Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Claim Major Leap in Engine Design
An anonymous reader writes "Purdue researchers say they have made a major advance in the design of the internal combustion engine, one that could seriously boost fuel efficiency and cut emissions. A key portion involves building intake and exhaust valves that are no longer driven by mechanisms connected to the pistons, a departure from the way car engines have worked since they were commercialized more than a century ago. 'The concept, known as variable valve actuation, would enable significant improvements in conventional gasoline and diesel engines used in cars and trucks and for applications such as generators, he said. The technique also enables the introduction of an advanced method called homogeneous charge compression ignition, or HCCI, which would allow the United States to drastically reduce its dependence on foreign oil and the production of harmful exhaust emissions. The homogeneous charge compression ignition technique would make it possible to improve the efficiency of gasoline engines by 15 percent to 20 percent, making them as efficient as diesel engines while nearly eliminating smog-generating nitrogen oxides, Shaver said.'"
Are they going to do anything useful, like, say, actually boost milage? Or are they going to continue what they've been doing and just increase horsepower and torque?
What's the over/under that this technology will be bought by ford / gm and killed in development?
Slashdot had a related story a while back on increases to engine efficiency. Not sure if it's related.
But they don't actually talk at all about how they WILL drive the cams. And for that matter, they still have cams! Driving valves with solenoids somehow would be more meaningful. If they're keeping the cam, then they can have variable timing easily enough, but they're still going to need a bunch of additional hardware to control lift and duration. Of course, it takes a lot of power to use solenoids to drive the valves, which is why they're not doing it now. Personally I'm far more interested in Coates rotary valves, which have been used in racing. They let you raise RPMs dramatically without having an exploding valvetrain. Combine that with direct injection and I'll be pleased as punch.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Nothing spectacular about changing the timing on the valves depending on how the engine's being driven:
g
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_valve_timin
According to Wikipedia, VVT has existed since the 1960's. The only improvement I can see (and that's from reading between the lines) is that they've developed a means of controlling it more precisely.
Little known fact: If you don't patent before you publish, you lose your patent rights.
Toyota and Honda have both been leveraging variable valve timing techniques to boost performance and efficiency for over a decade.
The big difference here is that finally someone realizes we can do that independent of crankshaft, pistons, and cams.
It's a simple concept really, monitor your engine and control the valves on solenoids digitally and you can achieve monumental performance, efficiency, and emmission improvements. It's really just a matter of making the concept cost effective to produce.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Most cars have some forum of variable valve timing already. If this is radically better it will need to be a lot better.
If this can increase fuel efficiency and give the sort of performance you get from a Wankel engine as used in the Mazda RX8 then this will be welcome.
Better fuel efficiency is great and all... but how much does it cost for the individual?
1&1 - Cheap domain and web hosting.
And develop better power supplies and methods to capture solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, and other energy sources.
Efficiency is at optimum use - in practice, it depends upon lifespan use for engines.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Variable Valve Timing (VVT) has been around since the 1960s.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
All the benefits will be squandered on making bigger, heavier vehicles. At least, that's what's been happening with improvements in efficiency since the 80s. Sigh...
No matter how efficient an internal combustion engine gets, it will still emit carbon dioxide. While this technology might help an engine spew less carbon dioxide, it's still a dead end -- kind of like putting lipstick on a pig.
Put the effort into other forms of energy and we'll be a lot better off a lot more quickly.
expect oil corp. ceo's to petition Cheney to shut down this research in the interest of national security. Or they may be forced to buy them outright, and shelve this new technology.
Why does this warrant such a sensational article? Racing engines have been actuating valves pneumatically for years and exhaust gas recirculation has been around forever too. Hell, Honda's old CVCC used a similar exhaust technique back in the 70's.
It's not just Purdue working on this, nor is it cutting edge. The idea of variable valve actuation has been around for a while as well as HCCI, which has some problems that are yet to be overcome. One of the notable ones that I recall is simple power. As the Wikipedia article notes, in a gasoline engine, you increase the fule/air charge to increase power. In a diesel engine, you just inject more fuel. In an HCCI engine, it's tough because "many of the viable control strategies for HCCI require thermal preheating of the charge which reduces the density and hence the mass of the air/fuel charge in the combustion chamber, reducing power. These factors makes increasing the power in HCCI inherently challenging."
For more info, the Wikipedia page has some great references:
- Research, publications at Lund University
- Research at Chalmers University of Technology
- Research at Stanford University
- Research, publications at University of Wisconsin, Madison
- Research at University of California, Berkeley
So, it's got a lot of benefits but a few trade offs that need to be addressed first. Honestly, why would Ford/GM buy this out and kill it when they could just develop the technology themselves and integrate it into their vehicles like Hitachi's research? I mean, just because technology changes doesn't mean they should kill it instead of changing with it, right?My work here is dung.
1. GM buys technology
2. New efficient engines are developed and promoted
3. Next generation of cars have negligible improvement in fuel economy
4. ???
5. Profit!!
Trying to improve the efficiency of ICE engines is good as a short-term solution, but eventually we will need to wean ourselves out of petroleum. I know the subject has been hammered onto every slashdotter's heads, but I think BEVs are the way to go.
How appropriate! the Boilermakers finally come through...
It's not the typical consumer car that needs a new engine. It's the big engines for freight hauling that need a significant technology boost. Too often the focus of engine R&D is on the Little Joes and their subcompacts instead of the Big Joes and their road hogs.
could use this tech to make engines that make the same amount of horsepower with less fuel, or they could use the tech to make engines that make more horsepower with the same amount of fuel.
I know where I'd put my money.
Wankel wants his engine back, and what happens when the 'valved' design that's non-mechanical fails(not piston timed). I hate to say this but anyone who's apprenticed as a mechanic, rebuilt any type of engine or worked on one can tell you that the more computerized crap they stick in cars, the more prone to failure they'll become.
KISS is running out of the automotive industry to ensure that dealerships continue to get their pay.
Om, nomnomnom...
These are engineers working in an engineering department in a university.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
... race car engines have been doing this for years, if not decades. When you get to high rpm (10000+), mechanical camshafts have problems.
Of course, being academics (publish or perish) they have to include the politically correct newspeak fads of the day, "reduce its dependence on foreign oil and the production of harmful exhaust emissions" so they try to get the environuts onside, along with the "no blood for oil" people.
some of the benefits they describe such as emissions control through exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) have been around for a long time, they use a solenoid and a diaphram feeding off the exhaust manifold back into the intake..
controlling valves electronically through solenoids has been tried before too, they just gave up and made variable lobe camshafts (as in honda VTEC) so you can adjust valve timing for different rpm ranges..
Unless I am very much mistaken there are numerous engines that already do this.
IIRC Toyota and BMW have current vehicles that have this technology. Vehicles I remember in particular are the 2007 mini cooper(not the turbo) which is really BMW, and that new Toyota hatchback who's name I've forgotten that looks like a jelly bean. The Mini has an engine made by Renault, so they probably do it too.
Ok, I've been reading slashdot. I've seen the articles.
So I glean this:
Disconnect the valves from the cam, squirt alcohol in the engines to cool it before compression, run it with biodiesel, put it in a hybrid, and make it talk to other cars -- we should have 100mpg no problem.
Fine. So can you wake me when someone _actually_ sells a car with honestly good gas mileage?
The journal article referenced in the 'news release' is from September of 2005. Is this old news? (Not that that would make it insignificant.)
From what I could tell by the article, the important advance here is not so much the variable valve timing, but how it's introduction allows for re-mixing of a portion of the exhaust gas into the incoming fuel/air to allow for "HCCL" combustion, which changes the autoignition point and combustion characteristics.
Not being mechanically inclined, I don't think I understood the article completely -- the engines they're working on are diesels, is this (HCCL) even applicable to gasoline engines?
It's not going to be Ford or Honda or anyone who scoops up this patent. It will be OPEC. They're the only ones who stand to gain anything by this technology being suppressed.
We figured out a long time ago that it's easier to elect seven judges than to elect 132 legislators.
Buy em out, boys!
when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers!
from the blurb:
...which would allow the United States to drastically reduce its dependence on foreign oil...
Editor doesn't know much 'Murkins, does he? This will be used to create higher-horsepower, heavier cars, not more efficient ones. Coming soon: The Hummer Canyonero-Magnum!
Remain calm! All is well!
Come on folks. I think we've all come to the conclusion that ICE is on it's way out and additional tweaking doesn't solve the problem, just delays the impact. Rather than sink a bunch of money, time and effort into this, we should be sinking money, time and effort into designs that eliminate burning oil products and eliminate emissions entirely. We have working models and prototypes of these types of systems already, why would we need to build another prototype of an "old" model. Doesn't make any sense. I hope this guys gets his funding cut.
Umm, what about the Stirling engine that died for no good reason back in the 60s. As I recall, said external combustion engine attained diesel-esque efficiencies and, thanks to the constant burn rate, pollution controls could be narrowly tailored to a specific engine allowing for non-greenhouse gas pollution nearing nil. Seems I recall a test of one of these bad boys performed in California where the exhaust coming out of the pipe had lower hydrocarbon levels than the air going in. Now, it may not be the most suitable engine for an automobile (though, arguably, it'd be great in a hybrid-electric vehicle), it'd beat the pants off this new technology and diesel as well. Ok, back to my yurt...
Yeah, mechanical valve actuation has its problems. It makes for either non-optimal valve placement (standard wedge heads) or overly complicated mechanical actuation trains (see Chrysler original Hemi engine design). So a better method to actuate valves than driving it from a fixed, or fixed-variable, design could make for better engine performance overall. That's hardly new. As best I've seen, this has been merely an engineering problem to determine a better way to actuate valves that meets the requirements of cost, durability, cost, performance, and cost -- when it comes to consumer engines. While such an actuator method is certainly significant news in and of itself, it's not like someone has redone the whole engine.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
possible to improve the efficiency of gasoline engines by 15 percent to 20 percent, making them[...]
He didn't even bother reading the summary which points out that this might raise the efficiency of gas engines into the range of diesels. (RTFS)
He also didn't bother doing any research on the relative amount of diesel consumed in the USA vs Gasoline.
Like I said a moron.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I don't see anything new here. They mention variable valve timing, which is already here, and exhaust gas recirculation, but they're giving it another name, and something like the Miller-cycle engine.
