You are right you will burn more coal or nat gas to make the electricity but I thought that it has been said it takes less fuel to make electricity to power the car than it would to run a ICE car

quote Originally posted by engine man: You are right you will burn more coal or nat gas to make the electricity but I thought that it has been said it takes less fuel to make electricity to power the car than it would to run a ICE car

Exactly. Large scale power generation is so much more efficient than burning gas in a car that changing that car to electricity generates less pollution even if all your electricity is from coal. The fact is that the grid is a mix of coal, nuke, hydro, wind, natural gas, and petroleum, with coal being 50%, nuke 20%, gas 16%, hydro 7%, so the argument that EV's just move the pollution elsewhere is false. Additionally I believe a base load of electricity must be kept up no matter what the load so when charging at night there is quite a bit of excess capacity and using some of that capacity generates no extra emissions.

Ok, all reports are in, now I've seen it all... This is on and off subject at the same time... Just for the heck of it, I decided to google DIY nuclear reactor... Um, and guess what? There are people making them... Heh. Yeah, I know, they barely put out enough energy to heat a cup of coffee, but I was just surprised to even get actual results on that one...

------------------
Journal of a concept: http://southeastfieros.com >>> Build Thread >>> Parts thread (for project funding)

quote Originally posted by engine man: I have a ? I see these guys who are doing HHO genorators and injecting it into the engine but it takes power to run the alternator so no gain so this is my ? what if you took and hooked up a boiler to the exhaust some how and powerd that guys steam engine and made the HHO gas and injected it would it work then and give better fuel mileage he said his steam engine takes no more than 20 psi

Sounds as if it could help. Anything you can do to recapture the heat lost by an ICE helps it's efficiency since all that heat is wasted energy.

You can recapture some of the heat from the engine, but you are limited by the Second Law of Thermodynamics from recovering all of it. Every time that energy changes forms there is waste heat...no way to get around that.

In my opinion HHO is a scam. There is no way in the world that you can get a net benefit from it.

Yes i think HHO is a scame the way they are doing now there using energy of the crank to make it but if you where to do it with the way i said it would help due to it is hydrogen and oxygen so you could back out some gas maybe and it might help the gas burn better but I dont realy know it is just a thought

EV's go racing: http://www.mv-voice.com/new...ow_story.php?id=1109
http://www.gizmag.com/the-w...al-motorcycle/10459/
http://kleenspeed.blogspot.com/

[This message has been edited by JRP3 (edited 01-20-2009).]

quote Originally posted by toddshotrods:

Careful... Don't need you shooting any more rods...

7 pages later and I am still wondering what the hell this has to do with Fieros and is in General Chat.

I'm building an electric Fiero if that counts

Hmmm lets see the guys in this thread have been talking about what they could put in there fiero other than an ICE page after page but you cant see what it has to do with fieros

What is it, are these people just having a bad day? Do they just surf to and fro across the forum looking for something to *#%@! about? When I don't like something I read in a thread, I leave it and look in one of the thousands of others for something I do. If Cliff doesn't have a problem with something on HIS forum, I figure it must be okay. Then again, I'm a happy person enjoying the %#$@ out of life - I don't have time to waste on things that don't concern me...

[This message has been edited by toddshotrods (edited 01-21-2009).]

If you conclude that an electric fiero is the best hope for an alternative fuel, then the source of that electricity is on topic. I've seen some pretty "out there" proposals here, but I won't jump in and flame because any discussion may lead into something I've not thought of. All alternative energy is of interest to me, but I've tried to keep my comments here limited to transportation energy sources.

Electric has been dominating the discussion here but I was hoping to see some of the other alternatives discussed. For some, converting to electric is undesirable so what are the best options for a clean, advanced, ICE? I know it's not an alternative fuel, but I think turbocharging is a good idea to recapture the energy of some of the waste heat. If that was combined with a dual-fuel type approach you could use the alternative fuel around town (and when you can find refills), but travel anywhere, any time, on regular old gas. Similar to the plug-in hybrid's ability to run cheap and clean for 90% of your needs, but go anywhere when needed.

[This message has been edited by toddshotrods (edited 01-21-2009).]

quote Originally posted by toddshotrods: Electric has been dominating the discussion here but I was hoping to see some of the other alternatives discussed. For some, converting to electric is undesirable so what are the best options for a clean, advanced, ICE? I know it's not an alternative fuel, but I think turbocharging is a good idea to recapture the energy of some of the waste heat. If that was combined with a dual-fuel type approach you could use the alternative fuel around town (and when you can find refills), but travel anywhere, any time, on regular old gas. Similar to the plug-in hybrid's ability to run cheap and clean for 90% of your needs, but go anywhere when needed.

