Fuel economy myths

Page 5 of 7  

You've got it, with carbon credits bought from his own company. >:) Al has found a money tree, who needs the hassle of being president anyway. When Al is found to be wrong, no one will remember him.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That article's right on target.
However, for things to _really_ change, somebody's got to come up with batteries that can be fully recharged in a matter of minutes and can go 200 miles on a single charge. The motors for hi-power all-electric cars are here now - all that's needed is better battery technology.
Here's a taste: http://www.teslamotors.com / http://www.universalelectricvehicle.com / http://www.zapworld.com/electric-vehicles/electric-cars/zap-x
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why do we need a battery that recharges in minutes? The question I usually ask people who say this is imagine your gasoline car was on a completely topped off full tank every time you get in it. How often would you have to stop at a gas station? The answer would of course be only for the trips longer than the range of the battery. The problem with a ~10 minute recharge is that it would require a dedicated 400 amp 3 phase 480 volt service drop for each charger. I can only imagine the kind of power lines run to each charging station. They would probably look similar to these:
http://danallen46.homeunix.org/West01MtHood.jpg
My solution would simply be a standardized battery pack that could be easily swapped by a robot arm. The larger the vehicle the more such packs the vehicle would use so the Suburban-EV driver would still pay more than someone in a smaller vehicle.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
in

The reason you need a battery pack that recharges in minutes is simply because the buying public is used to filling up in minutes.
Trying to get people to buy a new type of vehicle and asking them to change their mindsets all in one fell swoop is a pretty tall order. Tall enough, IMO, that they just won't go for it.
The reason why hybrids are selling now is becuase people don't have to change anything in their habits. They just buy, drive, and fill up like they would in an "ordinary" vehicle.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That wouldn't work because battery packs degrade over time and the big Surburban EV driver with 10 brand-new discharged battery packs does not want to exchange his packs for 10, 4 year old charged battery packs. Batteries also self-discharge and the self-discharge rate over time gets worse.

Your not understanding it I can see. For starters there is such a thing. It's called a Leyden Jar, AKA high-power capacitor. The small electric RC racers use these.
The problem is that if you have an electric car that can drive, for example 5 hours continuiously, using 400 watts of power an hour out of a battery pack, to recharge that in 1 hour means you have to put in 2,000 watts of power in that hour. If you want to shorten that to 10 minutes, we are talking 12,000 watts of power in 10 minutes. If you want to shorten that to 1 minute then that is 120,000 watts of power in 1 minute to get the battery pack fully recharged.
Your electric stove probably dissapates about 200-300 watts of power on a surface burner when the burner is turned on high.

If they can save money then yes, they will go for it if the savings is high enough.

There are a lot of people also clamoring for plug-in hybrids. You need to read up on the history of the General Motors EV1. Espically read testimonials - available many places online - from people who actually leased one.
What is needed in battery technology is higher storage capacities and cheaper prices.
Ted
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

*NEXT* you're going to tell us that an alternator is harder to spin and therefore takes more power from an engine if you turn more electrical things on in your car!! :)
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A former co-worker a few years ago came up with an idea that he claimed was increasing his gas mileage.
He created a water decomposition chamber out of a length of ABS and connected it to his alternator, and a tube from it to his intake manifold. He regulated the power going to the decomposer with a big carbon rheostat he found from something.
When he showed it to me I just had to smile and nod. This guy was (and still is) a computer service tech.
600 BC Greek named Thales was the first to make recordings with respect to electricity, documenting the rubbing of amber. Electricity regarded by most as black magic
1750 - Benj Franklin proves lightning contains electricity. Electricity still regarded by most as black magic
1831 Faraday discovers electromagnetic induction. Electricity still regarded by most as black magic
1904 Fleming invented the vacuum tube. Electricity still regarded by most as black magic
2007 Modern society, global communications, international diplomacy and geopolitics are utterly dependent on electricity. Electricity still regarded by most as.....
Ted
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The electricity to charge those batteries is going to come from .....?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Ah, that's a different topic. That question can be asked about anything that uses some kind of power.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Joe wrote:

I think he's getting at how fast you can get the required energy transferred into the battery (without overloading your supply system and without destroying your battery with waste heat).
You can't get infinite power in zero seconds from a practical source. Look at Ted's post with quantification of the problem (i.e., 12,000 watts for 10 minutes). Actually Ted's calculations are optimistic. Whatever the inefficiencies of the charging process ('x' watts of heat generated in the supply lines and in the battery for every 'y' watts of useable charge) would only increase the watts required from the source. IOW - if the charging process is 70% efficient, that 12,000 watts sustained pull becomes over 17,000 watts.
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Awwww Bill, I was just -asssssuming- that the wiring would be with that room temperature superconductor wiring from Ringworld! ;-)
Ted
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It can go both ways, but I took it as questioning the source of power for recharging. It's a valid question, but it certainly covers a wider topic than only vehicles.

