New Technology

[Rich Parsons]

Honda.com

At this site you can read about Fuel Cells and new the technology that might just change how people travel. Search for the Honda FCX.

:asian:

 

[Tgace]

kind of a side issue Rich, but as you work in the automotive industry...any truth behind the "urban legends" of carburetor designs that could give 80 MPG that were bought by the oil industry to prevent their use???

 

[Rich Parsons]

kind of a side issue Rich, but as you work in the automotive industry...any truth behind the "urban legends" of carburetor designs that could give 80 MPG that were bought by the oil industry to prevent their use???

Well let me make a simple arguement.

If I had a car that could get 80 or 50 or even 35 MPG on the old 1975 or earlier 350 Big Block or even the small block.

Given that this would give a great marketing advantage. The exisitng vehicles of the day got 8 to 12 MPG.

So, if I can place a simple carburetor on a vehicle and obtain better gas mileage then EFI. This would mean billions of USD a year in profits. The amount of money the oil industry would have to pay is just outrageous to offset adding in 1000's of dollars in technology to obtain better control of the engine and better emisions as a by product. Or was it better emission control that lead to better fuel economy by having better control of the engine.

So, the answer is no.

Why then give the arguement? If I do not, people still think the evil corporations are willing to sell them out for money. Yet, if you use this greed in the arguement above, it would be much more in the nature of evil corporations to sell the 80 MPG Carb's. Especially taken in steps and released in version like to Microsoft.

NOw, here is an issue, to look into, no Patents were filled either. If the technology was there and all of the US companies were bought off, the what about the Germans and the Japanese? To buy everyone off would not be as profitable as selling the product.


:asian:

 

[Tgace]

Yeah thats what I thought too....remember Steve Segals monolouge at the end of (cant remember the "Alaskan death orgy" movie title) where he spouts off about the topic?

 

[Rich Parsons]

Yeah thats what I thought too....remember Steve Segals monolouge at the end of (cant remember the "Alasksan death orgy" movie title) where he spouts off about the topic?

Fire Down Below?

Well some people can act.

Some people can do Martial Arts.

Some people can be engineers.

Some people can be doctors.

Yet everyone has an opinion and is allowed to make politcal commentary


:asian:

 

[Tgace]

Not on this Board.....:uhyeah:

 

[Ender]

The advantages of fuel cells are countless. Less dependence on oil, less pollution, etc. But there will be disadvantages as well. More availability of energy may cause the world to use up other limited resources faster and this may not be the best thing. When things are plenty, waste becomes more prevalent.

Also, the influence of the middle east will evaporate when we move to a non oil based economy. This will probably anger a few of these countries, not that they all love us anyway. But if we take away their only source of revenue, they may escalate their hatred towards the west much as a child throws a temper tantrum. No doubt we will be blamed for upcoming poverty in those countries. You gotta think OPEC doesn't want us to move to fuel cells. Just some things to think about.

 

[CanuckMA]

Fire Down Below?

Well some people can act.

Some people can do Martial Arts.

Some people can be engineers.

Some people can be doctors.

Yet everyone has an opinion and is allowed to make politcal commentary


:asian:

And Segal isn't any of those.

 

[Rich Parsons]

The advantages of fuel cells are countless. Less dependence on oil, less pollution, etc. But there will be disadvantages as well. More availability of energy may cause the world to use up other limited resources faster and this may not be the best thing. When things are plenty, waste becomes more prevalent.

Also, the influence of the middle east will evaporate when we move to a non oil based economy. This will probably anger a few of these countries, not that they all love us anyway. But if we take away their only source of revenue, they may escalate their hatred towards the west much as a child throws a temper tantrum. No doubt we will be blamed for upcoming poverty in those countries. You gotta think OPEC doesn't want us to move to fuel cells. Just some things to think about.

Electric vehicles use batteries today. The best batteriess still use Acid and lead and other items best to dispose of with care. Hence Why GM would only lease its' electric car, to prohibit the improper disposal of the batteries.

The problem with this is that most electricity is generated by burning sulfur based coal which is sooooo much more poluting then gasoline emmisions. Yet, it is not at the tail pipe.

