already, lets keep calculating it out. $40,000 worth of solar cells is 8000 gallons of gas (assuming $5 per gallon). On a good hybrid (50 mpg), 8000 gallons of gas would take you 400k miles. For me, a normal commuter (40 miles a day at 5 days a week) that is 38 years worth of gas. I doubt the solar cells last that long though... But again, it is approaching sanity. If you could half the price of the solar cells, and gas keeps going up, you could break even over your life time... with no pollution and energy independence. Cool stuff to grind through. Personally, I want the water softener sized cold fusion reactor out beside the air conditioner.  | ||
| Brumbear |
give it time and research in earnest and there will be progress what about a wind gen under the hood behind a grill small but with time quite effective in keeping your batt powered as you drive | ||
| Hammeroid |
You guys aren't thinking big enough. You won't need a car in the future. Snotty can beam you. He beamed Commanderette Zurcon last night twice and she said it was wonderful. Think outside the cage. | ||
| Cowboy |
WOW sure would be a lot of 1 legged people if drag knee while in a beam. | ||
| Aesquire |
I've been wanting to build a first gen hybrid for years. I'm a van type of guy, and the Mother Earth News van hybrid was very attractive, but I've never saved enough cash to build it. Here's the bad news. A full size car takes closer to 60 HP to run at highway speeds. Go very aero, very light, ( not legal because of crash standards, but let's go on ) and run skinny tires ( that suck in corners ) you can get that down to 40 hp.... maybe. The Prius has a Toyota Echo engine ( also used in the first gen Psion XB) & a honking electric motor. Alone the Echo engine is a slug. With electric boost, not so bad. Battery life is maintained by never letting the charge drop below 50% and never above 85% ( numbers from memory, so go check yourself & correct me if you wish, but that's ballpark ) So you only go a few miles on electric alone. Bad for millage is running the AC or Heater. That makes the gas engine kick in since the electric does not produce enough waste heat to warm the cabin in winter, and running an AC compressor on electric is a big power hog. The Prius is a second or third gen system, since the motivating power is both gas & electric, and the gas engine recharges the battery on the fly. Very good system, and for about the price of the car you can buy a bigger battery & a new computer that lets you plug it in & run 4-6 times as far on electric alone as the stock Prius. Unless it's hot, cold, or your teenager is driving. For the money, I'd buy oil stock instead of making a Prius a plug in. It's good for the ego, and the wallet of the plug in kit guys, but not so much for the buyer. Possibly the best part of the Prius system is that the gas engine shuts off at lights & stop signs. ( unless the AC is on ) The electric motor starts you off smooth, and the whole thing is transparent to the driver, except for the real cool infotainment screen that my Father leaves set to display power flow diagrams. The old first gen system is more like a locomotive. Electric runs the wheels, and a gas or diesel engine, running at a constant efficient rpm, charges the batteries & powers the motor at highway speeds. The Prius has a regular small car engine, & must be set up for varying throttle & load. Mother Earth News had a Van that they pulled the drive train, installed a 64 hp Kubota tractor engine, generator, lots of batteries & a honking electric motor back at the rear axle. Very good #'s even back in the 70's. The highest cost was the power handing gear, which is much more efficient now. They claimed 60+ mpg in a full sized Chevy Van, which would be awesome for me. If I'm wrong on the HP needed to run a car at highway speed, let me know ( with links please ) so I can learn better. | ||
| Aesquire |
Brumbear, Smokey Yunick did that in Nascar. He figured that the alternator took LOTS of power at 200 mph. (15-20 hp if I remember ) So he installed one in front of the radiator with a model airplane propeller. The battery would be fine for the pits and airflow more than enough at speed. They banned it on the spot. | ||
| Hammeroid |
No pissing while mid-beam either. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Great info Aesquire... I forgot about heat and AC... that throws a real wrench into things. For "power to hold X mph", weight should not really matter, but aerodynamics and tires sure would. If I throw the minivan in neutral and let it cost, it's like it is dragging an anchor. The Buell, not so much. The Saab? Put it in neutral at 55 MPH and the thing will coast forever... Almost | ||
| Aesquire |
