The Future of Cars

[WhiteKnight]

Sound proof glass between the engine bay and driver lol... or u could always wear ear plugs

[serialk11r]

Except you're forgetting about the noise that goes outside the car

[WhiteKnight]

Dangit... they're gonna have to put a silences on that thing

[Matador]

Originally Posted by Ryephile

No, they don't do exactly the same thing. They are relatively primitive, slow, and limited in adjustability in comparison. A big improvement can be had in frictional loss and obtaining ideal valve actuation timing, duration, and lift with a camless system. A camless engine will be able to have fuel efficiency and torque levels that are currently not seen together. Add in WBO2, HCCI, very high pressure direct injection with shaped-combusion pistons, and turbocharging and you have a bill of materials for a state-of-the-art gasoline engine.

It also opens the door for high-RPM operation for production engines. Sprung valve-train is the #1 reason engines are stuck at relatively low RPM, with rod ratio being #2 reason.

The benefit of high RPM operation is usually in improved combustion efficiency through improved induction velocity and swirl turbulence.

So why exactly do we need street engines that rev to 15,000 rpms? What about the increased cost of components to allow engines to rev that high? just saying. They are not the same, but in terms of valve operation, the do exactly the same thing. Take the throttle body out of the equation, and allow for infinite variation in valve lift withing a certain minimum and maximum.

I'm not saying a pneumatic system wouldn't be better, I'm just trying to be fairly realistic about the possibilities. Pneumatic valve actuation is not exactly a new technology. There is a reason why it still hasn't made it to the road yet.

[Allch Chcar]

I'm not surprised that some of you favor Diesel engines. But diesel fuel IMHO should be reserved for boats, trains, and tractor-trailers. The only reason Diesel is big in Europe is because Gasoline is taxed through the roof while Diesel is not and Gasoline cars are still fairly common over there despite that. The Diesels having trouble passing American emissions is just a red herring.

HCCI engine, now you're talking, GDI too.

As you guys may have guessed from my subname I'm a big Ethanol supporter, which is here now and made from Corn. But I am realistic in that I know we can support 33% of our Petroleum consumption with Domestic Oil and we should be filling the rest of that gap with Ethanol or Battery Electric cars not foreign Oil. I don't rag on hybrid cars that do their job. And I do rep good hybrid cars. Electric cars that are fun and efficient are cool too. But I also support Mandating Flexfuel, designed to run safely and efficiently on 100% Gasoline or 100% Ethanol(some us even ask for 100% Methanol which is like adding $30 to a $100 upgrade) for all vehicles in the USA. Not mandating that everybody drive on Ethanol, just that we require all vehicles be Flexfuel compatible before they can be sold.

Hydrogen doesn't work for the same reason Natural Gas doesn't. Both need to be either pressurized to super high pressure levels at normal operating temperatures, or frozen at below zero, or for Hydrogen mixed with another element in $$$$ special fuel tanks. Plus Hydrogen is cracked from Natural Gas just like Methanol. Not an ideal system if you could just use the Natural gas right? If you want a system based more on the politics/emotions of zero emissions at the tail pipe when there is a stink cloud somewhere else, Hydrogen is your answer.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

I'm not surprised that some of you favor Diesel engines. But diesel fuel IMHO should be reserved for boats, trains, and tractor-trailers. The only reason Diesel is big in Europe is because Gasoline is taxed through the roof while Diesel is not and Gasoline cars are still fairly common over there despite that. The Diesels having trouble passing American emissions is just a red herring.

HCCI engine, now you're talking, GDI too.

As you guys may have guessed from my subname I'm a big Ethanol supporter, which is here now and made from Corn. But I am realistic in that I know we can support 33% of our Petroleum consumption with Domestic Oil and we should be filling the rest of that gap with Ethanol or Battery Electric cars not foreign Oil. I don't rag on hybrid cars that do their job. And I do rep good hybrid cars. Electric cars that are fun and efficient are cool too. But I also support Mandating Flexfuel, designed to run safely and efficiently on 100% Gasoline or 100% Ethanol(some us even ask for 100% Methanol which is like adding $30 to a $100 upgrade) for all vehicles in the USA. Not mandating that everybody drive on Ethanol, just that we require all vehicles be Flexfuel compatible before they can be sold.