I'm a member of the Alfvaporizer group in Yahoo groups, and the biggest issue they run into is the vacuum needed to pull fuel vapor into the engine. At idle, of course, it's fine, because there's plenty of vacuum against the throttle plane, but since the vacuum and need for more vapor are inversely proportional (closer to WOT = less vacuum but more need for vapor), and the vacuum diminishes as you approach WOT, they are trying to come up with a viable solution around that. Apparently, Smokey did it with a turbo charger that he called the "homogenizer", forcing the vapor into the engine, but then again, he put a LOT of R&D into it in order to get fairly exact with the mixture that's being forced in...
I would imagine that an rpm-controlled supercharger type setup would be more accurate in feeding the needs as RPMs increase. I've been able to do a lot of research on Smokey, thanks to the Alfvaporizer group, and I think his concept is workable, but I don't see it happening with the turbo, since the spool-up isn't a very precisely controllable function... But I could be wrong... There are many members in that group who are actually building & using fuel vaporizers and getting excellent results. If you're looking to improve your ICE's economy, I would highly suggest becoming a member there.

Hmmm... Wonder if Cliff would agree to creating an alternate energy forum? There are so many options, and it would be great to have our own little nook to explore possibilities... Cliff?

As far as alternative bio fuels it seems that they take more energy to produce than is left in the final product. Algae may supply a net gain. Of course solar input is part of an algae process. I've thrown out some other concepts such as ultra high tech flywheels. I'm not sure what has been done with them lately, but we're looking for energy storage which could be flywheels, ultra capacitors, batteries or liquid fuel. It is going to take more than one solution to wean ourselves from petroleum and it won't happen overnight. Since I've ruled out bio fuels and the internal combustion engine as the ultimate solution, I'm left with how to get solar energy into my tank. Solar electricity and a way to store that energy is where I'm looking, but let's keep all options out there. Alternative energy for other all uses is just as important and not entirely off topic since any solution which supplies energy to the grid will free up energy for our cars.

I think that electric is going to be the most efficaint but the big problem is batteries but if more cars are built then the tech will come so it can be recharged in minuts and go 200 to 300 miles on a charge

quote Originally posted by engine man: I think that electric is going to be the most efficaint but the big problem is batteries but if more cars are built then the tech will come so it can be recharged in minuts and go 200 to 300 miles on a charge

Just to be accurate and reiterate what I've said before, the technology is already here. Costs just need to come down, and they are, and fast charging stations need to be built. This is not a technological problem any longer, it's financial. Hopefully volume production will lead to greater price drops and more fast charging stations being built.

Cool Thread!

Came in on this late but, someone asked how much solar collector area would be needed for powering things. Here are the assumptions: 1 Quad BTU is about the entire annual energy use of the United States (coal, oil, nuclear, everything). If you wanted 1 Quad BTU/year, at 6 hours of sunlight per day, 10% conversion efficiency (sunlight to electricity a round number for photovoltaics), it would take a collector area of 230 mi by 230 mi. Sounds crazy but actually, we have more than enough grid connected rooftops in the sunny southwest parts of the US if we wanted to pull it off. Of course we dont have to run everything on electricity.....

For cars however, maybe as an intermediate solution, cellulose ethanol or butanol I think would be the way to go. This is not corn based, but rather made from cardboard, grass, fast growing poplar trees, not food. The technology is just about here and if the plants and processes are powered by solar then we have a fairly good solution. What would have to be done to convert our engines to ethanol?

I think JRP3 is getting to me The more I think about this the more I think electric is the key. An alternative liquid fuel to replace gasoline is going to be beyond the scope of anything the DIYer can manage, so it's going to be up to government, science, and big business to develop that. We can't even put serious effort in to retrofitting our old cars to burn any new "superfuel" until we find out what it's going to be (I would bet on ethanol though). I agree with the argument that the energy needed to try and make your own fuel at home would be better spent buying state of the art storage for an EV or hybrid. I still think the discussion is warranted because we should be prepared when it happens.