Some of these tweaks are better suited to locomotive engines or other constant RPM power plants. But, overall, they're just combining some well known techniques.
I hope something comes of the VVT stuff. That's where some real gains can be made, especially to help implement a better Miller-cycle engine.
They could also implement Honda's CVCC techniques or the stratified combustion chamber technique to burn low grade fuels. That would help a lot.
Best regards.
I wish they would mention how the valves are powered. It really sounds just like a souped up version of variable valve timing (VVT) systems. The description reminded me of BMW's Double VANOS system. This modifies the position of the camshaft relative to the crankshaft - this doesn't make the valves timings completely tunable, but it's a good start.
I'd like to know whether the gains they quote are relative to ancient engines or are in comparison to decent modern engines using the technology we've already got. If the gains are 15% above using standard VVT systems it might be a worthwhile technology. If basic VVT gets you 10% of that gain and this gives another 5%, it might never be economic to build something like this.
If technology were based on a square wheel then we might find ourselves working on bearings, and spokes, and the shape of the axle, in order to optimize the efficiency of a square wheel rolling over the ground. The fact will forever remain, though, that because of the force vectors involved, a square wheel will never be as optimal as a round wheel--no matter how well the bearings are designed, no matter how optimized the shape of the bearing case is, no matter how strong the materials which make up the spokes are, and no matter how well the shape of the axle is patterned to distribute the force of overcoming the defects of a square wheel.
The same can be said for the internal combustion engine. Too much energy is lost to friction and heat when the force vector for the piston and the piston arm have to change. It's the inherent flaw in converting an up and down motion to a round and round motion. We can engineer the valves to our hearts content. We can change the shape of the cam while figuring in every possible timing consideration. We can change the fuel mixing method a thousand times. It will never solve the problem of the drastic change in direction of the momentum.
While the project was probably a continuation of a 30-year old research program (which, similarly, cannot be turned on a dime without losing enormous amounts of support energy), the funds would have been better spent on improving designs like the rotary (Wankel) combustion engine or refining implementations of alternative fuel or electric engines.
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
Variable valve timing has been around a long time. It is/has even been used on production vehicles.
One of the best books on IC engines ever written is by Ricardo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Ricardo He points out that most of the things we consider radical were actually done on aircraft engines during WW2. Every time I hear about new, radical IC engine technology, I can find it, or something like it, in Ricardo.
Actually, the one thing that wasn't described in the edition of Ricardo that I knew and loved was pollution control. That's not surprising though because most of the work on pollution control has been since Ricardo's death in 1974.
For things like unburned hydrocarbons (which largely come from old cars, lawnmowers, BBQs etc).
If you consider CO2 a pollutant things look a bit different.
Stirling engines are difficult to hook to a crankshaft as the require working fluid/gas on both sides of the piston.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
...you don't sign economy raping agreements to solve technical and scientific problems. You keep your economy healthy so that money is available for research like this, be it private grants, or government grants (which come from taxes which come from private profit).
What solenoids?
Driving engine valves with hydraulic systems is a common practice in the modern low-speed main ship engines. This way, you can control the valve the way you want.
Internal combustion motors will be around for a long time. We'll be stuck with them as the alternatives work their way into the marketplace and the infrastructure for electrics, biofuels, hydrogen and so on are developed.
So, deploy that lipstick and make the pig as purty as you can get it.
Just don't get to likeing it so much you don't want to move on when the time is right.
What I have always wanted out of car is something where each wheel can be independently turned, and they're all hooked up to their own three stage induction electric motor. Can you imagine the driving you could pull off in that thing, given full complete control? You could strafe, slide, maybe even spin in place. Ah, the things dreams are made of.
We can already reduce emissions with the current crop of motors; controlling take-off and landing conserves brake pads and gas. Before we see these new engines, we'll be seeing 'smart cars' that do all the tactical acceleration we're currently capable of, for us. Smart Car will only ever be a replacement for a smart human.
sometimes, nothing.
Yes but that argument could have been made about electric cars too.. the ev-1 anybody? go rent "Who killed the electric Car" One of the largest guilty parties were the car makers themselves. Heck they were the ones who "confiscated" all of them and destroyed them.
"Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny" ~Frank Zappa
EdelFactor
The trouble with direct valve actuation is making an actuator that's fast enough, powerful enough, small enough, heat-tolerant enough, and reliable enough to do the job. Cheaply. This is not easy. Prototypes have been built, but it's still not something that's easy to do. BMW did quite a bit of work in this direction, but backed off to their "Valvetronic" scheme, which still has a camshaft with other components to give some adjustment potential.
Most of the existing schemes for tweaking valve timing still involve camshafts, but there's an additional mechanical linkage which allows adjustment of phase angle, valve travel, or both. That's an idea which goes back to steam engine design. Most of the gear on the side of a steam locomotive is there to adjust valve timing. Steam engines are controlled by valve duty cycle, not throttling. This was the original pulse-width-modulation system. On steam engines, valve phase can be adjusted far enough to reverse the engine, which is how locomotives back up. Some newer marine diesels have that feature, too. Eliminates the need for a reverse gear.
So this isn't a new idea. It's an old idea that's hard to make work cost-effectively. Somebody may crack this thing; it's a tough mechanical engineering problem, but not an impossible one.
Its time to move away from hydrocarbon fuels. As long as we use *any* we are at risk. If if its all domestic the number of sources are finite, and more liable to be attacked. Besides, eventually ( in a few hundred years ) it will run out. it cant last forever so might as well do it now, instead of later )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The article really oversells it, and I suspect the estimated economy improvement is a contrived number, but the focal technology is variable valve timing. Actually, the real focus of the article, even thought the author didn't realize it, is that the Purdue researchers developed a computer model of the engines thermodynamic cycle...at least I think that's what he was trying to say. It might have been a computer algorithm to determine valve timings.
You're right. Variable valve timing has been around for a while. The best-known example is probably Honda's VTEC technology, which uses a camshaft with two different profiles selected depending on the engine load and RPM. Obviously though, it is still linked to the piston position and only allows two options for valve timings, although the new i-VTEC lets the computer change the open time, but not the duration of the valve by advancing the cam gears a little bit.
Presumably, the article refers to approaches using electronically controlled solenoids to actuate the valves instead of a cam-shaft. This isn't really new either. I believe some race engines have used this for years, and if you google "solenoid engine valves" you will find some other information.
I really wish the article talked about the computer work better, because I'm curious to know exactly what it is they're doing here.
The HCCI cycle is also interesting. Thermodynamically and emissions-wise, it's basically an Otto (gasoline) cycle, but operationally and efficiency-wise, it is more similar to a diesel engine. I'm guesssing the computer work they did is a detailed computer model of the combustion process including variable valve timing, because HCCI is more difficult to control across a wide range of power settings.
Truly variable valve timing is also kind of neat because it allows a portion of the engine gasses to be retained, similar to the way big truck diesel engines are now re-inducting some of their exhaust to gain a more complete combustion and more precisely control cylinder temps.
Ah, yes, the mandatory conspiracy theory. Get this, this is just variable valve timing which by now a _lot_ of car manufacturers _already_ use, with various degrees of sophistication. This one may be slightly more efficient, but the important thing is that steps in that exact direction have been made, and there is already a healthy competition in that domain.
If you'll kindly read that Wikipedia page, you'll notice that both Ford and GM, since you name-and-shame them, _already_ offer engines with variable valve timing. GM has worked on theirs since 1975, and built automobiles equipped with, say, their Northstar System since at least the 90's.
So, you know, even as conspiracy theories go, this one... shall we say, fails to be entertaining at least. It is lacking in the suspension-of-disbelief quality. It's akin to asking me to believe that Boeing is trying to kill the jet engine... never mind that they're already using them.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Anybody can pull statistics out of their ass.
4x the average efficiency of I.C. of 20% would be 80% efficient. Clearly you are smoking some good stuff.
Which is exactly where you got that, as it is BS. Unless you ignore the average efficiency of the actual generation plants used and assume all power comes form 45% efficient combined cycle plants. Even then bullshit.
You do realize you don't add efficiency numbers to get total efficiency?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Such as the Quasiturbine engine
Or the wankel, or Rotary, engine which is even used today. While the rotary might not get better gas mileage than a piston engine, it certain produces more power per displacement than a piston engine. Furthermore, the newest rendetion of the wankel, the Renesis, developed by Mazda already uses some of the benefits that this engine supposedly does. Namely with the exhaust ports.
The design of the piston engine is flawed. Moving up and down robs your engine of momentum and is just plain silly. Going around in circles produces much more power. If only the Wankel engine, or better yet, the quasiturbine engine had as much R/D put into them as piston engines, we'd have a lot better combustion based engines.
I mean, just because technology changes doesn't mean they should kill it instead of changing with it, right?
Arghh, you don't get it, do you!! Corporations ALWAYS must do the evil thing, like in the movies, all right?
It's about time that scientific research started seriously re-evaluating the principles of the internal combustion engine. As TFA reads, it's been largely unchanged (merely tweaked here-and-there) for roughly the last 100 years.
I think the research being done is specifically targeted at fuel efficiency, that is, getting the most power out of the same drop of fuel. Whether it comes as greater HP, low-end torque or higher mileage would seem moot; they would all serve the same ends in reducing the need for more fuel.
From what I gather, the intake/exhaust paradigm is being shifted. The school where intake and exhaust are mutually exclusive will be challenged by the newer HCCI model. You might say that they're furthering the principles of the turbocharger beyond the point of just transferring heat and energy, where the vapors themselves will be manipulated and mixed together.
Still waiting for the embrace of bona-fide flex-fuel vehicles and autonomous navigation systems... (let's go, DARPA!)
This post © Copyrite Duggeek, all rights reversed.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Boy, this sure sounds a lot like what Valeo announced last year.
It was our litigous society that killed the EV-1. There was a time when you could sell things and let the buyer bear the risk that it breaks. Nowadays, if you don't agree to support a car and pay for damages, you get sued.
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
This ought to get a Slashdot good posting award. All you smartasses out there, this is what it's about. Better living through research and clever engineering.
