This is sd's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following sd's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Doctorate in Mechanical Engineering, entreprenuer
Interests: diesel and gasoline engines, cars, aircraft, railroads, electric drives
Recent Activity
@Roger Pham I do not know what alternative universe/fantasy world you live in. Last year, we got 4.1% of our (United States) electrical energy from wind power and about 0.6% from solar power. Counting all sources, including biomass which is questionable whether it should be considered renewable, we got a little less than 13.5% of our from "renewable" sources. The biggest part of this was hydro-electric. What renewable power that we do generate is better spent replacing power that would otherwise be produced using coal and then natural gas. It is interesting to note that in 1950 we produced 30% of our power from "renewable" sources which was almost all hydro-electric. Hydro could not grow with the demand as most of the major sources had already been used. Yes, wind power and solar will continue to grow but we have already placed wind turbines in most of the best locations. For reference you can see Also, I am glad that when I look out my window and see the leaves blowing in the wind that I do not see any wind turbines. They are not pleasant neighbors. I would far rather live near a nuclear power plant.
Not much money but I would rather see research money spent on new nuclear reactors. If we ever get to the point that there is excess clean electric power then and only then should we consider hydrogen. Most hydrogen comes from reforming natural gas and you would be better off just burning the natural gas in internal combustion engines. I know, I am going to here about using excess renewable energy for generating hydrogen but excess renewable energy does not exist and I doubt that it ever will in the US. It may exist in Iceland or Northern Quebec but even there it is better used to refine aluminum, etc.
OK, but why not go directly with a hydraulic pump instead of using vacuum to boost the hydraulic brake pressure. Direct electric actuation of the brakes would be even better. Siemens had a direct acting electric roller ramp disk brake mechanism at least 5 years ago but I am not sure what happened to it.
Reasonably impressive but I am not sure what they mean by "world’s most powerful six cylinder diesel"? The world's most powerful six cylinder diesel would be the Wärtsilä RT-flex96C with 46680 hp. The most powerful six cylinder diesel automotive diesel? The Cummins in the Ram pickup is in the same range. The most powerful 3 liter engine? I worked for a while on a 3 liter opposed piston diesel engine that was projected to be capable of 800 hp.
@CheeseEater88 I have debated whether your comments were worth answering. All I suggested was improving education and especially women's education which generally improves all aspects of life. I did not suggest any forced action. If there was better education in some of the poorer countries there would be less poverty, more purpose to life, and eventually less war. Maybe, with a bit more education and wealth, there would be less uncontrolled burning of dung, wood, and coal and less pollution. Maybe you need to relocate your head or at least think a little more before answering in the manner of your post.
One of the worst things in poorer countries is burning dung for cooking and heat. Next is burning wood in an uncontrolled manner. Then comes burning coal for heat in poorly designed furnaces. All of these were sort of OK in sparsely populated areas but not in densely populated urban areas. The long term solution is probably women's education and a lower birth rate. Good luck.
Well, I would give them credit for an amazing job of engineering and it probably helps with fuel economy although that is not what the car was primarily designed for.
"Who will be next to admit or be detected?" Maybe Nissan. Oh wait, Mitsubishi is part of Nissan. Well, maybe Toyota or Honda. Or it could be Renault. No wait, they are already associated with Nissan and therefore with Mitsubishi.
Trying to grow too fast is a sure way to go bankrupt. I am an engineer and minority owner of a 5 year old startup that builds a specialized high tech ag machine that is best described as part tractor and part electric robot. 18,000 lbs of steel that we mostly cut, bend and weld in-house. 3 years ago, we delivered 8 machines, last year 22 machines, and this year we are hoping to delivery about 50. It hurt a bit to lose sales because we could not build production fast enough but it is better than growing so fast that you fail. It is hard to add and train quality people fast enough and then you must find vendors that can supply parts on schedule, etc. I have always advocated a more careful ramp-up of production. I have a lot of respect for Elon Musk and Tesla and it is great that they have that much interest but there are limits to how fast you can grow no matter how much money you have. Every new person you hire needs some training which takes time away form the existing personnel. Even adding machines takes time for debugging, etc.
