|
Cocoa Crispies posted:I seem to remember a story about Chevrolet having seats in storage damaged at the Corvette factory in Kentucky, and they had the leather flown from the tannery in eastern Europe to London, flown on the Concorde to New York, taken on a business jet to the seat factory, assembled, and then flown right to the Corvette factory in Bowling Green, with hours to spare before the factory would have to be idled. This extravagance was much cheaper than letting the factory idle. I work for a trucking company that does a lot of 'just in time' loads. We do a lot of loads for FoMoCo and their light truck plant in KY. We have a VERY slim window before they start running jets down from their suppliers.
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 04:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 18:53 |
|
|
Here's a question for the people who actually paid attention in school: Is there any reason a battery can't simply have a liquid exchange take place at a fueling station? Exchanging a liquid in a depleted chemical state for a recharged one, then re-charging the depleted liquid? That would solve this whole charging time problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 09:39
|
|
|
the liquid is just a catalyst, like a middleman, he just facilitates the transfer of electricity between the anode and cathode plates (or foil sheets, or whatever tech the battery uses). In a non-sealed lead acid battery it can evaporate leaving the plates exposed to air with no middleman, which is why they need to be topped up with fresh liquid. This isn't a problem in sealed, gel, etc. batteries. You can think of charging a battery as the redistribution of electrical wealth. If someone invents (maybe someone has?) a liquid anode and cathode, then your suggestion might become a possibility.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 09:55
|
|
|
Specifically if you want to look at lead acid batteries, the equations are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93acid_battery#Electrochemistry The equation is driven by converting lead and lead oxide to lead sulfate when discharging and back to lead/lead oxide when charging. Short term, you will damage the anode and cathode beyond the point of no return before you consume the available acid. An Israeli company is experimenting instead with just 'gas' stations swapping out the entire battery pack. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Place if you're not familiar.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 10:37
|
|
|
Das Volk posted:Here's a question for the people who actually paid attention in school: Is there any reason a battery can't simply have a liquid exchange take place at a fueling station? Exchanging a liquid in a depleted chemical state for a recharged one, then re-charging the depleted liquid? That would solve this whole charging time problem. Google "Cambridge crude". People have been working on this idea, using a liquid anode and cathode. Unfortunately the energy storage capacity isn't that great yet. Personally, I think an even better option would be fuel cells powered by some form of hydrocarbon, be it methanol, ethanol, LPG, biodiesel or some other, hopefully carbon-neutral fuel. Much more feasible than hydrogen, and reasonably fuel-agnostic, too. Hell, you could even power it with good old gasoline and achieve higher efficiency than with a combustion engine. KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 10:53 on Jan 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 10:50
|
|
|
Das Volk posted:Here's a question for the people who actually paid attention in school: Is there any reason a battery can't simply have a liquid exchange take place at a fueling station? Exchanging a liquid in a depleted chemical state for a recharged one, then re-charging the depleted liquid? That would solve this whole charging time problem. That's more or less what a fuel cell is, actually. As Snowdens Secret says, the actual reaction in a lead-acid is turning the lead plates back and forth to different lead compounds, with the sulfate ions in the electrolyte participating in the reaction. If you could replace all the exhausted reactants in one operation, yes, you would "recharge" the battery instantly. The first step to making that easy is to use a non-participatory electrolyte, like a proton exchange membrane, so that all you have to replace are the anode and the cathode. Then you work out a system where the physical anode and cathode don't participate either, so that you don't have to be taking the battery apart -- just adding new chemicals. A good way to do that is to make the electrodes out of a fine, porous mesh. Then you just pipe in the reactants to each side in liquid or gas form, and hey presto, you have a battery that can be instantly recharged. A fuel cell. There are also some laboratory prototypes that work more literally as you're describing; for instance, an aluminum cell that combines aluminum dust and water to produce aluminum oxide and hydrogen for a fuel cell. When the aluminum is fully reacted, you take out the cartridge of aluminum oxide and send it back to the refinery for reprocessing, and plug in a new cartridge of elemental dust. Interesting idea, but I still don't think it's quite the way of the future. In my mind that belongs to bioethanol/biomethanol and the direct-hydrocarbon fuel cell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 10:57
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:Google "Cambridge crude". People have been working on this idea, using a liquid anode and cathode. Unfortunately the energy storage capacity isn't that great yet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_reforming The problems, as stated, are that the more fuel agnostic you get the more complex the facility and the higher temperatures you need. Both are obviously bad for mobile apps. On the other hand, you could stick an agnostic fuel cell in your apartment parking lot / entrance to your neighborhood, have it provide electricity to same and generate excess hydrogen for your car. Or stick it in places where hydrocarbons are generated as waste (waste water treatment plants, industrial processes) to be carbon-neutral. In the short term it's more efficient to have all that bulky heavy reforming in one place rather than carrying it around in your car.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 11:04