Another thing. Politics is the last resort for those losers who can't understand science, mathematics, technology, or philosophy and haven't the brawn to resort to violent coercion. Rob Malda ought to reflect on that more often.
long ago in the 90's didn't saab built a numamatic valve ( like F1 cars, which they've used for decades) vasiable compression turbo charged motor years ago that could out do this motor???? also didn't they say it was to costly to built and not to mention VERY VERY unreliable?
bored? try this http://jadmadi.net/blog/2005/01/27/linux-wine-how-to-running-windows-viruses-with-wine/
My Toyota Corolla 2007 has vvti, (Variable Valve Timing with intelligence), so exactly how can this be an improvement? You might consider posting an article about steam engines revolutionizing locomotion!
"The concept, known as variable valve actuation....."
This has been around for at least 12 YEARS.
Morons.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
TFA was so positive and glowing, I'm surprised they didn't mention one of the more significant benefits, cylinder deactivation.
Sure it's already available in conjuction with mechanical valvetrains, but with electronic control of the valves there's no additional hardware or cost to provide the feature.
Changing cam timing and/or having a second cam lobe is one thing, but there is a huge advantage to infinitely variable valve timing, right down to the fact that you can eliminate the throttle plate altogether, and the turbulence that it causes.
BMW has been messing with these systems for years . This is not new news. I heard rumors of one of their higher end cars using a throttleless setup, but I am yet to see one. Can anyone correct me? http://tinyurl.com/2flnp6
The main problem is reliability and noise. BMW got fed up because it was almost impossible to make it quiet and reliable. Think: your cam, like a crank accelerates the valve to full velocity then slows it back down to a gentle stop in microseconds. An electric actuator tends to slam on and off. Try that at high rpm. Things break. Anyone got any unobtanium valves? You still have to make it affordable to build, purchase, run and repair, right?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all over an engine that will idle like Aunt Bea's Cadillac and rev like an indy car. Think dashboard selectable engine personality, from mild mannered, economizer, green mode, towing mode, formula 1. Especially if coupled with an electronically controlled turbo. You can also have a multi fuel capable, 13:1 (or higher) compression ratio and boost your efficiency without running your NOx readings thru the roof.
-Lummox (ASE master technician, Canadian journeyman mechanic, millwright)
Beware -- any time you see "..which would allow the United States to drastically reduce its dependence on foreign oil and the production of harmful exhaust emissions," it is marketing language designed to appease ignorant masses, investors, and assure loyal Republican investors that "they are with the program".
P olicy.pdf
And this program is the US energy policy.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/National-Energy-
In case you are lazy, the economic numbers behind these 170 pages say basically:
- we're expanding our "energy" supply; ie volume of foreign oil fields
- we've secured iraqi fields for better exploitation
- we're converting our military to a more mobile fighting platform to secure remote oil
- we ain't reducin' nothin' as far as consumption and conservation goes
- anwr holds only a few drops in the vast sea of petroleum - it's a pawn of environmentalogists (as opposed to environmentalists)
Reduction of dependence on foreign oil? We passed escaping that point more than a decade ago (50% imported vs domestic). Ask yourselves why president Reagan removed the solar panels from the White House the moment he moved in. Our energy policy means we're going to take foreign oil and god help those who stand in our way.
IC gasoline engines are about 40-50% efficient; +15% would be about 46-57% efficient. Fuelcells are already over 60% efficient. And they produce none of the NO2 emissions, less of the CO2 emissions even from gasoline, and none of the particles that cause cancer. Their byproducts include pure water. And nearly no noise.
If we invested as much in fuelcells as we would in these "major leap" new engines, we could have 75% efficient fuelcells, with all the other benefits. But maybe it would cut in new engineers who don't work for the car corporations who have spent the last decade using up as much foreign oil as possible in 14MPG SUVs.
--
make install -not war
I say Great- but lets face it, you won't be able to work on your own car anymore. Then again... it's been difficult enough to do that for several years, with those whiz-bang computer thingies mucking it up.
Yea, that's something that bothers me about recent, say the last 15 or 20 years, vehicles. Used to be a shade tree mechanic would work on and repair their own vehicles but not with most of them today. I've repaired brakes, transmissions, done tuneups, and have rebuilt the engine for cars I've owned. But I couldn't do that with the car I own now. Heck I went to change oil and the filter on it and found out a special and specific tool that only has one use was needed. Then there's all the computer diagnostic equipment needed.
FalconShould there be a Law?
On the contrary it is probably the oil companies who are driving it, (pun). Think about it. The oil companies are at a dead end with their technology. There are numerous alternatives to burning fossil fuels. If they aren't providing or seen to providing 'advances' then the competition will get ahead. You see this with any company or organization who has a monopoly - microsoft, ARIA, MPAA.
-- main(s){printf(s="main(s){printf(s=%c%s%c,34,s,34
The Model-T got 25 mpg.
Soon, in the US, our average vehicle fuel economy can match that.
Also, we may actually see an electric car, similar to ones made 100 years ago.
Also, we may start using "bio-diesel". Of course the reason why the diesel engine was special when it was invented was because it ran on peanut oil.
Yes, all of this is "revolutionary"! ( in the circular sense ).
There's far more "pollution" per se from a vehicle than just the gases that come out of it!
Sure, there are some good uses for cars or road transport, but whilst we rely on them for so much of life movement, I don't care if they run on magic, they're still not the answer. I drive my car to get the shopping or to go and visit family. But public transport and walking or riding a bike take me everywhere else.
Have a look next time you're in a traffic jam, going nowhere fast. Have a look in your own car and those of the cars around you. See how many of those cars have 1 person in them, coming from the same source and heading to roughly the same destination. Want to halve your dependence on foreign oil? Want to reduce your greenhouse gases by 40%? Want to reduce your driving to work expenses by 30%? Try carpooling: pick up one person that lives nearby and works in the same town, and drive to them work too.
Despite how it might look, American car companies are not actually trying to shoot themselves in the face with a shot gun. It might look they are, but in truth they are genuinely surprised when the loud 'boom' is followed by pain and blood.
There is not a reason in the world why any car company would want to kill off something like this. Why the fuck would any car company not want a magical technology that lets them beat government regulations, offer higher value to customers, and let them sell 30 ton SUVs with a cool California approved 30 MPG. Pssst... high oil costs don't help car companies. When someone fills up at Citgo and sends a pile of money to Chavez, car companies don't actually get any money in that transaction. In fact, if you get pissed off about how much money you are sending off and use your car less, they end up getting LESS money as your car wears down slower and you buy fewer cars. If car companies could make cars run on happy thoughts, they would.
Contrary to popular belief, corporations don't sit around trying to figure out the must stupid and irrational way possible to both lose money and look like malevolent entities that run off crushed babies.
All of that said, I find the claims in this article to be dubious at best. Perhaps there is some energy savings, but I really doubt they are that dramatic.
Except diesels have increased NOx emissions due to their higher combustion temps and slower throttle response. The higher viscosity of the fuel also makes getting a clean burn more difficult, and most importantly, if everyone uses diesel, you have to find some way to supply it in the stead of the lighter molecular weight hydrocarbons present in oil which are distilled to gasoline, which currently isn't used for much else anyways.
Sounds like electronic valve timing being resold as an energy saving technology. I could have gotten a VTEC car 7 years ago but got the old fashioned kind because the cost of VTEC was more than the savings in energy.
Can anyone think of any other ideas that would "allow the United States to drastically reduce its dependence on foreign oil and the production of harmful exhaust emissions".
"The new wave is not value-added; it's garbage-subtracted" - Esther Dyson, Dec 1994
Actually .. Mazda says full scale production of the Hydrogen hybrid RX-8 with the Renesis engine is 5 years away. Rotaries are naturally very well adapted to hydrogen use due to the separation of intake, exhaust, and combustion chambers.
"What's the use of a good quotation if you can't change it?" - Doctor Who
Are you sure you're not just considering electrical efficiency and not overall system efficiency?
But your point is still valid. There's lots of technologies that are easy to make more efficient than IC engines. Heat engines (such as steam engines), for example, aboid a lot of the kind of complexity in the original article because the vehicle's speed and power requirements don't require radical changes in the combustion profile.
On the gripping hand, the use of tight looped control systems running the engine closer to theoretical efficiency by taking advantage of superior control algorithms is a generally applicable technique. Making the control systems reliable enough to take on more responsibility for running the engine will end up helping every engine technology, so this shoudln't be dismissed out of hand...
This article, as has been, and will be, pointed out throughout the comments is not news, very interesting, or likely to yield much of practical value.
..., reduce the number of humans by 6 billion, or so. Unless you do that, nothing else will matter. Additional terrestrial hydrocarbon fuel resources are becoming quite hard to reach and there's too much demand to get by easily on biological sources alone. Improving the efficiency by which we use the fuel helps us, regardless of the other issues.
Non-crankshaft-linked valve timing, whether through variation mechanisms that are in current street car use, or electric/pneumatic/hydraulic actuators, such as the F1 engines have used for years do not solve the problem of heat control. Burning fuel (which is why some parts of the combustion chamber are hotter than others; get a clue) generates heat. Some of that heat expands gases to push pistons (or rotors) and a lot of heat raises the temperature of the engine components. Without cooling the engine, the accumulated heat destroys the materials. This is why my air-cooled Ducati engine has a lower power output than the water-cooled Ducati engine of the same (roughly) displacement. The water-cooled engines can keep the components at a lower (and more consistent, I know) temperature, so they can use more air and fuel to generate more power (the extra valves are only usable because the additional heat can be managed).
The real solution is to use more of the chemical energy to provide power for moving the vehicle and less of it to heat the components. Trying to store the energy in rechargeable batteries will result in mostly short-range urban and novelty vehicles for a very long time, since the energy density of the storage, both in mass and volume, and recharge rate are pathetic compared to diesel, gasoline, or compressed propane/methane.
The "hydrogen solution", applied as an internal combustion fuel, has the same problems, plus the additional headaches of generating the hydrogen ("but solar is cheap" - and it will compete directly for surface area with homes, farms, and the large-scale installations needed to power your iPod's recharger since we'll be trading power between sunlit and darkened regions) and transferring it between fuel station storage and vehicle storage. Hydrogen fuel cells, still with the generating, storage, and transfer problems, are pretty good at converting between chemical and electrical energy, and electric motors are usably efficient at converting electrical energy into motion.