@solarsurfer If you combine CO2 with water, the only thing you get is soda water.
I think that this is overly simplistic. If you have an accident at a higher speed, the consequences can be worse as the energy involved goes as the square of the speed. However, the cars have become better at handling higher speeds and the overall safety systems have become better. I live in one of those states with an 80 mph rural interstate speed limit (and 70 mph urban interstate speed limit) and our overall fatality rate has gone down and is even lower if you consider it in terms of fatalities per mile instead of just fatalities per year.
I think that the Tesla 3 may look better than the Chevy Bolt (and a lot better than the Leaf) but the Bolt may be a bit more practical. However, in my opinion, the real advantage that the Bolt has is that it is made by a profitable dividend paying company. I give Tesla (and Elon Musk) a lot of credit for making it this far and I really hope that they make it but this is not an easy place for a start-up. I know that there are a lot of die hard Tesla fans out there and probably more than a few GM haters left that will disagree with me but it will be even harder for Tesla to make a profit manufacturing a car with a lower price point. (I would also add that one disadvantage the Bolt has is the name -- who came up with that? But that is also just a personal opinion)
I am sorry because I wish it was not so but I do not see any easy path for an H2 source other than reforming natural gas. OK, there are a few places on earth where there is an excess of hydro power, Iceland and maybe Northeast Canada but it is still better to do something else with the power such as aluminum (aluminium?) production. Otherwise just put the power in the grid and burn less coal, etc. Maybe someday we will have an excess of nuclear power -- fission or fusion and we can have high temperature disassociation of water to generate H2. Even then, H2 is not an easy substance to transport or store. I just do not get the enthusiasm for H2 fuel cells.
Now if Obama would only approve the proposed solar pipeline, we would have an infinite supply of low cost hydrogen.
This is the hybrid I want one for my morning commute. Much more exciting than some dull Prius.
Better but still less than half the range of the Volt.
Yup, This is mind boggling stupid. They are planning to use low grade coal to make H2 which is more expensive than LNG??? For what purpose? Also, to liquefy hydrogen, you need to reduce the temperature to -253C which is non-trivial
What they are not telling you is the efficiency. OK, the catalyst is more effective or there is less platinum required and it is research that may lead to worthwhile future results. However, you will still be putting in considerably more electric energy than the energy that the hydrogen contains. This is a fools game to believe that this is going to somehow make a greener world. Just put the electric power in the grid and burn less coal or gas or peat (which has to be the worst fuel available but some groups consider it a renewable energy source).
SJC Just going by what is stated. They quoted 55% efficiency converting HYDROGEN to electricity. A SOFC may convert methane to H2 and CO internally but it does not do it without consuming energy.
From Davemart's ref The fuel cell by the British company, Ceres Power, called a “Steel Cell”, has achieved a world record 55% efficiency at converting hydrogen to electricity. And just as a amazingly, a 90% efficiency when combined with heat output. Various Korean & Chinese OEMs have already been licensed to develop power systems using the unique Steel Cell technology. I would not get very excited about this. The large combined cycle natural gas turbines are getting close to 60% thermal to electric efficiency and do not have the loses associated with converting natural gas to hydrogen. Also, my furnace runs at about 95% efficiency. WTF
mahonj Don't wreck everyone's dreams by doing some fancy math and pointing out the facts:) And SJC, you are correct. Small turbines are not very efficient but they are lighter weight. I suspect that this was more an exercise in styling and engineering than a practical vehicle.
I think that this project could best be described as green wash.
OK, it will do 310 km or 193 miles if you hyper-mile it under the bogus EU driving cycle but what will it do in normal driving. I have occasion to drive to Ely, Nevada and just outside of Wendover, Nevada is a caution sign that warns that the next available service (gas or otherwise) is 130 miles and the speed limit is 70 mph. To make it even more sporting, a large section is open range (no fencing for the cattle, sheep or wild horses). If you next destination was Tonapa, it is something like 167 miles and of course the speed limit is still 70 miles and hour. I doubt that you would make it.
Personally, I like the idea of a carbon tax. However, my politically incorrect thought for the day is that maybe what we really need is procreation tax.