With Fuel Cells they recently have just gotten to the almost break even point. The break even point is where it takes as much energy to force the reaction or to generate the the reactants as the energy obtained. Once again this would most likely be done with energy plants or the burning of Coal to generate electricity to generate the components. When it becomes greater than 50% or break even then this is where the real advantages come in.

As to resources being used up, this could be true, as some would not see the use of fuels cells as consuming resources. Yet, it is the energy requried to obtain the reactants that is the issue.

The Automotive industry in really serious about this issue. They want ti to succeed, as the people who can make it work, can obtain Federal and State benefits (* Greed *) and also a better image (* More green - or enviroment which leads to more Money or more Green or Greed *), which leads to more market share and more money. Sorry, I could not resist.

:asian:

 

[Ender]

You're kind of mixing apples and oranges here. No electric cars burn coal to produce the energy they need. Coal is only used in large electrical stations.
The technology for autos in the next 10 years will be the move to fuel cells. Fuel cells produce electricity by a chemical reaction which doesn't rely on coal nor lead. At least not the designs I've seen. These designs are already completed and all that is needed is the manufacturing floors to convert over to producing theses cars. And yes the cost to produce hydrogen and fuel cells will decrease to make it possible to use these technologies. I see nothing wrong with the cars companies making money to produce these vehicles.

 

[OUMoose]

Fire Down Below?

Close. Fire down below was the segal movie where he spent time in Appalachia working for the EPA hunting illegal waste dumpers.

I think you're looking for "On Deadly Ground"...

:boing2:

 

[CanuckMA]

You're kind of mixing apples and oranges here. No electric cars burn coal to produce the energy they need. Coal is only used in large electrical stations.

The point was that the energy needed to recharge the batteries are produced by coal burning plants.

We have the same kind of mentality here in Toronto. We have streetcars running though downtown. They are costly, the trackes require constant maintenance and foul up traffic. Yet the 'green' lobby is in love with thwm because they 'don't spew the fumes that diesel buses do'. Somewhere else, a coal fired power plant needs to pollute to generate that 'clean' electricity.

 

[theletch1]

And Segal isn't any of those.

While I'd agree that he can't act, operate, or design he is a top quality aikido-ka.

 

[Rich Parsons]

The point was that the energy needed to recharge the batteries are produced by coal burning plants.

We have the same kind of mentality here in Toronto. We have streetcars running though downtown. They are costly, the trackes require constant maintenance and foul up traffic. Yet the 'green' lobby is in love with thwm because they 'don't spew the fumes that diesel buses do'. Somewhere else, a coal fired power plant needs to pollute to generate that 'clean' electricity.

CanuckMA,

Thank You for clarifying my point.


Ender,

My Apologies for not communicating properly to express my point.


:asian:

 

[Rich Parsons]

While I'd agree that he can't act, operate, or design he is a top quality aikido-ka.

I was not trying to say that anyone person was or was not any of the things on the list. It was just a list. Nothing more.

:asian:

 

[Rich Parsons]

You're kind of mixing apples and oranges here. No electric cars burn coal to produce the energy they need. Coal is only used in large electrical stations.
The technology for autos in the next 10 years will be the move to fuel cells. Fuel cells produce electricity by a chemical reaction which doesn't rely on coal nor lead. At least not the designs I've seen. These designs are already completed and all that is needed is the manufacturing floors to convert over to producing theses cars. And yes the cost to produce hydrogen and fuel cells will decrease to make it possible to use these technologies. I see nothing wrong with the cars companies making money to produce these vehicles.

And to add in furhter form CanuckMA, the best way to generate Hydrogen is through electricity. By Best, I will say cheap. Yes, with this direction more people will beinvesting in making Hydrogen in a cheap fashion.

:asian:

 

[old_sempai]

Back in the 70's there was such a carb, though it didn't give a car 80 MPH. It was designed with a horrendous amount of ducting to catch heat coming off the exhaust to preheat intake air. It did boost fuel economy to about 45 to 50 MPG [not sure of the exact number], but didnt really take off because of the complexity of the duct work.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Back in the 70's there was such a carb, though it didn't give a car 80 MPH. It was designed with a horrendous amount of ducting to catch heat coming off the exhaust to preheat intake air. It did boost fuel economy to about 45 to 50 MPG [not sure of the exact number], but didnt really take off because of the complexity of the duct work.