What we need are fuel cells that can handle ALL of the chemical energy in a hydrocarbon fuel, converting not just the stored hydrogen and oxygen from the air into water (2 H2 + O2 = 2 H2O; put energy in to break up the hydrogen and oxygen molecules then get energy back by combining the hydrogen and oxygen atoms into water), but also using the carbon atoms in the fuel molecules to make CO2 which gives a larger net energy output by mass of fuel.
As for "CO2 is a greenhouse gas": So what? We're already too far down the path. The paleohistoric record of ice-age cycles shows that we have already passed the inflection point to cooling while we're accelerating the heating. If you want to reduce the CO2 footprint of humans, along with ending overfishing of the oceans, sucking the deep aquifers dry, destruction of the rain forests for farmland, habitat destruction for either human use or by diversion of fresh water resources, pollution by agricultural runoff,
Why would auto companies want to kill the electric car? Other than they are big and evil and have long twirly mustaches and stuff?
A 15-20% increase in anything is a waste of time, everyone's time. There have been numerous inventors who have more then doubled the efficiency and more then halved the size of all sorts of engines. The only reason we never hear about any of this is because they are bought off, by big oil companies. I even recall hearing something about water as a fuel?
- John
http://www.jabcreations.com/
Indeed, Renault had been actively researching electromagnetic valve actuation and infinitely variable lift and timing systems for their F1 engines since at least the mid 90's. I believe that at least some of their engines have used such electromagnetic actuators in the past, in combination with pneumatic springs (which are not really "springs" in the traditional sense, but function in a similar way) although I can't find a specific reference to that effect.
And then, of course, there is Valeo. You see, in 2005, at the Frankfurt Motor Show, it introduced a system that replaced camshafts with electromagnetically actuated valves and it claims that it will be available to manufacturers in volume in 2009. More details, including a pretty image, can be found here.
Now, coming up with smarter management software (which seems to be implied by the article), that can take advantage of per-cylinder (and per-valve) actuation by using such tricks as re-introduction of exhaust gases from previous cycles into the cylinder sounds very promising, and could help increase power, improve mileage, reduce emissions and lengthen the life of catalytic converters.
Unfortunately, you are wrong. It has everything to do with normal accounting and taxes. The tax code was altered to allow rather hefty deductions for those class of vehicles for a lot of people and professions, so the demand went up considerably, and it killed off the smaller normal family station wagon, which it has replaced.
Why am I getting images of steam locomotive valve gears floating in my head???? While the typical valve gears (e.g. Walschaerts, Stephenson, Young, Baker, etc) didn't have that contorl over phasing, they did allow for variable cut-off. Probably closer to this application would have been the Caprotti oscillating cams used for poppet valves - especially since 99+% of the IC engines use poppet valves (major exception are two stroke engines).This is correct. I've seen both trick cams with variable valve timing and engine designs with solenoid-operated valves not connected to the cam for ages now.
Some company's PR department is earning its keep...
Ok this will never even hit the market because it would kill the oil companies. Anyone remember the carb that could get you 100MPG? It was in magazines like Popular Science and stuff. I think I still have the print out [somewhere] on how to build it. It never hit because it would kill the oil companies. There are so many technoligies out there to eliminate ozone killing stuff but it never gets into production. I want to see something actually get all the way to the consumer...maybe when we get better technology to do that...
So was the adiabatic engine
As I was reading the post, one thought immediately came into my head once I first came across the notion that these efficiency gains focussed on 'fuel delivery', which was "I wonder if it would be possible to use some kind of inkjet-like system to get fuel into the cylinders"... you know what I mean? Peizzo electric turbo ultra macro squirters? Then it occurred to me that stuff still needs to get out of the cylinder ... I guess the aforementioned rotating valve approach would be best still : )
// cinn
...that the major stockholders in US car companies DON'T also hold a lot of extremely lucrative oil company stocks? Got a link? Oh, you are guessing, aren't you, just assuming. It's a *system* man, one is not independent of the other. major stockholders who basically decide how things go don't screw themselves over, they look where the most profits are and adjust YOUR reality to address that.
Sales of new cars are about a wash, they make some but not a lot, financing new cars makes some decent money, servicing cars makes a little more, but FUELING new cars (and the old ones still running) is where it is at in the entire automotive/fuel industry stack when you want to make the serious folding green. And if you think these billionaires are ignorant of that, I'd suggest a few weeks just on the headlines in the economic pages.
I read recently about Frank A. Tinker who got a piece published in the International Journal of Energy Research where he claims he has figured out a way to boost internal combustion engine efficiency by something like 30%.
Dog is my co-pilot.
I'm a complete idiot when it comes to car repair, but in 1976 I replaced the head gasket on my Oldsmobile Rocket 350 V8 with a couple of adjustable wrenches. Super easy to work on.
I remember when the heater core went -- no sweat, pull the hose off the heater core input, plug it back into the block, done deal. Six months later when I had the money I pulled the heater core and replaced it.
Front bearings need to be repacked? Piece of cake. Just don't forget the cotter pin that holds the whole damn wheel on, and you're good to go.
Car was unbeatable in a straight line. Handled like crap otherwise, though, but who cared. Nothing like a 350 with a racing transmission and a 4 barrel off the line, baby.
Nowadays, I open the hood and it's a sea of hose assemblies and pipes, can't even see the block. If you buy the shop manual, you find out the first thing you need is a zillion-dollar set of metric torque wrenches before you even start. Screw that.
Then the solenoid went on my Honda Accord, and I found out you can't buy a solenoid any more. You have to buy the whole "alternator assembly" which includes alternator, solenoid, voltage regulator, and God knows what else -- to the tune of $400. I came THIS CLOSE to ripping the goddamn "alternator assembly" apart and fixing the solenoid myself, except I actually have to work for a living. So frustrating.
Ok, but how much did it weigh? ICE isn't the design of choice because it's the most efficient gasoline engine. It's chosen because it has a good power/weight ratio, which affects total efficiency of a device that must accelerate itself often.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Scientists have finally created a radical new type of bomb for use by countries
that want to "go green". The bomb can flatten entire cities while generating
only one third of the radiation of conventional warheads.
Of course, a slightly more efficient gas-burning SUV is still a gas-burning SUV,
and isn't going to solve anything. We need to stop using SUVs.
Well, no actually. A rotary such as the current Mazda 1.3 litre simply spins faster than the equivalent piston engine. The volume passed per unit of time is the relevant comparison, not the static displacement.
Since the RX8 competes with similar HP sports cars by guzzling at SUV rates, it indicates Mazda's best effort so far is still inferior in power conversion of the gasoline. (Though the smoothness is great fun.)
As for turbines, same deal really. The aircraft turbine has yet to match piston engines on efficiency for short flights. You have to run long-haul at cruise altitude before the overall fuel consumption is lower.
The idea of a completely spinning engine is very seductive, but the actual results of forty years of careful research has not delivered a spinning engine that's better than the 'tossing potatos'. This is counter intuitive, and it's entire worth your while to dig into the studies to find out why that is.
We could heavily invest in solar and lithium ion batteries and solve our pollution problems, our economic problems, and our foreign policy problems.....
Nah, makes too much sense. Let's have Fox forge another election. Maybe will get a chick this time.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Say what?
Howsabout the BICYCLE!
It is amazing, I tell you.
Zero gasoline used in its operation. Nearly silent on the roads. Easy to store and maintain.
It reduces sprawl, encourages shopping in locally owned stores nad commercial districts. It keeps people healthy by preventing all sorts diseases.
Plus, it is real, really, really fun to use.
most i see are rappers on 24" spinners nukka!
Ducati has been building a system to mechanically control valve closing for quite a while... the desmodromic cylinder head. One cam opens the valve, the other closes it. http://www.ducatidesmo.com/valves.htm
Check out this system: http://www.pattakon.com/ These guys have built a VVA system similar to the BMW Valvetronic without the "tronic" part. No electronics, pure geometry. The result is increased power, torque and efficiency and a stable idling speed down to 300rpm which dramatically reduces the consumption of the engine when idling. The english and aesthetics of the site are below average but the engineering is ingenious. Still ideas like that are doomed due to the "not invented here" syndrome of the manufacturers.
I for one welcome our SUV snorking overladies o.O
Ok this is a breakthrough! But what Honda's VTEC (nowadays iVTEC) did when it debut in Formula One almost twenty years ago? I am _sure_ that BMW VANOS is not similar, like Toyota's VVT-I, Mercedes EVT, and others.... (sick)
If the valves are not controlled by mechanically linking them to the crankshaft, how do you move them? Ideally, small electrical actuators would provide computerized control but then where does the electricity come from to run these actuators? this is an obvious concept with no practical application, as the power used to drive the valves creates more drag on the alternator which in turn saps power back from the engine anyhow. many systems already exist to alter valve timing relative to piston movement but none remove the link from the crankshaft because of the losses in power.
really, I'm now a bit pissed that I had to read the article to find out there's nothing new here.
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
Of course youre going to increase the efficiency of an engine if you take out the power-leeching timing belts and go to a system that is electronically controlled, allowing for variable timing independant of the crankshaft RPM. Hell, when I first learned what solenoids do, I initially thought 'wow, that would be great for use on engine valves, you could control it with a computer and have much more precise timing!' and that was nearly 10 years ago.
Oh boy! %15 extra efficiency, eh? That's certainly going to make up for the 300% gas hike..
Wow - that is a big deal, I had no idea mercedes was practically in production with this:
9 _2006_mercedes_benz_c_class/
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedan/112_050
So, whats new in the article?
In the city, you actually pay for a spot near your home.
Outside the city, you pay for more land (more driveway, more garage) which you may choose to use for parking.
Then of course the insurance company will not give much of a discount for the extra cars. Perhaps they assume you loan them out, or that you really do drive much more.
Obligatory off-topic tale: One New Year's Eve, I was driving home in the ice storm from hell with a girlfriend, when we come across a pickup truck trying to go up a particularly icy street in front of a bar. They were flooring it, and apparently had been for some time, because by the time we got there they had worn the turning wheel down to bare rim, which was shooting an impressive stream of sparks as they gunned it. Said girlfriend hopped out and dropped a hint. Slightly drunken answer: "We know." I guess if ya gotta drive drunk, it's best if your vehicle at least doesn't actually move.