Despite the large difference in frontal area, the minivan, ( 2000 dodge grand caravan, the new ones are squared off butt-ugly, IMHO ) has a better drag coefficient than any bike on the market. A Prius, even better. That's drag per sq. ft. of front plate, or shadow area. Even a larda$$ like me is way smaller than a Caravan. The BMW with the huge front fender did ok, and Buell's early & S2 S3 fairing, based on wind tunnel testing, is pretty good for the time. Craig Vetter built very nice "dustbin" fairings for the millage competitions in the 70's, and you can still buy bits. http://www.craigvetter.com/ http://www.craigvetter.com/pages/470MPG/Last%20Vet ter%20Fairing.html It'd be interesting to mount up a Vetter fairing on a Blast or Cyclone. The issue with "dustbin" fairings & the reason they were banned in competition, ( and todays bikes suck for drag ) is that a cross wind creates lift on the airfoil shape, and you fall over. many of the really torpedo shaped ones had unconventional steering setups, and were unable to countersteer fast/instinctive enough to be usable. Vetter's 1982 answer? By leaving open leg slots, you gain drag, but can also tip a knee out to spoil the lift & put a leg down without popping open a bomb bay type door. That's probably the best semi practical motor cycle design. The later ones have less drag, but look scarier to me. I found the link to the Australian I mentioned earlier. http://www.dansdata.com/modularcar.htm (Message edited by aesquire on June 28, 2008) | ||
| Aesquire |
Citing Need for Assessments, U.S. Freezes Solar Energy Projects http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/us/27solar.html? _r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=us&adxnnlx=121465272 1-AVwoWNqhq+Drmt1+rKEGiQ If the guys who claim to make "browns gas" from water to run your car actually did manage to violate or bend the laws of physics to make it practical, would the Government insist on an impact statement and then impose a ban on free energy? Want to bet? Some want these guys to run the oil systems?  | ||
| Retrittion |
Develop new infrastructure, change the way we do things. It is very simple but for some reason if it doesn't involve military applications many nations are idiots about changing their methods. More oil isn't going to get us out of the problem -- it isn't sustainable. It is also moronic since climate change is going to be a pretty huge @#$% if we don't go a different direction. Sometimes I swear people can be daft. | ||
| Brumbear |
well said the time has come to make a change I believe the nation that does change to electric power will reap huge benifits almost imeidatley especially if they move foward in using solar capabilities and wind with charging the vehicles power cells | ||
| Reepicheep |
Good article! LOL... the greenies are now complaining that there is too much government regulation preventing them from quick and cost effective construction of power plants The only vast conspiracy preventing alternative energy sources are physics and accounting. And maybe bureaucracy (both federal and industrial). | ||
| Aesquire |
I Totally agree that we need to get off oil as a vehicle/power energy source. Way too valuable as chemical feed stock. Less oil & more demand will make it more expensive. like now. and the poor will be most hard hit. Climate change is a scam. A con. A lie. I don't say that because oils companies bought me... ( I wish! ) but because from the beginning of the "movement" it's been lies & excuses to make you panic & give un elected elites your money & freedoms. It's cooler now than 1998. Or 1932. Or 1000. ( when life was good, & crops were abundant ) In the 70's it was "ice age coming" ( it is ) In the 2010's it will probably be some other scam. It's a major religious con job. I'm all for global warming. It's better than Ice. http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-senatetestim ony.html http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~dib2/GE1002/Lecture1. html http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-environmenta lismaseligion.html So get cracking & invent cheap antimatter converters so my 2012 Buell can get 20000 miles on a gram of anti-hydrogen with 250 hp at the rear wheel. Thanks. | ||
| Retrittion |