|
|
|
It really feels as if we're right on the edge of a major breakthrough. We have a couple of technologies that have a possibility of displacing the internal combustion engine, but all of them are lacking in some crucial way and it's not really clear how or when this will change. It's fascinating as all hell, but very frustrating too. I want the future to be now, dammit 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 11:18
|
|
|
There's rarely a real breakthrough in science. It's usually a culmination of small improvements within a system that winds up being the mind blowing breakthrough. Ex: the iPhone; nothing was technologically impressive, but the packaging was
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 14:30
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:It really feels as if we're right on the edge of a major breakthrough. We have a couple of technologies that have a possibility of displacing the internal combustion engine, but all of them are lacking in some crucial way and it's not really clear how or when this will change. I read an article by Jay Leno about turn of the century (the last one) cars. There were electric vehicles, steam cars, various kinds of engines and it wasn't totally clear IC was going to completely dominate the market. I feel like we're at that place now with our new stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
I keep waiting for someone to build something Volt-like but with a turbine or Stirling engine. Those designs theoretically offer more efficiency than the conventional IC engine but have always been impractical because of other limitations - no power at low RPMs for the turbine, and slow or inefficient startup for the Stirling. Neither would be a problem if the engine was only needed to top off the battery. It's just a question of packaging them for automotive use.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 17:12
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:I keep waiting for someone to build something Volt-like but with a turbine or Stirling engine. Those designs theoretically offer more efficiency than the conventional IC engine but have always been impractical because of other limitations - no power at low RPMs for the turbine, and slow or inefficient startup for the Stirling. Neither would be a problem if the engine was only needed to top off the battery. It's just a question of packaging them for automotive use. What about a battery/turbine hybrid? Low-RPM torque is where electric motors shine, and you could spool the turbine to an acceptable RPM for cruising speed while still on battery power. Hell, if you have a beefy enough battery, you could electrically spool the turbine to reduce fuel consumption when still moving under battery power. I'll take my Nobel, please!
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:It really feels as if we're right on the edge of a major breakthrough. We have a couple of technologies that have a possibility of displacing the internal combustion engine, but all of them are lacking in some crucial way and it's not really clear how or when this will change. I always wonder how much influence oil companies have in regards to this. The internal combustion engine getting replaced wouldn't be good for them and you know they do their best to impede the rollout of new technology that would do this. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 18:31
|
|
|
Actually, I think most of them are rebranding themselves as "energy companies" and funding research into alternative energy sources. Now, you can believe that they've seen the writing on the wall and still want to be relevant in a future where less oil is used, or you can believe that they're doing it to greenwash their activities while silently hindering green progress. Either works for me, I don't trust huge corporations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 18:48
|
|
|
This DOE project was just announced a few weeks ago, $120 million of battery and energy storage research. We should see some practical implementations of cutting-edge battery technologies in the next 5-10 years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:Actually, I think most of them are rebranding themselves as "energy companies" and funding research into alternative energy sources. Those companies are so large there are probably people doing both with full conviction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 19:11
|
|
|
Really the holdup is infrastructure. We have a poo poo ton of gas stations and the logistics are in place to keep them supplied. LPG is considerably less common, hydrogen even less so. An awful lot of people can't get an electrical extension cord to their parked car, and even if they could, once you get past a couple early adopters, the power supplies to most buildings and neighborhoods aren't set up for the load.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 19:40
|
|
|
That's why we need something that can be used in fuel cells, is easily portable, has a good energy/weight ratio, is carbon neutral and is compatible with our existing infrastructure with no to minimal changes. Biodiesel, ethanol and methanol all fit this bill rather well. As does just about any liquid hydrocarbon really. We just need to figure out how to stop making ethanol from corn or any other food crop.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 19:43