After spending just a little time looking into it, I am impressed with the new Li battery packs. They're expensive but deliver on the promise. They're relatively light (especially when compared to lead-acid) and much smaller. What impressed me even more is the momentum behind it. The more you search the more you find, from people doing DIY EV's in their backyards/garages, to companies developing new battery technologies, to racing organizations seriously considering it, to the major manufacturers investing in and delivering it. From our perspective, we would have looked at the first ICE engines and thought what a waste, it'll never work! Now, we have 300+hp V6's/V8's that can deliver better economy than many four-bangers of a few decades ago. I am kind of looking forward to seeing what batteries can do in five or ten years.

Advanced Propulsion Fiero = swap in a modern, direct injection, turbo, four-banger converted for dual fuel (gas & ethanol). Supplement it with a custom hybrid setup that uses a powerful eight or nine-inch electric motor, instead of the little pancake motors. Put the lithium packs in the front, get run-flats, a can of fix-a-flat in the trunk, and AAA. Plug -in at night and do most of the daily commuting on the cheap, but have the ability to ride off into the sunset (still reasonably cheap) at will. What's needed is a comprehensive PCU for this type of vehicle. One that can control the engine, the turbo boost, the electric motor, the transmission (for auto lovers), the batteries - everything.

What I am saying is I see enough stuff out there that already exists to build a really high-tech, advanced propulsion, Fiero right now. You need a healthy bank account and a control systems guru to build a PCU that could ake advantage of it all. In economy mode it would run mainly off the batteries, maybe not even firing the ICE system, until the batteries reach a certain point. In race mode it would crank the turbo boost as high as your fuel allowed, and dump significant doses of stored electric into the motor at your wish. Any combination of the two could be configured in between.

The main thing I learned here that changed my view of electric is that it's all about storing energy for use later. I never really considered that oil is just stored energy that we use later. From that perspective, EVs make perfect sense because batteries are a neat way of storing energy, and electric motors make good use of that energy. Plus, we have so many options to produce more electricity on a national or global basis. If we figure out how to quickly and efficiently store more of it, they'll figure out how to supply more...

Who's gonna build the controller?

[This message has been edited by toddshotrods (edited 01-21-2009).]

quote Originally posted by toddshotrods: Electric has been dominating the discussion here but I was hoping to see some of the other alternatives discussed. For some, converting to electric is undesirable so what are the best options for a clean, advanced, ICE? I know it's not an alternative fuel, but I think turbocharging is a good idea to recapture the energy of some of the waste heat. If that was combined with a dual-fuel type approach you could use the alternative fuel around town (and when you can find refills), but travel anywhere, any time, on regular old gas. Similar to the plug-in hybrid's ability to run cheap and clean for 90% of your needs, but go anywhere when needed.

As far as ICE engines there is:
Heat recovery: Turbo-compound, 6 Stroke, Quantum well Thermoelectric generators, steam engine secondary
Valve design: Sleeve valve, Beare Dual Opposed Piston head, rotary valve
Fuel enhancement: Hydrogen enriched (From external, compressed storage, source)
Internal Changes: Controlled Combustion Engine

Pick one from each category and they are all compatible. Each above with the exception of 6-strokes has had independent research showing lower emissions and increased efficiency (and working, driving models made). Though an engine made of a combination of these would likely require an infinitely variable tranny since it would have a narrow rpm range. Most items can be found in wiki if you want to look 'em up.

My ideal engine combo would be Quantum wells, rotary valve, H enriched, Controled combustion because you could build an actual running engine today. I would expect efficiencies of 50-60% in optimum conditions.

MYT engine is another alternative: http://peswiki.com/index.ph...et_Tiny_(MYT)_Engine

These are just a few alternatives on my list. There is an amazing wealth of better power designs out there that people just don't want to invest any money in.

,

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 01-22-2009).]

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: What's overlooked most often when comparing gasoline or other HC fuels to EV system is the storage and implementation infrastructure around HC systems. Put another way: It's easy to say that a gallon of gas has more energy density than an equivalent volume of batteries, but what's overlooked is all the other stuff around that gallon of gas that's needed to get work out of it. On the relatively heavy Fiero that weight is easily 1/4-1/3 of the total weight of the car. All to store and use one form of energy, HC bonds. And in the end, 70% of that energy is lost without being utilized and there's no means to recapture any of the kinetic energy along the way like can be done with regenerative braking. A better way to measure would be units of work at the axle per total mass of drivetrain and support infrastructure. JazzMan

That's exactly what I was attempting to explain in my 'square 1' post. It's difficult to calculate the total losses from start to finish with gasoline, and it all depends on where you start. If you try to start from the very beginning, then you have locating, drilling, pumping, petroleum distillation, packaging, loading, shipping, unloading, tanking, delivery, pumping, and finally, 20% (avg ICE efficiency) of that gets used...