 ...well, ok, I'm not with him but the rest of the cute icon is correct.  Here is your short lesson on climate change -- you can't put the crap we put into the environment without consequences. How can I know this -- glad you asked, and it's simple really, the earth is a system based on chemicals and interactions and if you change either the chemicals or the interactions you get a different result. Do the people looking into this know exactly what is going to happen? Naw, especially the dogmatic environmentalists who are just fighting for their cause. However, this doesn't change that we are f'n with something we -- and you Aesquire -- don't know nearly enough about. Add to that the possible reality that this place we call home was the creation of a higher being (hey, a lot of people believe this and while I may not share it I can't say they are wrong either) and then not only are we dealing with the destabilization of our enviornment but also the displeasure of -- insert your favorite deity's name here -- for @#$%ing in his sandbox. Seems like the smart money is on taking care of our home for both mundane and maybe some not so mundane reasons. Oh, and Michael Crichton is a crap writer and a hack who just likes selling his wanktastic books. He is slightly less full of crud than those lying wankers who sold a BS war based on lies and misdirection. Oh, and surprise, surprise those dull tools keep saying "climate change is bogus too". Sheesh, we should totally believe them. Like I said, some people are just so friggen daft -- I wouldn't care normally mind you, except in this case it sorta impacts my life and the lives of any kids I choose to have. Personally, I would like some cute grandkids too -- Call me self centered. | ||
| Aesquire |
Pollution bad. Ecology good. System too complicated for mortal men to understand. You bet! Climate change as presented is con. The computer models for a century from now are accurate while they can't tell if it's going to rain in a week? Bull. If it was science, then why are the solutions to all our problems the same? Raise taxes, give up your freedom to an un elected elite who know better than you how to run your life. Socialism, eco communism, environmental christian conservatism..... scam. Ice age coming? Raise taxes to modify behavior, give U.N. control of food & energy production.. Global warming? Raise taxes to modify behavior, give x control of carbon production. ( real great scam that. How much CO2 do you emit? it's invisible & tasteless & impossible for you to measure. You have to believe the people that are taxing you...) Oil crisis? Raise taxes to modify behavior....increased government control over.... Too many people? Raise taxes to modify behavior..... Not enough clams? Raise taxes to modify behavior.... Get a picture? AS PRESENTED, the climate change thing is a lie. If the models can't predict the past, they can't predict the future. They want to spend 41 trillion $ of your money...... on a "solution" that won't do any good except make con men rich. Since everyone who is a little awake is trading to a smaller better car, and consuming less, the free rationality of free men will respond to the oil crisis just fine without dictatorial control. Crichton's not the only one who sees the con. It's seductive. Who wants to be evil? ( or admit it, anyway? ) I'll go along with wanktastic as literary criticism. Safe clean nuclear! Antimatter storage! More bicycle paths. Cut my taxes & restore my freedom of choice. Besides, the solution is obvious. A massive swarm of orbital solar collectors lets you change the total amount of sunlight reaching the Earth, while eliminating oil use for electricity. Of course he who rules the shade controls the planet...... | ||
| Reepicheep |
Retrittion... You are right that its a chemical / physics reaction, and that putting stuff into it will change what happens. But it's proportional. If 99.99% of the "stuff into it" happens to come from a great big nuclear explosion next door (read: The Sun), then monkeying with some fraction of .01% of it and expecting to change things significantly is a fools errand. Kinda like taking on a $5000 per month mortage payment, and saying I will balance the budget by cutting down on buying cokes at lunch. That kind of math only works for politicians and reporters... If the time, money, and energy being put into global warming hysteria were put into genuine clean energy research, I think we would all be much better off for it. Fewer politicians and reporters, more engineers and accountants. | ||
| Aesquire |
I have hope for the coal to oil process, but it's true, we need to get away from combustion engines. That leaves nuclear waste to boil water, fission power plants, Fusion plants, ( hope there too. look up http://www.rexresearch.com/bussard/bussard.htm Bussard was the #1 guy in the field. With him gone, it's iffy ) and hope they can mass produce Begley cloth for roofs. http://www.jerrypournelle.com/archives2/archives2m ail/mail392.html#Begley ( search page for Begley ) | ||
| Garryb |