There is a valve called the EGR or the Emission Gas Regulator valve and almost every vehicle made today has them. This recaptures the unburnt hydreocarbons and allows for them to be sent into the chamber for ignition again.

If this is not what you are talking about can you reference a magazine or book or part number or manufacturer? No disrespect, I know there were many things done and some were more complicated then others, yet to go from 8 to 12 MPG to 45 to 50 MPG would pay for a lot of duct work.

 

[old_sempai]

The purpose of the EGR is to introduce exhaust gases into the combustion chamber thereby reducing the amount of new air coming in from the intake system. This reduction of new oxygen reduces the overall length of the combustion process lowering the temperature of the exhaust gases and reduces the amount of nitrous oxides found in the exhaust gases. High engine output in today's cars comes from a variety of technologies not available in the 60's and 70's. These include variable cam timing, variable intake systems along with cars having dual ignition [double spark plugs in a cyliner] with one set of plugs firing during the approach and opening of the exhaust valve an ignition process used on reciprocating aircraft engines [this design gives approximately 10% more power output from an engine along with slight improvements in fuel economy]. Cars that dont have dual spark plugs may have dual firing ignition wherein the plug fires again at the beginning of the exhaust cycle. Solid state ignition systems have resulted in more stable and reliable firing cycles of spark plugs which in turn causes them to last longer.... and dont waste your money on platinum spark plugs unless you can buy them at less than a $1.50 each. It seems that the combustion process within the cylinder within a relatively short period of time will begin to leave [I believe it is a nitric oxide] coating on the platinum electrodes thereby reducing the attributes of the platinum to where the plug now works just like any other cheaper plug.

Sorry for the technical rant but this is my field. And although I'm not an engineer I play one in real life.

artyon:

 

[Rich Parsons]

The purpose of the EGR is to introduce exhaust gases into the combustion chamber thereby reducing the amount of new air coming in from the intake system. This reduction of new oxygen reduces the overall length of the combustion process lowering the temperature of the exhaust gases and reduces the amount of nitrous oxides found in the exhaust gases. High engine output in today's cars comes from a variety of technologies not available in the 60's and 70's. These include variable cam timing, variable intake systems along with cars having dual ignition [double spark plugs in a cyliner] with one set of plugs firing during the approach and opening of the exhaust valve an ignition process used on reciprocating aircraft engines [this design gives approximately 10% more power output from an engine along with slight improvements in fuel economy]. Cars that dont have dual spark plugs may have dual firing ignition wherein the plug fires again at the beginning of the exhaust cycle. Solid state ignition systems have resulted in more stable and reliable firing cycles of spark plugs which in turn causes them to last longer.... and dont waste your money on platinum spark plugs unless you can buy them at less than a $1.50 each. It seems that the combustion process within the cylinder within a relatively short period of time will begin to leave [I believe it is a nitric oxide] coating on the platinum electrodes thereby reducing the attributes of the platinum to where the plug now works just like any other cheaper plug.

Sorry for the technical rant but this is my field. And although I'm not an engineer I play one in real life.

artyon:

And all this new technology not available in the 60's and 70's is mostly computer controlled. Instead of everything being open loop including a carb, we have gone closed loop.

I agree there might have been a device that acheived a 45 to 50 % (* Percent *) improvement which would have been the 8 to 12 going to 12 to 16. And that it might be too costly.

Let me do the math. A car in the late 60's and early 70's cost 2000 to 4000 USD. Going from 10 MPG to 50 MPG at the price of gasoline being 25 cents per gallon.

Let us assume a 40000 mile life expectency on a vehicle, I know ti could be longer.

( 40000 miles / 10 MPG) * 0.25 $/Gal = $1,000 spent on Gasoline

( 40000 Miles / 50 MPG ) * 0.25 $/Gal = This is $200 spent on Gasoline.

So if the device cost more then $800 it would not be benefical for the customers.


Now if you make it 50% which would have been 15 MPG it is even less likely to make to the customer if it was costly.

Godo Technical discussion - Thank You Sir
:asian: