Don't forget there's always a power stroke in a two cylinder, two cycle. Subaru has had no problem putting opposed engines in it's cars.

I started promoting this ten years ago. Gave it to all the auto builders. About time somebody started building one of these. Some simple add-ons will give even more hp and fuel mileage. (Turbocharger)

" ... and detecting obstacles on the road ahead." Including other, "flying drones"?

Lot's of "wishful thinking" going on here...

"Similar and better gains are being made in non-transportation energy use. Moving from 60 watt incandescents to 9.5 watt LEDs is a huge savings." Except for Propane heat, my home energy is all electric. Our electric bill when we first moved in six years ago averaged over $100 a month. Last month it was $51. The difference is CFL's being rapidly replaced by LED's. Those daylight, Cree 9.5 watt LED's are rated as equivalent to 60 watt light output, but seem much better.

Davemart Your point about weight is well taken. The less weight you have to accelerate and decelerate, the less energy will be expended. Energy is not free.

I posted this May 12, 2005 on Green Car Congress. I sent a copy of it to every Car-maker. GM took a step in this direction with the Volt. Wonder how long it will take them to go all the way? -------------------------------------------------------- This is what we should be building right now. In my opinion Ford and GM will go bankrupt before they even begin to catch on. For about the past year I have offered anyone who would listen the following info: None of the American automobile companies have even responded. I have had some positive response from several educational institutions but - as far as I know - none have done any experimental work to verify my claims. Here is what I have been proposing: In one scale or another everyone of these systems have been proven. Like to produce a vehicle that can burn rubber on takeoff on all four wheels and get 90+ mpg? What I would like to see the automakers working on would have: A turbocharged, two cylinder opposed, 2-cycle, air-cooled diesel directly driving a generator. (It would not be running most of the time.) A 111 volt Lithium-Ion Polymer battery pack. Nothing but wires going from the controller to every wheel, except for the necessary additional friction brakes (of course). An added advantage of this would be the ability to recharge from the electrical grid while at home, saving even more on fuel. Each wheel, depending on the feedback to the controller from wheel speed sensors would drive with just the right power depending on the accelerator position. You would get recharging from deceleration just as you do in today's hybrids. You would also use this feedback to stop the wheel from skidding. Each wheel would have a stationary stator and a series of fixed magnets closely adjacent all around the inside of the wheel. In a sense it would operate each wheel in a very similar fashion that the mag-lev trains use, except the motion would be circular, of course. Something very different about this type of motor is that the stators are fixed to the axles and the magnets are driven around them. This gives a significant increase in mechanical advantage. That's like turning an ordinary electric motor inside out. There would be no need for ordinary electric motor brushes. In fact, many electric motors operating today are brushless. Such motors already exist in the model airplane field and their efficiently is amazing - approaching 90%. I've got a couple and doubt that I would ever buy any other type. It's possible to hang the model on the prop right out in front of you and accelerate straight up, like a rocket, with this type motor In the vehicle the motor/generator would not turn on to recharge the batteries until they needed it. There are already experimental Lithium-Ion driven cars that can get in excess of 200 miles before they have to be recharged by plugging them in. You would top off your batteries overnight by plugging them in. Some cutting edge research by Toshiba - employing nano-technology - indicates that recharging can be done so fast that you could top off while eating lunch. Lithium -Ion battery technology is so new that I doubt that very many automotive engineers have even heard of them, much less thought to use them in this manner. Their energy density exceeds that of any other form of rechargeable energy storage. The Lithium Ion battery is the most efficient battery available right now. So is the outer rotor electric motor the most efficient motor. Build an Automobile right and it will weight less and have simpler, easier to repair/replace modules. Lets see what we can eliminate while improving performance and efficiency. Transmission - None Ignition system - None Liquid cooling - None Valves and valve train - None Use bio-oil/fuels for both fuel and lubrication. Feel free to pass this along to anyone you know in the Transportation business. I bought a Honda Civic Hybrid last summer. I enjoy it more than any vehicle I've ever owned. I will Never buy another vehicle that isn't a Hybrid and doesn't get at least 50 mpg. As far as I can tell, Detroit isn't even thinking the same way I and the vast majority of it's potential customers are. Lucas

Way premature announcement. They tell us nothing about the vehicle that really matters. Is it powered by a dramatic improvement in engine and power-train? What is the mpg? All we are told is minor stuff that should routinely be in every modern automobile.

Why would I care if a close-minded person read anything I wrote?

