This is Eschewo's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Eschewo's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
It's nice to read an automotive article that covers a lot of technical details. Good job CCG! The efficiency combined with affordable MSRP makes the Prius c amazingly attractive. The Prius c will probably be my next new car purchase.
As hot exhaust gases cool there tends to be condensation and deposition. I'd like to know how they prevent carbon build-up.
About that Solyndra thing. There are numerous sustainable energy success stories because of the DOE loan guarantee program... and one failure. Conservatives must focus on the one failure and ignore the successes because Republicans have prostituted themselves to oil company money.
When I first saw the Scuderi split cycle engine I had the following thoughts. The hot cylinder is effectively a two-stroke direct injection engine. The compression (or cold) cylinder seems to have the same function as a roots type supercharger in a two-stroke diesel engine. Why not use a roots type compressor instead of a piston in a cylinder? It seems that a roots type supercharger would have less frictional losses than a piston in a cylinder? Perhaps timing is the issue but if the engine were constructed of more than one cylinder it seems that a roots compressor would work well. I'm no expert in thermodynamics. I hope someone who is an expert can explain this to me.
This is interesting stuff but if my math is correct 960 kJ is 0.27 kiloWatt-hours. That's about one fourth the energy storage in the battery of a Prius hybrid.
A 20% reduction in piston ring friction will not result in a 20% reduction in fuel consumption. Piston rings are not the only source of friction in an automobile. Having said that, any source of improvement is welcome.
Oops, I left something out. Watermelon: Green on the outside, red on the inside.
ExDemo, It's amazing that a piston ring coating can evoke a partisan political debate. Watermelon? Really? In case some of are not familiar with the watermelon reference it implies that anyone who is concerned with environmental sustainability is automatically a communist. McCarthyism is making a huge comeback in this country. (USA)
Mr. Mannstein, This is what I might call evidence for ideological bias on the part of Roy Spencer. He said, “For most people, either you believe that the world has been created for mankind’s use, with a certain resiliency and stability, or you believe it is just a cosmic accident, fragile, and overly sensitive to our meddling. The creator may be the biblical God; or as a scientist friend of mine believes, some as yet unrevealed Life Force. For many of those who don’t believe in a creator, the spiritual need in their lives results in the uplifting of Mother Nature as the ultimate spiritual entity.” Notice his black or white thinking when he implies a person must believe the world is either resilient and stable or overly sensitive. I concede that still does absolutely prevent him from being objective. I found the following critique of a book published by Roy Spencer.
@ Mannstein, I also used to be very skeptical of AGW. When I retired I had lots of free time. I decided to dig deep into the AGW "debate". I'm not a climate scientist but I am an engineer with a firm grasp of science. Every time I read some piece of information that refutes the consensus of climate change I look at it objectively. There have been dozens of articles of this type that turn out to be flawed. Believe it or not here is a part of me that is hopeful that, in fact, there is some new science that proves AGW wrong. Nobody would be happier than me if the AGW consensus was wrong. But time after time after time every one of these refutations turns out to BS. Dr. Roy Spencer is also in denial of Darwin's theory of evolution. This does not necessarily make him wrong about other science but he sure fits the modus operandi of someone who is far from objective about AGW.
Mr. Mannstein, Dr. Roy Spencer is constantly coming up with these kinds of claims and every one of them turns out to be BS. Tell me why this one is different.
So let me get this straight. It's good news that they're working on a greener method to extract and burn fossil fuels???? WTF?
This type of accounting of lifetime carbon footprint is exactly the reason I'm thoroughly impressed with Edison2, the winner in the mainstream class of the Automotive X Prize. The Edison2 Very Light Car (VLC) is low carbon in production and very low carbon in operation. The Automotive X Prize winning Edison2 VLC was powered by an internal combustion engine. Some environmentalists ruthlessly criticized Edison2 for not using an electric powered car. But the Edison2 VLC had SIGNIFICANTLY lower greenhouse gas emissions than EVERY electric car in the Automotive X Prize competition. And OBVIOUSLY it would have low carbon manufacturing footprint. I want very much for Edison2 to succeed. If they don't succeed it will not be because of lack of vision or effort. I've met the Edison2 team. They are a team of hard-working, certified (by me) geniuses. If they don't succeed it will be because of a lack of understanding by the car-buying public.
This sounds like one of those studies funded by oil companies to cast doubt on the science of climate change. Keep in mind that most of the evidence for anthropogenic global warming is based on things than can be measured and very little is based on conjecture and guesswork. I'm highly suspicious of this paper based on what I've read in Naomi Oreskes' book, "Merchants of Doubt"
Eschewo is now following The Typepad Team
Jun 7, 2011