That's why I feel that solar is the better choice. Disregarding the up-front cost of the equipment, the EROEI (Energy Returned On Energy Invested) is MUCH higher, and the process is autonomous. That was why I brought the house plans into it, because if you just add solar energy gathering & storage (in batteries) at your home, then your only losses in EROEI are the transference to the storage batteries at the house, transference from to the vehicle's batteries, then whatever losses you incur in your equipment which transfers it to motion. Just like gasoline, the original energy product (the Sun) is free, but with way fewer transferences.

...Heh, I hope all that made sense...

? If I want the same preformance from a electric motor do I need the same HP i wouldnt think so on acceleration due to the torque on the elctric motor is instant and is it true that say a 50 hp electric can go to 5 to 10 times that for short burst

quote Originally posted by engine man: ? If I want the same preformance from a electric motor do I need the same HP i wouldnt think so on acceleration due to the torque on the elctric motor is instant and is it true that say a 50 hp electric can go to 5 to 10 times that for short burst

ICE's are rated at peak hp and electric motors are rated at constant hp, so a direct comparison is a little harder, plus as you say the E motor has full torque available from 0 RPM. One characteristic of series DC motors is their torque drops way off near max rpm, AC motors have a flatter torque curve and usually hold their torque longer and can hit higher rpms.

so a 50 HP motor could put out up to 500 HP if am i reading it right i know that it could only do it for a short burst but that would be realy cool

[This message has been edited by engine man (edited 01-21-2009).]

As I said I am beginning to see your reasoning, but I have one bone to pick with some of you guys that are promoting electric. When drawing comparisons to other forms you seem to always want to exclude the initial costs. I understand that you are trying to make the point about the benefits in operational efficiency but the reality is we have to convert to get there and that cost is a part of the equation, and will be for years to come. By excluding this information it makes the whole presentation come off as a Billy Mays, snake oil, sales campaign.

Like I said I get your point and am slowly but surely being convinced that you are right, so don't take this the wrong way. I am not accusing anyone of selling snake oil, just trying to make sure you don't get accused of being that type - because I think you're right!

I think it's better to use the fact that the initial cost is coming down, and that reduction will increase (exponentially?) as the whole movement develops. For example, when the Prius was first introduced the cost of purchasing the car was higher than the savings most people would realize in owning it. Now that hybrids are becoming commonplace, and competition is emerging, the "price of admission" should take a plunge.

Another example is when I first heard about Lithium batteries the cost was so far beyond the reach of the average consumer I basically wrote it off as a pipe dream. Now, through this thread, I learned that they are somewhat reasonably available to even the lowest scale DIYer. So if given the information, in its entirety, I am more inclined to believe that this could be "it". Honestly, when I was reading a lot of the posts in this thread much of my initial skepticism was because of the missing info. As I clicked on the links that came with the theories and ideas I found that the price of admission was becoming something I can swallow. That information drew me in, not pushed me away.

Just before I saw this thread (not sure which started first) I had a thread in O/T about doing a Volt-influenced hybrid setup in one of my projects. I left that thread discouraged because the idea I had to build my hybrid was unsound, and I thought the main technology I needed to do it any other way was far out of reach (lithium). Thank God this thread was here because I found out that what I need is just around the corner.

The preceding message was meant to be a positive encouragement. If you heard anything else please re-read it until "positivity" ensues, and all hurt and resentment are released.

[This message has been edited by toddshotrods (edited 01-22-2009).]

Thanks to the guys and gals in this thread i have learned alot to and it has been a great discussion on this no fighting just ideas and real info . I was thinking on how to do the electric with automatic trans all you need is to lock up the torque converter and that is easy just take a presure switch hook that to a double contact relay so when stoped it will disengage then when you take off it will build pressure then lock up all so you could put an external pump on that is hooked to the axles so you have pressure in the trans for a regen system it would turn the motor .i remeber this from powerglides with a rear pump you could push start the car

Not sure what you mean by costs to convert. Are you talking about individual conversions or the nation as a whole converting to electric?. In either case there will be cost involved, but on the other side the cost of staying with the ICE is often not considered either. Drilling, transporting, refining, transporting again, and pumping all have costs as well. A lot of energy is used in the production of gasoline and every gas pump is run by an electric motor. The amount of metal used to build an ICE and the complex machining involved are much greater with the ICE than an electric motor. In volume production electric motors should be cheaper than ICE's. There are a lot of elements to consider in the whole picture.