You might want to upgrade your air conditioner: Hot future shock: Heat wave temperatures to soar By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer Wed Jul 2, 4:04 PM ET WASHINGTON - During the European heat wave of 2003 that killed tens of thousands, the temperature in parts of France hit 104 degrees. Nearly 15,000 people died in that country alone. During the Chicago heat wave of 1995, the mercury spiked at 106 and about 600 people died. In a few decades, people will look back at those heat waves "and we will laugh," said Andreas Sterl, author of a new study. "We will find (those temperatures) lovely and cool." Sterl's computer model shows that by the end of the century, high temperatures for once-in-a-generation heat waves will rise twice as fast as everyday average temperatures. Chicago, for example, would reach 115 degrees in such an event by 2100. Paris heat waves could near 109 with Lyon coming closer to 114. Sterl, who is with the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, projects temperatures for rare heat waves around the world in a study soon to be published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. His numbers are blistering because of the drying-out effect of a warming world. Most global warming research focuses on average daily temperatures instead of these extremes, which cause greater damage. His study projects a peak of 117 for Los Angeles and 110 for Atlanta by 2100; that's 5 degrees higher than the current records for those cities. Kansas City faces the prospect of a 116-degree heat wave, with its current all-time high at 109, according to the National Climactic Data Center. A few cities, such as Phoenix, which once hit 122 degrees and is projected to have heat waves of 120, have already reached these extreme temperatures once or twice. But they would be hitting those numbers a little more often as the world heats up over time. For New York, it would only be a slight jump from the all-time record of 104 at John F. Kennedy Airport to the projected 106. It could be worse. Delhi, India is expected to hit 120 degrees; Belem, Brazil, 121, and Baghdad, 122. Those figures make sense, Ken Kunkel, a top Midwestern climate scientist and interim director of the Illinois Water Survey. These are temperatures that are dangerous, said University of Wisconsin environmental health professor Dr. Jonathan Patz. "Extreme temperature puts a huge demand on the body, especially anyone with heart problems," Patz said. "The elderly are the most vulnerable because they don't sense temperature as well." And it's not just at the end of the century. By 2050, heat waves will be 3 to 5 degrees hotter than now "and probably be longer-lasting," Sterl said. By mid-century, southern France's extreme heat waves should be around 111 degrees and then near 118 by the end of the century, Sterl's climate models predict. In the 1990s, that region's extreme heat wave peaked at 104 degrees; in the 1950s, the worst heat wave peaked around 91 degrees, according to Sterl. | ||
| Nik |
give it time and research in earnest and there will be progress what about a wind gen under the hood behind a grill small but with time quite effective in keeping your batt powered as you drive Conservation of energy. You can't make something with nothing. The energy used to move the car forward to create the relative wind to turn the wind gen and charge the battery comes from the battery itself (in an electric vehicle.) That's perpetual motion.} | ||
| Brumbear |
I'm not talking about PM I'm talking taking a powercell that gives yoyu say 3 hrs of max use and making it capable of say 5-7 | ||
| Ryker77 |
HP to move car at a constant speed. You can determine this with math. 70mph is the known speed. XX miles per gallon. Or if you have an OBDII scanner you can scan your fuel injection cycle to see how much fuel is injected. I have a scangaugeII and it has a feature to show instant HP the engine is creating. I am sure my 2007 Civic doesn't used 70hp to move along the highway. I get no less than 32mpg | ||
| Ryker77 |
"First, we will consider the air resistance of a moving vehicle. A parameter called the dynamic pressure must be multiplied by the frontal area of the vehicle and by a factor called a shape coefficient (CD (or aerodynamic coefficient of drag) to get the actual total air-resistance force. Streamlined vehicles have a lower CD, as low as 0.2, while more boxy vehicles have coefficients nearly 1.0. These are all easily determined values. The result is a value (at 60 mph speed) of around 120 to 170 pounds of air resistance force, for a mid-sized sedan-style car. Here are the values for one of my Corvettes, a fairly aerodynamic car. Dynamic pressure (only depends on speed and not the type of vehicle) at 60 mph is around 18.6 pounds per square foot. (at 70 mph 25.3 psf). The frontal area (from GM) is 19.0 square feet, the aerodynamic coefficient of drag is 0.330. The aerodynamic drag coefficient is relatively constant at different speeds. So, for my car at 60 mph, the Aerodynamic drag is 19.0 * .330 * 18.6 or