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
Is a Honda Element an SUV? I was never much interested in this class of vehicle until a couple friends of mine, independently of each other, bought Elements. My first reaction was that it was probably the most gruesome-looking vehicle I had ever seen. After actually driving around in them on a few errands, however, I became impressed. The space in the back is really pretty efficient. It's only after you pop the seats out of the back and have to tie down a vintage moped that you realize that the little hooks to connect your tie-lines to seem to be in just the right places. And though the inside of the compartment doesn't look all industrial, sure enough you can hose out all the gasoline that leaked out of the bike and be on your way. And it really is pretty roomy back there. You could sleep in it, no problem. You could stack a lot of boxes in it. But up front, it feels like you're in a car. You're not too high up, you're not too huge, and it doesn't feel like you're in an industrial vehicle, even though you can get a 4WD option. I believe the factory-standard CD player will even play MP3 discs.
I don't know. The truth is, I don't even drive. But I thought these cars were pretty neat, once I got over what a fright they are to look at.
Breakfast served all day!
Their efforts have generally been in the camless valve control mechanism. The best variable valve timing I have ever seen is in a Ferarri engine, they actually machine the cam shafts lobes so that they can be moved horizontally across the top of the valves in accordance to the rpm of the crankshaft, that way there is a smooth transition of valve lift, duration and timing rather than other engines where there is a switch in timing using a wedge or other device so that the timing is either one setting or another with no graduation.
Task Mangler
You mean, like the General Motors EV1, available for sale at your local dealership?
... they're all vaguely threatening if you're a dinosauric car manufacturer.
Oh, wait, it's not available anywhere, because GM killed it, even though there were people pretty much lining up to buy them. Instead they recalled all the prototypes, scrapped the project, and destroyed most of the test cars. (Actually 'destroy' puts it lightly -- they annihilated them, like they were really trying to wipe them out without possibly leaving any trace or evidence around. They removed all the key components, crushed them, and then immediately had the crushed hulks melted down. The only extant vehicles have been lobotomized via removal of key components.)
The auto industry -- and I think this goes for both the U.S. and most of the other ones -- have very little interest in anything that's going to fundamentally alter or shake up the landscape. Electric cars, high-mileage cars, fuel-cell cars
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Isn't it funny that a "major improvement in the design of the Internal Combustion Engine" is said to result in "reduced US dependence on foreign oil" and not something like "reduction in global warming across the world" or "reduced consumption of fast-depleting fossil fuels."
:D
This is like a finding a cure for cancer which would reduce the skin cancer rate among the lifeguards in Southern California.
From TFA: "This improved combustion efficiency also would reduce emission of two other harmful gases contained in exhaust: global-warming carbon dioxide..." I'm really getting sick of all of this global warming paranoia. News flash people: C02 is perfectly natural, humans only create like 1% of all C02 on the earth (The ocean makes the most.), and it is *NOT* causing global warming! THE SUN CAUSES THE TEMPERATURE TO INCREASE! I know, shocking! When there are lots of sun spots, the temperature of the earth goes up. When there aren't very many, the temperature goes down. It's as simple as that.
eldavojohn wrote:
The idea of variable valve actuation has been around for a while as well as HCCI, which has some problems that are yet to be overcome.
Right you are. It has been around and its even been used a few time successfully. One notable example is Renault's turbocharged engine that they ran with some success in formula one racing. its used vacuum activated valves. Because formula one motors spin quite fast they were able to use the pressure of the piston rising to help close the valve. It worked well at high RPM but not so well at lower speeds.
Variable valve timing, as it is currently used, It generally lets you change the timing relative to the position of the crankshaft. it doesn't let you change the number of degree's that the valves are open or the lift that the valves open. The most advanced system I am familiar with has only 2 profiles for the cams. One it uses at low speeds and one that it uses at high speeds. Truly variable timing for the valves opens up many options for increasing the efficiency of the engine.
Making an engine run clean as well as getting good mileage is very well understood. Whats hard as heck is doing it over a wide range of engine speeds and loads. If you think about the idea of a hybrid, Using a gas or diesel engine driving a generator, feeding a storage battery, driving electric motors. It shouldn't be more efficient. Each step that you add you should lose energy. what the hybrid allows for, is for the internal combustion engine to run at a near constant speed in its sweet spot. Any loses from the extra steps are more than offset by the gains in efficiency from running the gas or diesel in its sweet spot. From what I understand about it, the combination of truly variable valve timing and CV transmission could yield upwards of 20% to 30% gains in efficiency.
In my time observing the big three, what I have found them to be afraid of isn't new technologies but rather, it's anything that makes the automobile more expensive to produce. You would be amazed at the engineering effort that GM uses to figure out how to make a simple pulley for a nickel less. The truth is that the big three are just trying to make a buck. No one MAKES you BUY a car. If they can continue to make money selling monster SUVs that get lousy mileage, they will continue to sell monster SUVs. If the market tells them that they want more efficient vehicles, you may be certain that they will produce them. Its happening slowly but, it is happening. As gas prices go up and stay up the demand for huge cars and trucks are going down. Not a moment too soon in my opinion. I never understood the whole SUV thing. Cars make lousy trucks and trucks make lousy cars. Use cars for car things and use trucks for truck things. That always seems to work best for me. Just my 2 cents
Archie
Why bother? Harbor Freight says you will get
. taf?Itemnumber=36098
11.6% average highway fuel savings (whatever that is) with their
fuel line gadget. Maybe you could put on 4 and get 46.4%
average highway fuel savings. Put on 8 and you'd practically
be driving free.
See:
http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem
quote:
Save Fuel and Money. Simply strap to your fuel line to save gas and increase engine efficiency. FuelMaster's magnetic field breaks up clusters of hydrocarbon for more complete burning. Prevents build-up of dirt in engine injectors. Gives you 11.6% average highway fuel savings as tested by an EPA accepted laboratory. Use it on four cylinder cars and trucks.
The article mentions improving gasoline mileage to meet or exceed current diesel technology, but mentions in the next paragraph that the tech can also be used with diesel. With production diesels in low 70's (Audi, Volkswagen) to the 157MPG, Loremo LS, a 10-15% improvement would yield seemingly astounding figures.
true, but i think that loophole is what made them seem trendy in this age of relatively expensive gasoline.
i would think *SOMEBODY* could close that loophole. i understand that it is there for farmers etc that need to buy heavy vehicles for their industry, but when it somehow extends to doctors and lawyers buying the Hummer H2 as opposed to a Honda or even a Jeep Grand Wagoneer because they can write off the H2 and not the others... something is kind of messed up. only the largest of the SUVs are covered in that write-off (think Hummer, Chevy Suburban, Ford Excursion etc). It's really intended for massive farm equipment type stuff, and the spirit of the law was that the high weight excluded pretty much any passenger vehicle at the time. oops!
The system you're familiar with sounds like early-90s VTEC.
Agreed, though, about the hybrid systems' big efficiency factor being that they allow their engines to run in their 'sweet spot' for maximum efficiency. However, I'd assume that much of the advantage of a system such as the one in the article would be lost in such a situation, since it gets its efficiency from being able to tune its valve timings to run at maximum efficiency regardless of RPM/load. The combinations that make most sense to me would be either a full-variable-valve-timing engine with a manual gearbox (the most efficient torque converters we have), or a fixed-valve-timing engine optimized for a particular speed and tied to a CVT. The second is much simpler to build.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Hmm, maybe something to do with the fact that the EV1 was a $500 million white elephant? Sure, people would have wanted to buy them, but at $35,000 a pop? Hybrids sound like a better business model, and bigger batteries and plug-in capacity will eventually get us there anyway.
Jesus is coming -- look busy!
What about Ducati Motorcycles - they get rid of the springs by using the cam to open and force the valve shut... has this been done in cars at all?
I thought that a lot of this had been done already by Lotus, I certainly remember TV new spots on it a few years ago.
A quick Google has brought up this from 2004.
Of course I haven't actually read the article, hey this is Slashdot!
essentially the car companies would see their market slowly fade away as cars lifespans would be longer and longer.
There have been many attempts over the years to supplant the traditional poppet valve technology in IC engines. Several engine designs already sport variable valve timing to control when and how much exhaust gas exits the cylinder. I have only heard of a few contenders that replace the whole valve train/gear train concept. The one that looks most intriguing to me is one I read about years ago in a hot rodder's magazine. (I forget which one, either Hot Rod or Car Craft) The Coates spherical rotary valve.
I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
from the article:
"U.S. petroleum imports are predicted to increase about 35 percent by 2030. At the same time, the transportation-related emission of carbon dioxide is expected to rise by about 35 percent in the United States"
I guess that they mean that no matter how much environmentalists try to cut transportation emissions, they cannot ever do it by improving efficiency.
Sorry, electronic variable valve timing is not new technology nor is it revolutionary.
It's merely an evolution of the internal combustion engine.
What do people thing the whole 42V initiative is about? Higher electrical demands in automobiles for things like electrically activated valves, all electric power steering (already in use), electric-boost power brakes/traction control.
Removing the continuous demands of these systems from the engine increases modularity and gives designers new packaging options for component placement.
Science, Technology, Detroit will FUBAR this
We're on the verge of selling our two late model Hondas (both get good gas miliage) then buying a new Prius as our main vehicle and a well used import truck (4 cyl) as a secondary utility and camping rig. I buy American made when ever possible (like my Harley) - but the big 3 have shit-for-brains when it comes to delivering break-thru technology. Hell - even Nissan is licensing Toyota's hybrid technology for their hybrid offering.
Its not the years, its the mileage
This has been known for quite sometime now.
It's nothing new, and hardly something applicable in the short term.
If it's pneumatic valves, wouldn't last near long enough and prohibitively expensive ala certain Formula engines.
Electric valves, 24V or any other, do not have the capability to survive in a reliable and flawless manner in a stressful life, i.e. high rpm, high heat, long term capability, all at the same time. When I don't have to fear a solenoid fritzing and nuking a $30K SBC, then I'll make that jump.