Granted. But the average American doesn't give two dumps about any of that. He/she simply wants to pull in to a refueling station, spend no more than 10 minutes there, then take off for another 300 miles and do it again when the needle is hovering right above "E".
People's expectations regarding the ultra-convenience of refueling today's internal combustion engines will be nearly impossible to change.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
slowing down to 55 will do the most to conserve fuel i just read a study about mileage and cars,suv's are at the most efficient at 55mph regardless of what brand they are. between 30 mph and 50 the cars consume more as well as over 60 to 90 mph seems 55 is the sweet spot so it's no mistake that mileage is rated at that speed detroit will never become competitive until the million dollar bonuses stop for the executives and that money is reinvested back into the companies
Ed wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I've found that to be true on my own cars that have the instant readout for mileage. Repeated runs over the same piece of road at different speeds on my way to work.
Problem is, you can't do it voluntarily by yourself. It is downright dangerous to drive at 55 while everyone else is doing 70 or above. Nor can I drive a car at 55 on the open road when both the car and highway are built to sustain much higher speeds.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I've found it to be true in real life measurements, but only in the strictest definition of the word true. In all of my vehicles, the age old adages about easy starts, easy stops, etc. have certainly been born out, but the difference in the fuel mileage between driving at 70 instead of 55, or jumping on it a little bit instead of grandfathering it off the line, was inconsequential. In order to really impact mileage I find that I have to put my foot into it completely, all the while - through the entire tank of gas. Not at all practical for most driving. Otherwise, the difference in mileage over a thankful is just not that significant.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Since I don't drive at 55 I cannot factor that into my daily life. I can, however, compare the grandfatherly driving versus putting the foot into it once in a while, using my remote starter to hear up the car when cold or start the AC when very hot. While I don't "speed", I often do like to accelerate up the entrance ramp to the highway and be doing 70 at the top. The difference between the two types of driving cost me about 38 gallons a year over 23000 miles.
I can hear some of you saying "not big deal, enjoy driving" while others are screaming that "a family in Ethiopia can plow their fields with what you wasted". Judge as you please but I'm not going to change. Another zinger, my total cash outlay for gas last year was probably $200.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:
I can compare the grandfatherly driving versus putting the foot into it once in a while. The difference between the two types of driving costs me about 38 gallons a year over 23000 miles. Another zinger, my total outlay for gas last year was about $200. ______________________________________________________
At $3 a gallon, $200 will buy 66.67 gallons of gas. And 66.67 gallons to go 23,000 miles means the car is getting 344.98 mpg.
Driving more conservatively will save the lost 38 gallons, using only 66.67-38 = 28.67 gallons. This will result in a gas mileage of 23,000/28.67 = 802.23 mpg.
That's what I call good gas mileage. Congratulations.
Rodan.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I said that was MY total cash outlay. I do buy gas once or twice a week. :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The instant readout method is a bit questionable. My wife's Sebring has it and I've watched it, but you can get a much better comparison of mpg at different speeds by viewing the mileage over a reasonable distance.
Different cars designs vary as well. My wife's 2001 2.7L Sebring drops it's mileage off faster at higher speeds than my 3.3L Concorde. Both get the same mileage at 60mph, but the 3.3L Concorde is better than the Sebring at 70mph. I've also noticed this with a few rental 2.7L Intrepids.
I keep track of all our mileage so I have lots of real data on actual trips as well as urban mileage when the Sebring is slightly better than the Concorde. Since I don't travel steady highway speeds at lower than 60mph, I have no lower speed comparisons. The figures I have are at 60, 65 and 70 mph.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It may be questionable as to the reading versus actual if you used test instruments, but it is consistant. I took the readings over the same stretch of road over many days. Each speed was compared in the same place for the same distance. Rounding may also be a factor, but again, it is a consistant comparison. If, at 70 I get 25 mpg and at 60 in the same place for the same distance in the same direction, I get a reading of 27 mpg, I know for sure that I'm getting better mileage, be it 1.9 or 2.1 before rounding.
I have two cars that give me the milage over the tank of gas and one is consistanly 1 mpg over what I calculate at fill-up time, the other is consitantly over 0.5 over calculated. What is important is knowing that and when I see this tank was 26.2 and the last tank was 23.5 I truly did have a 2.7 difference.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.