.

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 01-22-2009).]

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: I think that the reasons why initial costs are being discounted at this stage is because they're not really all that relevant. Now, hold that thought you just had, "How in the heck can they not be relevant?!" What I mean is that which technology eventually gets adopted isn't really all that connected to the costs of the first implementations of that technology. For instance, the first cars where hideously expensive one-off or extremely limited-run hand-built machines. Only the wealthiest people could afford to buy one and that wealth would easily be strained by the costs of keeping one of those machines in running order for any length of time. If the initial deployment cost was a factor then we would still be riding horses and most people would still live their entire lives and die within a few miles of their birthplace. Another good example is more recent: CD players. When they first came out they were over $800 in 1980's money, $1,200-1,500 in today's money, and titles were scarce and hard to come buy. Players were big and clunky, and didn't really sound all that good compared to established vinyl disc technology of the day. Yet, that ridiculously high initial cost turned out not to be a factor. The same can be said for personal computers and pretty much any other fundamental technological development. As long as costs aren't completely insane early adopters will always step up. In the current discussion of propulsion technologies it needs to be understood that the initial buy-in costs, to us as a society and as individuals within that society, are not nearly as important as the planning and implementing of these new technologies. HC technology just sort of happened without any real thought to how it would pan out, both in terms of supply and of pollution, and especially world politics. We've learned a lot in science and engineering over the last 100 years, enough so that we can easily make more plans and less guesses about future technologies and their implementation. When engineers and scientists look at the next 100 years with the 20-20 hindsight of the last 100 years it is fairly easy to see what technologies are more scalable and which are not, which produce more long-term problems/byproducts and which do not, and which are practically implementable and which are not. Burning HC energy in individual transportation is a dead-end, that much has become clear, both because of supply/pollution/political/national security issues and because of how inefficient and wasteful of limited resources it is. JazzMan

When those new technologies (CDs, PCs, etc.) were introduced the upfront costs weren't discounted. They were clear and understandable. The benefits were touted, which made the jump feasible to the early-adopters. For an early adopter of personal computer technology the high cost of ownership was known and could be weighed against the benefits. It wasn't marketed as "it doesn't matter what it costs to get one, because in the long run you'll be better off". The pitch was more like, "yes, the cost is high but look what it will do for you". Concentrating on what the actual benefits are, and making sure they are understood and appreciated, leads to more sales which eventually leads to wider adoption and lower prices. For example, I saw a huge potential when I clicked on the links of the electric racing programs that are brewing. There the benefits are worth the cost of admission, and this will eventually find its way back to the average consumer - as racing technology often does. They'll develop lighter, more powerful, batteries that we'll be able to use some day.

All I am saying is make all costs clear. Yes, there is a significant buy-in price, but here are the benefits. The reality is right now it's going to cost to start changing. I can't accurately assess the benefits if I don't know the actual numbers. I get your point but in reality I have to amortize the initial cost over the expected lifespan. I can't simply discount it.

[This message has been edited by toddshotrods (edited 01-22-2009).]

I'm just not getting this.

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 01-22-2009).]

I give up, please continue with the technical discussion and forgive me from distracting from it. My intention was actually to help promote the technology because I am now a believer in it, not to cause more commotion.

I've actually found the information I needed to know, and plan to pursue an EV now. I'll find other methods, along the way, to communicate what I am trying to say - this isn't the time or place...

I would be interested in your opinions on the "Apterra car". Lots of sites when I googled it.

I don't think it will fly But seriously, I'm not a fan of the Aptera because it's a 3 wheeled limited use vehicle, and the only reason it's a 3 wheeled vehicle is to get around Government crash and safety standards. I don't think it will sell very well and is therefore not much more than a curiosity. There is no reason a similar vehicle can't be built with 4 wheels and a more usable layout. It may lose a little bit in the way of efficiency but if it's battery powered it's still light years ahead of an ICE. My 2 cents anyway.

http://www.rasertech.com/te...ntroller_evp-60.html
I wonder how much?