Rotary valves, while nifty, are likewise prohibitively expensive in the short term outside of nicely lined sponsored rides. I'm not looking to blow an easy 60K on a perfectly balanced durable big block to reel 10K. While it'd be cool, theres a hell of a lot cheaper and easier ways to get ridiculous power out of current solutions.
How about more development into the cerametallic blocks, bore liners, pistons, heads etc. ? It'd be nice to have a ridiculous low thermal expansion rate, so that way you can have a far better seal, higher efficiency, you know... useful things.
In 1991 BMW started using variable intake valves. Now both intake and exhaust valves are variably controlled via the DME (brain). You don't even have a throttle in the normal sense, just different valve timing controlled by the computer. http://www.bmwworld.com/technology/vanos.htm
"The idea of a completely spinning engine is very seductive, but the actual results of forty years of careful research has not delivered a spinning engine that's better than the 'tossing potatos'."
C orporation
t _Tiny_(MYT)_Engine
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:StarRotor_
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Massive_Ye
-Animation: http://www.angellabsllc.com/animation.html
Two highly innovative, extremely efficient rotary engines...
-ubuntu others as you would have others ubuntu you.
A decent car with proper tires would be better - ask the Swedish about driving in snow and blizzards.
High center of gravity and lots of wheel-spinning torque isn't what you want in snow/ice - quite the opposite in fact.
No sig today...
Simple! Just add a few sacks of dead weight to your car to adjust the weight distribution and make it handle properly!
No sig today...
If you need to tow something "on occasion" you could borrow/rent a proper towing vehicle for that.
You'll tow better/easier and you won't be driving around in a monster for the rest of the year.
No sig today...
Shucks... thats nothin'
My grandad's got plans for an engine that runs on just water, locked up in a safe in the trailer.
It don't even need no exhaust pipe!
Them boys got nothin' on us...
>"I can comfortably afford to maintain and pay for one vehicle, not three. How about you?"
Well... I've been to the dealership and seen the price of SUVs. I've also seen how much SUVs cost to insure, maintain and fill up with gas.
This is Slashdot so I assume you can do the math by yourself....
I'm not saying you should drive a Prius. As far as I'm concerned the Prius is an overrated, overpriced, ugly heap of plastic. What I'm saying is that there's no need for an everyday runaround car to weigh two or three tons. Excess weight = pointless consumption.
No sig today...
I built one of 'electronic-camshafts' in my workshop about 20 years ago, fitted to the engine of an old Honda 2 cylinder motorcycle. The increase in power and efficiency was so startling that I went as far as applying for a patent. Then found it'd been patented about 15 years earlier still. Bit of a waste of time and money. At least nowadays one can sit with a stack of CDs or even Google and search these things yourself.
threadeds blog
Is there any difference between the two? VVT is very common on Toyota cars.. so I don't understand how they just invented something that we can already buy.
Is it anything like CO?
New Design? Well... yes, if you are in 1998! Toyota, Honda and BMW already have this kind of tecnology. Electronicly controled valves through fast acting actuators.
I figure people should be able to buy whatever they want - if they can afford the 300 horsepower 12 mpg Escalade than Goddess bless them - but they should be able to pay for the privilege. If gas goes up to $6 in the Colonies perhaps folks will rethink their personal energy consumption.
;-)
;-)
Folks wants their horsepower and are willing to pay for it so why shouldn't Detroit accomodate them? The Big Three haven't really increased corporate fuel economy in 20 years. It boggles the mind why consumers want the gummint (or the automakers) to enforce standards they could easily support by voting with their wallet. Don't want a 300 horsepower land yacht? Don't buy one. If enough people don't buy one Detroit will stop making them
Gasoline in Europe is no more expensive than it is here in the Good Ol' USofA - they just tax hell out of it to pay for other stuff, like subsidizing public transportation. I think that's a good thing and it wouldn't bother me a bit to see $6 gas over here. If you wanna drive the land yacht, pay for the privilege. If you wanna drive a Prius you can reap the financial rewards (more on that later). I drive over 100 miles round trip to the office three days a week in a car that gets about 30 mpg on the highway - I work from home the other two days.
Speaking of that Prius - if you live in the city it's a good thing. If you have to drive far on the highway to get to the office the current crop of hybrid cars is a lousy idea. In my case it's 55 miles of freeway from the house to the office and less than three miles of in-town driving. In a situation like mine the Prius would be an exceptionally stupid choice since a gasoline engine pulling around a few hundred pounds of batteries is considerably *less* efficient than a car of equal weight with the same size gasoline engine.
The wannabe engineers can argue all they like, but using a gasoline engine to charge batteries to run an electric motor is considerably less efficient than using that same gasoline engine to drive the wheels on a vehicle. Regenerative braking helps, but the bottom line is that when you make a trip that starts and ends at the same place you'll spend exactly as much time going uphill expending energy as you will recovering that energy through the brakes.
But - it's good to recover energy if we can. In town hybrids are at least as efficient as their gasoline counterparts, but I'd offer that the American public still isn't eco-friendly enough to sit still for a car with a 1.3 liter 76 horsepower engine - even if the car was just as efficient as the Prius since it didn't have to haul around a couple hundred pounds of batteries and electric motors
My dad is a diesel nut - there's been at least one diesel car in my parents' driveway since before I was born 50 years ago - I learned to drive on an old '53 Mercedes 170DS. Wish my dad still had that car - or that I did, but I digress.
Bottom line for me is that the majority of the American public is too lazy to conserve on their own, so they want the gummint or the automakers to solve the problem for them - anything as long as they don't have to make any personal sacrifice.
My amusing thought for the day - even the eco-friendly types wanted more horsepower. The original Prius had a 58 horsepower gasoline engine, a 30kw (40 hp) electric motor and a 0-60mph time of 14.1 seconds. The current Prius HSV has a 76 horsepower gasoline engine, a 50kw (67 hp) electric motor and a 0-60 time of 10.1 seconds. Why aren't Prius owners complaining that the technology was used to increase acceleration instead of efficiency?
we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin
...I drive a truck because a puny Prius can't haul my massive member at highway speeds.
There's also the tiny consideration that the world is full of 18 wheelers and 3 ton SUVs, making little tiny envirocars kinda nonsurvivable in a crash. I'd rather live through a rear-ender than die for the ozone layer, thanks all the same.
Dunno where you live, but batteries don't last long in the heat down here. They'd just go from selling you a new car every few years to selling you new battery packs every few years. Those tend to be expensive to start with, so it's not like it'd cut in to their profits.
Better for the people who need utility vehicles to just buy them, but what should be changed is car insurance and car taxes which should be on the driver not the car. That would make it affordable for many more people that need a utility vehicle to keep it around without driving it and buy a commuter car for their common transportation needs.
Used to be that people that needed individual transportation would have a horse, and those that had greater transport requirements would also have a buggy that they could hook up. Very efficient use of resources. Perhaps cars with more variable horsepower could have a towing capacity for times when you need it and reduced power to save gas when it is just you.
I know the earthy crunchy types don't have much compassion for those people with 4-5 kids, but that is a situation where you can't always just ferry your children a couple at a time back and forth from places.
So, there will be situations where utility vehicles are needed more than just a couple predictable times a year, so you need to let people have that flexibility without society punishing them arbitrarily.
Why not just use diesel....
From the artical: USA imports are expected to increase 35% by 2030.
Sorry. It is just mind boggling how ill informed people are. This is polyanna thinking at its best.
Now just where do they think this oil is going to come from? President of Talisman is quoted saying we are at peak oil now. So he joins the ranks of many others who have been warning about this for several years.
The major story in 2008 is likely to be the energy crisis.
Damn it would be nice if Slashdot would fix their severs so I could log in!
In fact, if I put my statistics hat on just right, I can prove to you with very high confidence that at least one motor has failed.
Some one (who knows) please explain the different between this and BMW's VANO technology.
For example, we have a rare need to move horses. I don't have a horse trailer (yet), but my wife's uncle has a dairy farm. We borrow his gooseneck stock trailer and his pickup when we need to move a horse. The stock trailer is lighter and shorter than my RV, but I am very uncomfortable driving his truck. The mirrors are different and the truck turns and breaks differently than my truck does. So we're probably going to buy a bumper pull horse trailer so that we have our own vehicle.
I really don't think that renting/borrowing is a solution. By the way, I also own two other vehicles. Our Suburban gets limited use outside of pulling trailers unless we have to transport extra people.
And that's a valid point. Oh, wait. We've got cheap, plentiful prophylactics and no shortage of people. Why do they have 4-5 kids, again?
Suck it up and buy the vehicle that fits your needs. Nobody's saying that you can't own a SUV or truck if you honestly need the towing/hauling capacity. What people are saying is that people who buy a Hummer because they have to take their only child to soccer practice and want to impress the Joneses should have been sterilized before they could pass on the stupid gene.
We're going to need horsepower to survive the future!
They don't care about the size of the car, of course, they care about the size of the bank account that can afford a brand new, expensive car.
You can't take the sky from me...
Errr... maybe I've just missed it but I am amazed that http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/birminghampost /news/tm_method=full%26objectid=18967955%26siteid= 50002-name_page.html this hasn't been mentioned anywhere outside Birmingham (thats Birmingham, UK)
Surely more of a breakthrough than this?
Okay read the article, and considder is this a starving industry scream?
Afraid of new technology like hydrogen engines.
Or even worse for them (but more likely in the future) electric engines?
I cannot imagine why one would spend huge amounts of money in an industrie that's going to seize in the next 15 ~ 25 years to do such investigations. Several improvements are possible to todays engines but their effect will not be at a big scale perhaps only some new cars will use (if at all...).
I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid. You're afraid of us. You're afraid of change.
Then the solenoid went on my Honda Accord, and I found out you can't buy a solenoid any more. You have to buy the whole "alternator assembly" which includes alternator, solenoid, voltage regulator, and God knows what else -- to the tune of $400. I came THIS CLOSE to ripping the goddamn "alternator assembly" apart and fixing the solenoid myself, except I actually have to work for a living. So frustrating. I'm pretty sure a complete car-repair idiot wouldn't even know how to spell solenoid, let alone tell what it is, that it's broke, where it is, and how to fix it themselves.
You can't take the sky from me...