Hydrogen doesn't work for the same reason Natural Gas doesn't. Both need to be either pressurized to super high pressure levels at normal operating temperatures, or frozen at below zero, or for Hydrogen mixed with another element in $$$$ special fuel tanks. Plus Hydrogen is cracked from Natural Gas just like Methanol. Not an ideal system if you could just use the Natural gas right? If you want a system based more on the politics/emotions of zero emissions at the tail pipe when there is a stink cloud somewhere else, Hydrogen is your answer.

One of the issues with Ethanol is that it is government subsidized, I believe, and there are conflicts with food crops if we could produce enough domestically to replace gasoline.

As a fuel though, it would be my first choice as a biofuel.

Natural Gas and Propane have been used for ages in conversions in Canada. They work, but as a performance fuel, they suck. Plus they will eventually be facing the same issues as petro diesel and gasoline, in terms of supply.

Bio-diesel from algae (which theoretically can massively out-produce canola and other oil crops on a per-acre basis) may be the big break for separation from foreign oil. It also gets closer to carbon-neutrality over its life cycle. However it is facing some practical extraction and growth issues. It can also be used to produce ethanol from the waste carbohydrates of the algae.

What I would like to see is Bio-diesel for the majority of the transportation needs, with Ethanol filling the performance fuel role.

[Random_Art]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

Hydrogen doesn't work for the same reason Natural Gas doesn't. Both need to be either pressurized to super high pressure levels at normal operating temperatures, or frozen at below zero, or for Hydrogen mixed with another element in $$$$ special fuel tanks. Plus Hydrogen is cracked from Natural Gas just like Methanol. Not an ideal system if you could just use the Natural gas right? If you want a system based more on the politics/emotions of zero emissions at the tail pipe when there is a stink cloud somewhere else, Hydrogen is your answer.

I agree to an extent. Currently, how we get hydrogen isn't exactly the cleanest and storage is an issue. However there is a lot of big advances being made in these areas. Hydrogen isn't that hard to get from pure water; Iceland has proven that with hydrogen fueling stations powered by geothermal energy. And, new catalytic alloys will soon allow us to get the gas from dirty water. There's also development for storage using metallic alloy powders to act as a sponge to store it more efficiently within the tank.

Here's a link to the science daily archives for the Hydrogen keyword, feel free to browse the articles.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/search/?...ort=relevance#

and here's a link to a Scientific American vid on the subject:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/23322/scie...hydrogen-hopes

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Random_Art

I agree to an extent. Currently, how we get hydrogen isn't exactly the cleanest and storage is an issue. However there is a lot of big advances being made in these areas. Hydrogen isn't that hard to get from pure water; Iceland has proven that with hydrogen fueling stations powered by geothermal energy. And, new catalytic alloys will soon allow us to get the gas from dirty water. There's also development for storage using metallic alloy powders to act as a sponge to store it more efficiently within the tank.

Here's a link to the science daily archives for the Hydrogen keyword, feel free to browse the articles.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/search/?...ort=relevance#

and here's a link to a Scientific American vid on the subject:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/23322/scie...hydrogen-hopes

But there are massive infrastructure issues with hydrogen. Ethanol and bio-diesel are easier to integrate into current fuel infrastructure.

[mark_andrews]

I'D rather stick on electric or hybrid car than turbines. Turbines I think is noisy.

[serialk11r]

The government subsidies are there to compensate for the poor suitability of corn for ethanol production. Brazil runs a lot of ethanol in their fuel, but they use sugarcane which is cost effective. It's not clear to me that using corn for fuel affects the food supply though; In the US we have plenty of food, and in fact we give a lot of food away as aid. I think that in itself is a problem because it reduces incentive to produce food in nations receiving the aid.

Ethanol however is pretty great: High latent heat of vaporization + high octane = very good efficiency with higher compression. I hope they can improve the process to the point where we can all be running ethanol the way Brazil is.

[iff2mastamatt]

Ethanol is the worst! It vastly decreases fuel efficiency, and it raises the price of corn for no reason. We have it in our fuel because the commodity traders can manipulate the price of corn with sleazy government deals. 30% of all corn in the US goes towards ethanol, which is an amazing amount considering that it is only 10% of our fuel.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by iff2mastamatt

Ethanol is the worst! It vastly decreases fuel efficiency, and it raises the price of corn for no reason. We have it in our fuel because the commodity traders can manipulate the price of corn with sleazy government deals. 30% of all corn in the US goes towards ethanol, which is an amazing amount considering that it is only 10% of our fuel.

However it is the best performance biofuel.