about 116.7 pounds. (at 70 mph it is about 158.9 pounds, and at 40 mph, 51.9 pounds). The Tire Resistance drag is (at 60 mph) around 0.015 of the vehicle weight, and is dependent on the type of tires, their inflation, temperature, speed and other things. Since my Corvette weighs around 3200 pounds, this gives about 48 pounds at 60 mph. This makes the Total Drag as 116.7 + 48 or 164.7 pounds at 60 mph (and 218.9 pounds at 70 mph) (and 51.9 + 32 or 83.9 pounds at 40 mph). At 60 mph, the total required horsepower to overcome this drag and maintain a constant speed is 164.7 * 88 / 550 or 26.4 horsepower. (at 70 mph it is 40.9 a considerably higher drag load!) A horsepower is equivalent to 726 watts so this is 19,700 watts of needed (or usable) output. In one hour of driving at that constant speed, we would therefore ACTUALLY use up an amount of energy equal to 19,700 watt-hours or 19.7 kWh. (at 70 mph, 30.5 kW, and at 40 mph, 6.7 kW). This is the ACTUAL amount of power (expressed in electrical units) that is needed to move my Corvette at a constant speed at those speeds! Sort of amazingly low, as four kitchen toasters use up 6 kW of electrical power! Included in the example above is the tire resistance, which, at 60 mph, is usually around 1.5% of the vehicle weight. For a modern 3,000 pound automobile, that's around 45 pounds of tire resistance force. The total vehicle drag is the sum of these two (air resistance and tire resistance), which ranges from about 150 to 230 pounds force (again, for standard-shaped cars, and not trucks or SUVs). Wheel bearings and other mechanical frictions also exist, but in a reasonably maintained vehicle, they are very small and will be neglected here. " http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Horsepower+ne eded+to+move+at+highways+speeds Just factor in the above only accounts for HP at the wheel. The internal combustion engine is very wastefull then the tranny and drivetrain also suck up some HP. To make 30hp reach the ground the engine must produce 35 or more HP. | ||
| Xandersam |
As long as we're this far off thread topic... A quick look at the biggest 'pushers' of the global warming religion (The GW's - Global Warmists) should tell you something. For something a little different: www.globalwarminghoax.com www.climate-skeptic.com if you care to take a look. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Screw all this talk about green.... I want that "new" Vetter Air scooter Dragging a knee gets a whole new meaning when there is a boost, lift, rudder and aeleron http://www.craigvetter.com/pages/Motorcycle_Design s/AirScooter_rules.html | ||
| Gtmg |
1. As far as global warming well who knows. I do know that we get pollution from China and I do remember some of the old polluted days around the big cities. Glad things are better. 2. Most people claim that the reason for increased pricing is supply and demand issues. If that is true I would expect shortages and gas outages. Unfortunately the Saudis are right here. There is no supply issue currently. 3. We have alot of speculators in the oil market right now. All you have to do is looking at the housing market to see what will happen eventually. This is causing the price to rise dramatically. The bubble will end eventually but not soon enough for many middle class and lower income people. 4. For those that are saying drill more.... well that is too far away to make a difference. Even the most optimistic time line is 8 years to start production. Lets be realistic by then battery technology if pushed at all will be dramatically improved. And finally the real truth is the oil companies are not even fully drilling in the currently available land. They do not want to increase production. 5. It is time for us to use our smarts and productivity( the best in the world by the way) to get away from energy dependence on other countries. ADM and their push for ethanol is not the answer though. Once again too long to get the distribution system up and too many issues. | ||
| Igneroid |
I believe that if you shit, its gonna stink, in other words , there are consequences for our actions(burning fossil fuels at the current or higher rate). I also think the planet could handle/deal with these consequences if we(Earth) had mebey 900 million-1 billion population. BUt at the level we are at now(near 7 billion??)Im thinkin the toilet is plugged. IMO, most of Earths big problems come from over population. Simply put, we are f**ked. We cant just go killing people to control population. When I was a kid at Sunday school, the teacher said God destroyed the world with water(Noah thing) and some day he was gonna do again it with fire. Hmmmmm.... Im gonna get as many miles on the Cyclone as I can before Jebus turns on the big microwave... |