No problem. Glad to help keep a balance with the head-in-the-sand, screw-the-consequences perspective. ;)
I guess I'll have to concede this point because the phrase 'computational model' is so vague, but I have seen some of the statistical modeling (Taguchi modeling, for example) that went into 1980's Fords. This modeling is used to continually tune spark advance and fuel flow, down to the individual injectors. This was over 20 years ago.
I hope these guys do some good work, but it looks evolutionary, not revolutionary, to me.
Best regards.
No he is advocating buying a SUV for many reasons, That is just one of the many draw backs of not having one.
This thread is amazing, First there was a guy advocating the idea that you should duplicate your costs by renting something you could already own and then although jokingly (i think) someone else is advocating mandating how many children can you have. It simply amazes me that they same people are likely to be the ones crying and moaning when the government does something to intrude on their freedoms because they think something, you should have you freedoms cut.
Well, You waist gas by driving over 55MPH so lets continue this line of though and mandate no driving over 55. We can even mandrake electronic speed limiters to enforce it and life in prison if you remove the limiter. Lets see, if we are safer at 55, we can mandate more seat belts and better air bags and cut the others safety features on the car because they have adverse environmental effects. Why not pull all fat out of food and make it illegal for a commercial establishment to serve deep fried foods why we are at it. It has nothing to do with a car but as long as we are justifying limiting someone's freedoms, we might as well sneak it in.
In a country were a lot of what it is made of results to because you can and with this coming from your ability to be free in this country, I'm simply amazed at how people are quick justify limiting your freedom when it doesn't effect them at all.
How many of these hummers taking their one kid to soccer end up taking many other kids to soccer when their parrents can't do it?
But more interestingly, I know several people who have to drive clients around, animals like pets and such. Let me ask you, If you were looking to buy a house, would you be more inclined to look at my offerings sitting scrunched up in the back of a Prius with your wife and _KID_ while me and an associate take you to several offerings or would you be more open to business if you had plenty of room and were comfortable?
How about if you were in from the Chicago office or something and I had to take you to meet several customers and we would end up driving an hour or so before getting to them? What is you disposition going to be like if you can stretch out and relax, have plenty of room to go over your materials and such compared to sitting in a Toyota Celica or Honda Accord. Now we have two other coming along too. Now, could i justify this with only having one kid or no kid at all? And yes, there is a reason rich people ride around in big limos going from one business deal to another outside you thinking they look like a hotshot or cool in doing it.
fractoid wrote:Actually, Toyota's VVTL-i system allows continuously variable timing and lift duration, along with many others.
Nope it aint so. You have 2 profiles for the cam itself. Timing may be continuously variable but lift, and duration are fixed at 2 options. You have the low speed lobe and you have the high speed lobe. The duration, and lift of each lobe is fixed. By changing the timing of the intake vs. the exhaust you can change the overlap to some degree. In all fairness, I could not find complete info on the lexus version vvtl-ie. It may be different but, from the desciption I read, it looked to do about the same thing just using electric motors rather than hydraulics. There may very well be systems out there that I don't know about. If I over looked anything I am sorry. Whats more, what makes this new system unique is the ability to adjust the timing for each valve independently. There are great advantages to being able to do this. Witness the SAAB Trionic engine managment system which allows for setting the ignition timing and mixture independently for each cylinder. The thing runs so clean than what was coming out the tail pipe on a nasty day in london was cleaner that what went in the intake. The big thing that vvtl does is lets the motor behave like an 2 valve per cylinder engine at low speeds(greater intake charge velocity causing more swirl in the combustion chamber leading to a cleaner burn) and like a 4 valve per cylinder motor at high speed ( more volume, more power ). In a nutshell it let you turn off two valves(one intake and one exhaust) at low speed and it lets you run a different fixed profile at high speed on the second set of valves. Clever? Yes. The equal of what perdue is doing? No.
As far as the best setup, I stand by my statement about fully variable valve timing coupled to a CVT. While the CVT will minmise changes in engine speed it will not eliminate the changes in load. Acceleration will still need more power and deceleration less. Part of why fixed valve timing engines do so well in hybrids is that they can run at close to a fixed load. They use the battery array to add power when needed and to absorb extra power when available. The real question is will running at a near constant speed make up for any mechanical loses from using a CVT? They will have to perfect the continuously variable valve timing motor before we know for certain but, My gut is it will. Thats not to take anything away from a manual gearbox. Personally I prefer a manual transmission. We already have had some fixed valve timing with cvt cars out there. The Subaru Justy was one. The milage was pretty impresive.
Archie
So...did you even read my post? I was questioning, not accusing. If the person has 4-5 kids, why do they have that many kids? We don't live in an agrarian society anymore, so there's no need for that many children. Do they have a religious reason for it, or are they just too ignorant/uninformed to know about birth control? And what about the person driving the Hummer? Do they have a big family? Do they need to haul cargo/tow trailers, or are they just trying to impress people with the amount of money they can afford to waste?
The point is that unless you have a definite, consistent use for a vehicle that only gets 18 miles per gallon, you're wasting a resource that could be put to better use.
I'm not going to bother replying to most of this post, as you're illustrating exactly the kind of thing I was asking: Do they need the extra space the gas-guzzler provides. If so, great! Drive the gas guzzler!
And yes, there is a reason rich people ride around in big limos going from one business deal to another outside you thinking they look like a hotshot or cool in doing it.The key phrase there is "business deal". Once again, you're taking my perfectly reasonable request for people to drive the vehicle they need and twisting it to imply that I'm telling everyone to drive a Geo. I can no more accurately claim that everyone can do what they need to in a commuter car than you can claim that there aren't people who ride around in limos just because they can.
I fail to see how that point isn't clear in my original post, but I guess I'll keep reiterating it until our test database is restored and I can get back to work. :P
Way to debate. I can see you took a special course in college. *sigh* If you're not going to carry your end of the discussion, we're both wasting our time here.
Fucking brilliant.
I wish i had mod points to push you to +5.
So far I couldn't have argued it better myself...keep up the good work
How dare you assume to know what people need vs. what they want.
Fuck you and your argument.
WTF? Over?
Smug Alert!
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
TFA fails to mention that Toyota and Honda have been using VVT (Variable Valve Technology) to fine tune the valve/piston timing for maximum efficiency/performance for over ten years already. Furthermore, reintroducing the unburned fuel trapped inside exhaust gasses has been used by all the major auto manufacturers since the 1970s....it's called EGR (Exhaust Gas Recirculation) and this REDUCES engine power output because some of the reintroduced mixture has been burnt already and is now inert in terms of combustion capabilities. Also, most major advances in engine efficiency were triumphed in the 1950's with Chrysler's Hemi (Hemispherical combustion chamber design) along with Cross Flow design. The scientists in this article are not touting anything new or earth shattering. They are trying to one-up the 100+ year-old auto industry that has already reached maturity and is now finally incorporating hybrid electronic technology into mechanical power production. Unfortunately, they are still touting Ethanol as a suitable replacement fuel without addressing the fact that it is WATER based (because it comes from plant materials), absorbs water from the atmosphere more readily than petroleum based fuels, has a shorter shelf life, has a lower specific heat of combustion, and poses a myriad of problems for internal combustion engines! We need to make our engines smaller (to reduce unburned combustion byproducts), have all engines use Hemispherical combustion chambers with cross-flow designs (to maximize efficiency), and utilize the VVT technologies already developed. This might mean the consumer pays more for their cars because Chrysler and Toyota will be receiving more royalty monies, but we will have a better and more efficient vehicle to drive, and these researchers can go back to more productive work like designing better user interfaces and HCI components that will decrease the driver's cognitive load.
Perhaps cars with more variable horsepower could have a towing capacity for times when you need it and reduced power to save gas when it is just you.
Take a look at the newest GMC hd trucks with the Active Fuel Management System, they are dynamically changing the number of cylinders which are being used depending on engine load. A step in the right direction.
The fact that you are using a computer at all tells me that you require about the same amount of resources as I do and I suspect that blaming others just makes you feel better about your own contribution to Global Warming, Pollution, and Loss of Wildlife and Habitat. Even if you go off, buy a hundred acres and live in a way that is individually carbon neutral then you are still taking up space that means that someone else is probably forced into a city where they will ultimately pollute more, burn fossil fuels and obliterate any semblance of a natural habitat.
This is not an issue of morality. We must solve our energy problems not by nominal increases in efficiency. If you think that we can save civilization by saving 5% then we are doomed.
Perhaps they like children? Perhaps they believe that they are much better at creating a more productive person than others and choose to help even the number of productive / unproductive people in a given society? Your guess is as good as mine, however, I currently have 4 and have had 7 at one time.
.gov I am paid once a month so I make one major trip to acquire resources needed for the month. The rest of the month I can make a stop here or there as necessary.
My reason... I am a foster parent! Yes my wife drives an SUV. It is a Chevrolet Trail Blazer Extended with the 3rd row of seats, the 2 youngest are in car seats and the 2 oldest are teenagers. At one time i had 4 teenagers and 2 babies, another time i had 4 babies and the 2 teans. (Now THAT was a car full)
Perhaps if more people were foster parents there would be less children needing a home and people like us would be able to purchase smaller vehicles.
To work and back everyday I drive a small Nissan Pickup, I need a pickup for haling things and pulling trailers, etc. but when I need to pull my boat... I am going to take the kids as well so I don't need a big truck as the blazer will do just fine. Don't knock my blazer when you see it parked in a grocery store parking lot, some times next to my pickup just so we can hall all the food these kids, and inevitably their friends or nieces and nephews, are going to eat. Working for the
Not that I feel the need to justify my self or my SUV but to explain that just because you see some people waling around with 4+ kids doesn't mean (always) they don't know about / use birth control.
Very valid points. Thank you for turning this back into an actual debate.
You are calling a class of people selfish based on the way they allocate resources for themselves, yet you are the one that wants to allocate resources for them based on your own value system.I'm not sure I see the relevance of your statement. Of course I want to see my value system used; it's the reason people argue about anything. The core of a debate is that person A is doing something person B thinks is ill-advised, and person B thinks they have a better way.