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:That's why we need something that can be used in fuel cells, is easily portable, has a good energy/weight ratio, is carbon neutral and is compatible with our existing infrastructure with no to minimal changes. If we built towers growing hydroponic corn (since it'd be used for fuel and hydroponic food tastes terrible), or we could use bacteria to manufacture crude oil, recycled cooking oil, there are lots of options. I really hate the prospect of electric cars, I'm not sure why.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
Every single one of these "better fuel" arguments tends to be of the same line:
Technologically, we're not there, and we won't be until we can get it further refined. I like to compare it to the Solar Panel debacle. In the 70s until recently, Solar Panels were not very efficient. Magically, overnight, someone has found a way to make them more powerful, and more reliable. I don't remember anyone in the current market being
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
West SAAB Story posted:Every single one of these "better fuel" arguments tends to be of the same line: Solar panels got cheap because the manufacturing methods are very similar to those for making large LCD televisions. And the solar industry is heavily, heavily subsidised back and forth - not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. I forget where you're from: US (from wikipedia): quote:According to the Energy Information Administration, in 2010, subsidies to the solar power industry amounted to 8.2% ($968 million) of all federal subsidies for electricity generation.[16] UK: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/01/solar-panel-demand-subsidy-cut Aus: http://www.energymatters.com.au/government-rebates/solar-credits-australia.php And of course the rumors of Chinese government funding the dumping of the panels on Western markets. Solar still has significant technical issues to overcome and I don't think it'll ever move beyond niche applications. You're not going to be pushing your car with power from solar, any time soon, if ever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 20:32
|
|
|
2ndclasscitizen posted:What is hot shotting? Sometimes the same kind of small company will do this sort of thing too, I see them all the time. It's a perfect vehicle for them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. I'm being incredibly sarcastic, but I do enjoy rattling the cages of those who blindly believe parking their cars into the "clean coal" power grid RIGHT NOW is less detrimental than burning dino* sauce with a bit of moonshine in it. * Most of the oil is vegetation. We're already green. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 20:46
|
|
|
The make or break technology is always going to be batteries or other energy storage. Battery technologies just haven't kept pace with other advances, and it's possible that they never will, because storing energy efficiently is hard. Even Lithium Ion and modern lipo packs don't represent the kind of revolutionary change in batteries that would be required when we talk about "keeping pace." The stuff currently in the pipeline with even a hope of providing the degree of performance we'd like has some enormous basic science and engineering problems to solve before it's even close to usable, let alone affordable. And who knows what the overall efficiency will be when it's actually produced. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Jan 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
Tusen Takk posted:I really hate the prospect of electric cars, I'm not sure why. Electric propulsion is fantastic. I know we'll all miss the sound of an angry internal combustion engine revving its nuts off, but I think it's worth it for the ease of maintenance, the smoothness and the kick-in-the-pants torque delivery. Hell, ozone even smells like something powerful is about to go down, just like gasoline. There will be dull, boring electric cars, just as there will be amazingly cool and fast electric cars. Both categories are already well-represented.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 21:00
|
|
|
The Midniter posted:What about a battery/turbine hybrid? Low-RPM torque is where electric motors shine, and you could spool the turbine to an acceptable RPM for cruising speed while still on battery power. Hell, if you have a beefy enough battery, you could electrically spool the turbine to reduce fuel consumption when still moving under battery power. Sorry, Jaguar already beat you to it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_C-X75 And then decided not to build it because everyone is poor. http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/jaguar-c-x75-will-not-be-produced-2012-12-11 The project did generate a lot of patents though, so their investment could come good for them in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
Williams were the ones developing the hybrid system, I would imagine all the patents belong to them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 21:34
|
|
|
Nuclear is the solution. Thorium based nuclear provides a sufficient source of heat to convert atmospheric CO2 to Methanol. Carbon neutral race fuel all day every day. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 21:50