High octane, high latent heat of evaporation for cooler, slower burning intake charge plus best power fuel:air of about 7:1 combined with 12500 btu heat energy equates to more power potential with higher compression, more advanced ignition, or tons of boost.

But, yes at the expense of shitty consumption.

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by Dimman

One of the issues with Ethanol is that it is government subsidized, I believe, and there are conflicts with food crops if we could produce enough domestically to replace gasoline.

As a fuel though, it would be my first choice as a biofuel.

Natural Gas and Propane have been used for ages in conversions in Canada. They work, but as a performance fuel, they suck. Plus they will eventually be facing the same issues as petro diesel and gasoline, in terms of supply.

Bio-diesel from algae (which theoretically can massively out-produce canola and other oil crops on a per-acre basis) may be the big break for separation from foreign oil. It also gets closer to carbon-neutrality over its life cycle. However it is facing some practical extraction and growth issues. It can also be used to produce ethanol from the waste carbohydrates of the algae.

What I would like to see is Bio-diesel for the majority of the transportation needs, with Ethanol filling the performance fuel role.

All Domestic fuel/power sources receive some sort of government subsidy. People pick on Corn Ethanol or Oil for getting billions of subsidies and ignore that they also pay billions in tax revenue too. Which also ignores the economic benefits they also bring. The options are often subsidize local business or they'll go somewhere else!

Subsidizing does encourage a market even though I also believe it is one of the more inefficient methods of growth because it is based on tax revenue. If we just let big money do the work we'd have a repeat of the Rockefeller's Standard Oil. It is a choice of lesser of two evils. Or the better of two evils if you prefer. You have to base your decision on the facts and likely possibilities not just the politics and not just the science either.

The Cellulosic Ethanols are stuck in the test tubes until Ethanol hits critical mass. Right now they can produce more Ethanol from Corn than the Market wants. Also expensive Gasoline tends to help encourage funding for alternative fuel research, a good by-product from a (generally) bad thing.

Originally Posted by Random_Art

I agree to an extent. Currently, how we get hydrogen isn't exactly the cleanest and storage is an issue. However there is a lot of big advances being made in these areas. Hydrogen isn't that hard to get from pure water; Iceland has proven that with hydrogen fueling stations powered by geothermal energy. And, new catalytic alloys will soon allow us to get the gas from dirty water. There's also development for storage using metallic alloy powders to act as a sponge to store it more efficiently within the tank.

Here's a link to the science daily archives for the Hydrogen keyword, feel free to browse the articles.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/search/?...ort=relevance#

and here's a link to a Scientific American vid on the subject:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/23322/scie...hydrogen-hopes

This isn't news to me, they still haven't gotten around the, "more energy invested than returned" dilemma. Even if it does happen there are still far more concerns than the source. And Hydrogen fuel has no legitimacy in a debate on alternatives that are sustainable IMHO. It's really cool that it can generate power with no emissions except water vapour but it isn't a practical alternative nor can it be practical without $$$$$$$$$.

Originally Posted by serialk11r

The government subsidies are there to compensate for the poor suitability of corn for ethanol production. Brazil runs a lot of ethanol in their fuel, but they use sugarcane which is cost effective. It's not clear to me that using corn for fuel affects the food supply though; In the US we have plenty of food, and in fact we give a lot of food away as aid. I think that in itself is a problem because it reduces incentive to produce food in nations receiving the aid.

Ethanol however is pretty great: High latent heat of vaporization + high octane = very good efficiency with higher compression. I hope they can improve the process to the point where we can all be running ethanol the way Brazil is.

The government subsidies are there to encourage more and faster growth than the market would normally allow or support. Ethanol was successful in the early 20th century, the Model T was designed to be flexfuel, but that competition was eliminated with Prohibition.

And Brazil uses cheap migrant workers vs expensive machinery. They're even worse off than us though because if world Sugar prices rise farmers will sell sugar cane on the world market instead of selling it for Ethanol. And don't forget it took a Military Dictatorship 20 years of mandates and subsidies before Sugarcane Ethanol was self-sustaining as an industry. The later Civilian government backed off on the subsides when Sugar prices really shot up in the 90's which was also when world Oil was cheap. They also have 25% Ethanol/75% Gasoline for their regular fuel too. Definitely something to seriously think about before you go thinking Sugarcane Ethanol is a silver bullet .

[Allch Chcar]

Sorry I didn't mean to try to monopolize this thread.

Anybody want to talk about underpowered POS econoboxes as a serious alternative ?