"hung up and obsessed" ? Millions of taxpayer dollars are being pissed away reinventing the Hydrogen wheel and comment pointing it out is non-productive? $450,000 was the energy cost to launch a Space Shuttle. The cost per gallon - equivalent - was $9.10. If our Hydrogen "experts" are going to profess their well thought out convictions about H2, at the very least they need to review High School Chemistry on the subject. A quick quiz: 1. Hydrogen is a non-metallic element. What changes it to a metallic substance? 2. How many isotopes does Hydrogen have and what are they used for? 3. How many Neutrons are in the Hydrogen atoms Nucleus?

Fuel Definitions A fuel is a substance that releases usable energy either through: a nuclear reaction such as fission or fusion an oxidation-reduction reaction with an oxidizer In a combustion (burning) reaction the fuel is burnt in oxygen. The oxidizer is oxygen. All combustion reactions are exothermic, energy (mainly heat) is released. Explosions are forms of combustion. In an explosive combustion reaction, the fuel is exploded (as in a car engine) releasing mechanical energy In a fuel cell reaction the fuel is allowed to react in an electrochemical cell and electrical energy is released. Fuels can be divided into three groups: Biomass Fuels: these depend directly on the photosynthetic conversion of sunlight into plant matter. Examples: food-stuffs, animal wastes, wood These may be used directly as fuels or converted into more usable forms such as biogas or alcohols. Fossil Fuels: these derive their energy from photosynthesis in the long distant past, the living matter having been modified by geological activity such as high temperature and pressure over a long period of time. Examples: coal, oil, natural gas Nuclear Fuels: depend on the nuclear forces within atoms. Examples: uranium-235, plutonium-239 Fuels can be classed as renewable or non-renewable Renewable fuels: are those derived from biomass sources (plants) or from the conversion of solar energy into chemical energy Non-renewable fuels: are those derived from fossil sources (coal, oil, natural gas) or minerals (nuclear fuels)

From Wikipedia Energy Once manufactured, hydrogen is an energy carrier (i.e. a store for energy first generated by other means).The energy can be delivered to fuel cells and generate electricity and heat, or burned to run a combustion engine. In each case hydrogen is combined with oxygen to form water. The heat in a hydrogen flame is a radiant emission from the newly formed water molecules.

Don't forget that Hydrogen is not a fuel.

Just look at all the wiggling, squirming and thrashing about DOE is doing. At least they are only wasting 4 million on it this time. Rather than generating pure Hydrogen and have all the handling, storage and transportation problems that come with it, why don't we just combine it with some other element to make a safe material that won't have all of pure H's problems. What would be a good one?

WWII helped a lot also.

Well said, Kit.

He let somebody trash his unconscious.

This is the longest "discussion" we have had in quite a long time. I hope seeds were planted that will someday grow fruit. The convinced unconscious is a difficult thing to change.

The bubble will burst - It always does ...

What you see depends upon where you stand. Judge not ...

BW - " whose posts are best never read." If you feel that way, don't read them. With your deeply held bias, you can't learn anything from me anyway.

" Posted by: mds | October 29, 2013 at 09:32 PM Oh, Lucas, some data on the cost of running (some) nuclear plants..." Pay attention mds. No one here has ever accused me of commenting in the slightest about nuclear. I don't know diddly-squat about all of that. At age 81 it's getting a little late to start on a whole 'nother field. If I can't impress you with my PhD ... How about my IQ. It falls n the top .02%. In 2005 I told the Army how to stop IEDs. They didn't implement it all but a look at the stats shows that my idea has saved thousands of lives. I also told Israel how to reduce the deaths from rocket attacks. It was fun to see how well it worked. BTW - I don't give a Rat's rear end whether you believe me or not. I'll just keep on, keeping on...

{Anybody} can makeup numbers ...

"Don't you agree that it would make more sense to consider those numbers?" No. Anybody can makeup numbers. Are you in the wind business?

Well hello M*D*S. Tell us a little about yourself. BTW, Kit and I are both PhD's. Welcome to the group. We need active minds no matter where you stand. It's interesting how opinions change the longer you interact here. At one time my bias toward unexamined acceptance of wind, solar and hydrogen was much like yours. As I was motivated by provocative statements to go back and do more research, I slowly, grudgingly began to realize there was two sides and both couldn't be right. Several years ago a HS teacher acquired a windmill. He kept very careful tabs on all the costs from the beginning until the maintenance costs became unreasonable. Then he compared the cost/return ratio and found the windmill never paid for itself. That also is true for all the wind-farms you see blighting the horizons. They are all just giant Ponzi schemes.