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:Actually, I think most of them are rebranding themselves as "energy companies" and funding research into alternative energy sources. I have a friend who worked for Shell's alternative energy division, and he said it was almost entirely a marketing program. Their division was tiny and underfunded, even compared to the other research divisions; Shell spent way more money studying new ways of mining oil than on actual alternative energy. The only reason it existed at all was because the Shell voodoo economists determined that it would be worth spending so and so many dollars to generate corporate goodwill with the hippies and politically active ecologists and the like. If not for that, they wouldn't give a rat's rear end about any other energy sources.  but trueE: and I agree with kosmonaut that the only viable solution is a biofuel infrastructure feeding direct-hydrocarbon fuel cells. Gasoline is the queen of liquid fuels because it has an incredible energy density but is easy to transport and handle. Ethanol and methanol aren't far behind. Even if there's a breakthrough in battery technology, batteries and plugins won't be anything but a stopgap unless we rebuild the entire electrical grid to handle the load of millions of cars charging simultaneously. And that isn't going to happen without superconductors that don't yet exist and massive investment. We already have the infrastructure to handle and dispense liquid fuels extremely effectively; all we need is a way to manufacture them from renewable sources and "burn" them more efficiently. Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Jan 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
Saw the new Mazda 6 on the road for the first time today, it looks really nice - like a slimmer, more feminine Volvo S60.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 02:18
|
|
|
Wagon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 02:38
|
|
|
On the flipside, the carmakers have been making great strides toward the "impossible" MPG standards that were thrust on to them. We are seeing small improvements everywhere. For example, Mazda's i-ELOOP system. It makes sense when you think about it. Why are only hybrids the ones allowed to have regenerative braking? There are tiny increases in efficiency that we can squeeze out of the modern IC car that can all add up to noticeable MPG gains along the way. One thing though is I really wish they would beef up the electrical systems on cars. I want to eliminate as many fluids as possible. We are part of the way there with electric power steering, but I want electric brakes damnit. Regenerative braking has already greatly increased the life of brakes on cars that have it, but it's time to replace that last dumb hydraulic link. I know trusting things to "electronics" seems scary, but you've already surrendered control of your brakes to the computers a long time ago. It seems silly that we are still relying on fluid pressure to apply them instead of just actuating them directly. That's one less component to fail on the car and they could go through a full diagnostic every time you start your vehicle up, heading off faults before they turn into major issues. I know there are some naysayers that will bring up issues of "what if you lose electrical power" and other similar things, but there's always a way to engineer a system with sufficient redundancy and resiliency to meet most problems. Electric brakes wouldn't have to be 100% full-proof, they would just have to be as reliable as hydraulic brakes. Cross channel hydraulics protect against most complete and catastrophic losses of hydraulic pressure, but it can still happen if the stars align right. Redundant power channels to all 4 corners with the possibility of some sort of failsafe mechanism at the brake itself would already put you ahead of hydraulics in the redundancy dept.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 03:11
|
|
|
Hydraulics still have the advantage in power:weight ratio, though. With a single central pump and some steel lines and pistons, you can create an immense amount of force at a bunch of different locations simultaneously with far less weight penalty than electrical actuators at each corner. They're also infinitely variable, inherently analog systems -- no fancy PWM or steppers or anything required to get a smooth range of outputs. Also, hydraulic brakes still work even if the ECU and other electrical systems take a poo poo. It's always good to have some kind of backup that doesn't require electricity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 03:26
|
|
|
Siemens has already demonstrated an electric wedge brake system a few years ago that's lighter and quicker than traditional hydraulic disc brakes. The technology is really ready now. http://www.gizmag.com/go/4580/ In a system like this, the electronics are not the thing actually providing the braking force. A servo controls the positioning of the wedge and the brake force is self amplifying due to the rotation of the wheel. The system can react in 100ms rather than the normal 170ms that hydraulic brakes take. Modulation that's twice as fast as traditional systems has HUGE implications for ABS. You could see (and has been demonstrated) greatly reduced stopping distance on snow and ice compared to ABS on hydraulic systems. Again, redundant power supplies can easily make these sorts of brakes just as failsafe as hydraulic systems. If you are worried about your ECU taking a poo poo and taking the brakes with it, you have that worry now. If the ABS control logic goes on the fritz, you can press that pedal until you are blue in the face and it may not have any effect (ask any 2002 WRX owner how they know this.) Really, this kind of system goes hand in hand with regenerative braking as you could have the failsafe system easily hook into the regen system to power the brakes on an independent circuit if there was a failure. No fluid. No hydraulic fittings. No air in the system. No water contamination. No leaking pistons. No rusted brake lines. Brakes are a gigantic maintenance cost for most people and this would slash a good portion of that. Between regenerative braking and electric braking systems, brakes could easily become a lifetime system on a car that would never need to be touched. Hell, just imagine being able to see a dash readout of your actual pad wear on all 4 corners without having to actually remove the wheels and see. bull3964 fucked around with this message at 04:07 on Jan 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 03:57
|
|
|
Electro-mechanical brakes are already used on trains and now a handful of planes, like the new 787. But an electric actuator that can put out the sort of forces seen in a typical disk brake and tolerate that kind of duty cycle in all weather conditions seems like it would be some combination of heavy and expensive. Especially since what you'd likely be doing is adding to the unsprung weight. Though this is all a rough guess and I know nothing of the specifics of how such a thing would be applied for a car. edit: just saw this wedge braking thing. Sounds pretty interesting, but all I can think of is what happens when there's an error somewhere in a few of those sensors and that wedge locks up the wheel. I'm not sure how much weight you can save compared to the engineering redundancies necessary when you've made the most critical system in the entire car based on an inherently unstable mechanism that requires a ton of very precise automation in order to work. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Jan 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 04:05
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Electro-mechanical brakes are already used on trains and now a handful of planes, like the new 787. But an electric actuator that can put out the sort of forces seen in a typical disk brake and tolerate that kind of duty cycle in all weather conditions seems like it would be some combination of heavy and expensive. Especially since what you'd likely be doing is adding to the unsprung weight. Though this is all a rough guess and I know nothing of the specifics of how such a thing would be applied for a car. Siemens system doesn't use an electric actuator. It just uses a small servo to move a wedge. The force of the rotating disk is actually what provides the energy to stop the car. That's the advantage it has over other electric brake attempts in the past. There just hasn't been much recent news on it. The systems were expected to start showing up in high end German luxury cars around 2010 and there hasn't been anything yet. Cream_Filling posted:
Your ABS sensors can flake out now and cause just the opposite. People need to quite pretending they have direct control over their brakes anymore as it is, they haven't for about 10 years. Anytime we graft computer control over a manual system, the end result is always less reliable, more complex, and less functional than just actually controlling the thing directly with a computer. bull3964 fucked around with this message at 04:13 on Jan 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 04:10
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:Siemens system doesn't use an electric actuator. It just uses a small servo to move a wedge. The force of the rotating disk is actually what provides the energy to stop the car. That's the advantage it has over other electric brake attempts in the past. The disadvantage is that if the wedge is mispositioned, it can lock the entire wheel. Which means that it's very hard for the system to fail gracefully without either losing a lot of braking ability or else taking the risk that the wheel will get wedged shut. The PR copy about also eliminating the emergency brake didn't help. ABS is capable of failing gracefully and turning itself off if there's any hint of a problem without the same enormous loss of brake performance. Not to mention the fact that the brakes completely failing is still preferable to a wheel suddenly locking up. I know brakes can have a lot of problems and are maintenance-heavy, but hydraulics are arguably more robust for the price than most electronic sensors. It's interesting, but something about an inherently unstable control that can only function with high-speed/high-precision automatic controls scares me. I know this is already the case in many modern fighter-jets (and, hell, many high-end sports cars at even 7/10 unless you're a race car driver), but there's a reason we haven't really carried this over onto civilian aircraft and made jumbo jets or cessnas too unstable to fly without computer intervention. Again, I know this is a somewhat irrational fear, but regardless it seems like the safety costs for engineering will make it fabulously expensive for a long time. That said, the idea of a car with no hydraulic systems is very cool and opens up the possibility of even more flexible packaging for cars, too. Not to mention the possibilities (and dangers) for enthusiasts who start tweaking the firmware that runs everything. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 04:26 on Jan 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 04:14
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:On the flipside, the carmakers have been making great strides toward the "impossible" MPG standards that were thrust on to them. We are seeing small improvements everywhere. For example, Mazda's i-ELOOP system. It makes sense when you think about it. Why are only hybrids the ones allowed to have regenerative braking? I'm pretty keen on the idea of hybrid turbocharging: http://jalopnik.com/5855317/will-bmws-electric-turbocharger-end-turbo-lag Or even just using the turbine as another power source: http://green.autoblog.com/2010/08/31/mitsubishi-heavy-industries-develops-hybrid-turbocharger-to-gene/ Opens up some interesting and very customizable options.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 05:10
|
|
|
Electronically actuated valves, allowing for infinitely variable intake/exhaust timing.. Come on, its the future. MAKE IT HAPPEN.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 07:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 18:53 |
|
|
Linedance posted:Sorry, Jaguar already beat you to it. That's the first really awesome hybrid I've seen. Imagine the sound that thing makes with the turbines spooled, and 778hp hitting the wheels. Similarly, I hope that we do see meaningful alternatives soon because I would prefer that fossil fuel be for "classic" cars and the awesome cars we're seeing now in the second horsepower war. That way when we're all  and such we can entertain our grandkids with our old explosion powered cars.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 10:42
|
|