Even if you go off, buy a hundred acres and live in a way that is individually carbon neutral then you are still taking up space that means that someone else is probably forced into a city where they will ultimately pollute more, burn fossil fuels and obliterate any semblance of a natural habitat.I don't think the assumption that cities are a bad thing is valid. Given current usage of fossil fuels and the general setup of sanitation systems, etc., cities are indeed a detriment to the environment, but there are technologies we could use to reduce their impact. I also take issue with the assumption that moving into the country will force other people into a city. Island nations are the only nations that currently have housing space issues. (At least to my knowledge; I welcome correction here.) America, for example, has vast tracts of land that are habitable but simply not used. Granted, many are places where people don't want to live, but that's another discussion. Buying land and using it to reduce my impact on the environment doesn't cause someone else to have a greater impact if the land I'm purchasing was currently unused. It's almost exactly the reverse of using energy that doesn't need to be used, actually, as it takes an unused resource that was having zero impact and turns it into a positive impact.
This is not an issue of morality. We must solve our energy problems not by nominal increases in efficiency. If you think that we can save civilization by saving 5% then we are doomed.And I agree with you, at least in thinking we need to do more than minor tweaks to the efficiency of internal combustion engines. However, your stance seems to be that there's nothing else we can do at the moment, so a minor increase in efficiency should be discarded entirely. What logic is there in continuing as we are simply because we can't completely change the system right now? We should definitely strive to find new sources of energy, but in the meantime, why shouldn't people who use more energy than they require be encouraged to reduce their consumption? Given that we have no way of knowing when a breakthrough in energy production and/or consumption will happen, why shouldn't we reduce our energy consumption by 5% in an effort to extend the amount of time we have to search for a better way?
You're quite correct, but the fact that you, as a foster parent, had seven children at one point does mean that somewhere there are humans reproducing who likely needed a lesson in birth control. (Yes, I'm discounting the possibility of orphans for the purpose of that statement.)
You're doing a wonderful thing by providing a stable home for children who need it, and you certainly fall into a category of people who need larger vehicles. The fact that people like you exist does not, however, prove that there are not people who have no need of the SUV they're driving around town.
To me greater authoritarianism isn't worth a little perceived safety. And I don't think it is within your right to say otherwise.
They developed v-tech and tuning? Brilliant!
oh, right, welcome to 20 years ago!
Are you one person, or two? Your last post was very well articulated and to the point, and this one seems to have reverted to not actually reading the parent post.
Imposing your solution on someone else, after you decide that you have "won" the debate, is not the natural outcome of a debate.This was not the topic. You said I was attempting to claim my way was right, and I said that the entire point of a debate was for the debaters to claim that their way was right. We said nothing about how to decide who had "won" or how to implement the winning paradigm.
In terms of resources, they certainly tend to create inefficiencies. I would argue that, historically speaking, cities can only exist when resources are plentiful enough to allow excess.I think to debate this one, I'd have to ask for a far too detailed definition of "city", so I'll agree to your point. This does not, however, negate the possibility of changing the way humans view life within cities or the way a city is organized such that they become feasible.
Where exactly? Seems there is very little arable land that hasn't been put to productive use, or is being used for timber. We are truly dependent on petroleum based fertilizers and pesticides to sustain such high yields that we have.When did this turn into a debate about food production? We do not have a food production issue in America, only a distribution problem. My comment was that there are places where people can live, not that there are places where people can perform agriculture. (Although if you want to go back to individuals producing enough food for their family, we can have that discussion. My family did a decent job of it when I was growing up, so while I don't endorse it as a good idea, I certainly think it's possible.)
You were hardly using words of encouragement. You were using words, politically charged words, crafted to make it easier to scapegoat a class of people so that we might harm them without feeling guilty later on. You have too many kids, charge a fee. You drive too many miles then surcharge. These ideas are designed to increase control over others by the political classes, not actually addressing the real challenges in a substantial way.When this discussion started, it wasn't about a solution, it was about getting people to see that there is a problem, so charged words were the best to use to get someone involved in the discussion. (And it worked, didn't it?) Now that we agree we have an energy problem, what potential solutions are their other than imposing penalties on people who use more than they need? Given that the typical American attitude seems to have become "I'll do what I want and damn the consequences," it seems that penalties are the logical first step. Again, because it will focus people's attention. Once more people are aware that there are problems, it is time to remove the penalties and work on incentives. Note: This is a purely hypothetical course of action. Given the current state of government in America, granting the ability to impose extra fees hardly seems like a good idea. Now, as the person with the opposing viewpoint, it's your idea to present an alternate solution to our agreed-upon problem, and provide reasons that it works. I mention this so that maybe you'll stay a little closer on point with the next post.
To me greater authoritarianism isn't worth a little perceived safety. And I don't think it is within your right to say otherwise.And you were accusing me of using politically-charged words? :) Nice try, but as I stated in the previous paragraph, I don't think extra power for government to punish is a great idea, it's simply one potential course. Let's hear another one.
but the fact that you, as a foster parent, had seven children at one point does mean that somewhere there are humans reproducing who likely needed a lesson in birth control.
;)
OOOOOH you have no idea how bad I would like to stop some of these people from reproducing!!!
and the occasional Redneck(tm) always stops us in WalMart or where ever and ask me all sly like if I have figured out what causes the excess children to... I just smile and then tell him/her that if they would take care of their kids no one else would have to!
I completely agree not everyone who drives an SUV needs one. However, before someone decides to "Key the SUV" they need to find out why the SUV is there in the first place. Yes I have had mine keyed at least once.
Oh and another time at a mall 2-3 or 5 miles from MIT with Oklahoma tags on it. I had no idea I was even near MIT and MUCH less idea that MIT and OU were playing football that day! What are the odds, I was just driving through! I don't count that as an anti SUV though
http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/ezine/article.php? article=629
Just because I agree that there is a finite supply on energy and a potential harm to our environment, doesn't mean that I agree that there needs to be a solution. The only way out of this problem is through technology that replaces oil and natural gas, any other suggestion is merely redecorating and burden shifting.
I... Wait, what? o.O So, if your house is on fire, there's no reason to put it out? I'm sorry, but you can't say that something is a problem but that there's no need for a solution. If nothing needs to be changed, then there is no problem.
The only way out of this problem is through technology that replaces oil and natural gas, any other suggestion is merely redecorating and burden shifting.So there is a problem? Hmmm... Right, I'm done. Either you're simply trolling me and attempting to raise my blood pressure, in which case we're both wasting our time, or you're simply not capable of the level of cognition required to carry on an intelligent debate, in which case I'm wasting my time. *waves*
I wasn't trying to twist your wording to mean "I'm telling everyone to drive a Geo."
I was taking your example and demonstrating that on the surface, buying a hummer to drop _A_kid off at soccer might not be the entire story. I would bet that most people you see like that have other reasons to justify it. But because they don't feel the need to justify everything to everyone, you only notice that they have a hummer to drop the kid at soccer practice.
The saying, don't judge a book by it's cover probably could have help get this across if i prefixed it somewhere in my reply. I don't do this much but here it goes, I appoligize if my comment was misunderstood in that way you took it. That was not my intention. I can only think it was because I failed to communicate my points clearly.
We don't need another combustion engine, we need an engine that can transform the energy stored in the energy carrier efficiently to movement. With combustion, we have too much waste. Take for example electric engines. They have a gigantic torque and power and have little loss (compared to combustion) when transferring the energy from electricity to movement. The only problem is storing the energy and 'refueling' the energy for mobile applications.
What I was thinking personally, that it would be better, safer and more efficient to have electric 'rails' built into the road and about 1KF of gold-capacitors in the car itself. That way cars could also get guided automatically over the network of rails (eliminating accidents and allowing people to do other things while transporting). You know, a personal train, could even be more efficient if cars 'intelligently' collaborated to form larger trains etc.
From what I can read is 2 improvements they made, that others have imho already come up with (or a version of) once: eliminating the mechanical crankshaft-camshaft link (controlling it electronically?) and compressing gasoline (as is done with diesel fuel) before injecting it.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
our society had nothing to do with the death of the Ev-1. If i didnt comment on this post i would mod you down for being stupid. Pay for damages, what damages? There was nothing wrong with it other than that people liked it. The fact that they existed meant that they could be made and that meant that the companies couldnt say it was infeasible and would have to sell 20% electric cars. they didnt want to do that, so they yanked them. They literally had to pry them from the owners. And then despite people wanting to buy out their EV-1's they were all destroyed.
I really don't see how you can connect our admittedly litigious society to this one.
I'm guessing you either
a. work for the auto industry
b. didn't see the movie or do any homework in terms of reading about what you are trying to talk about
"Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny" ~Frank Zappa
EdelFactor
Our wonderful nanny state has established so many regulations regarding cars that it is impossible to simply end support of a line of cars. Spares and safety still have to be assured, even if the user is willing to accept responsibility (as I am well aware EV-1 owners were willing to do). That you think it would need to be mandatory for manufacturers to produce a certain quota of electric cars regardless of actual market demand shows that you if anything support this sort of overregulation.
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
"Our wonderful nanny state"
which state are you talking about, the odd's that I live in your's are only 1 in 50, and I never even said I live in the US, (although I do and am a proud US citizen)
And it's very possible to stop supporting a line of cars, you go bankrupt.
"That you think it would need to be mandatory for manufacturers to produce a certain quota of electric cars regardless of actual market demand shows that you if anything support this sort of overregulation."
No I dont, AND I NEVER SAID I DID. That was the legislation that was passed in california, I'm not spouting opinion, I'm correcting you're errors you moron. YOU obviously didnt see the movie.
California passed a regulation NOT ME, that stated as of year XXXX you had to offer/sell X% electric cars. The automakers didnt like this for a myriad of reasons, and in order to shoot down that argument they had to prove that either the car wasnt feasible and that there was no demand. The problem was the car worked, and there was demand. The only to to eliminate demand was to A. stop selling them. B. halt development. C. discredit them. and D. round up and destroy all the cars.
magically all demand is gone.
I haven't offered my opinion on whether it should be mandatory in any way shape or form, because frankly while I think it should be mandatory my civil liberties I enjoy tell me that I can't impose that because damned if i want someone imposing something like that on me... "For every 1000 lines of propietary code you write you must write 1 free one..."
Big thanks for not reading my post, not reading the article, and not reading or looking up any thing relevant to the discussion before responding to me with the same stupid thing you responded with the first time.
The whole point of what the auto makers were doing was to ELIMINATE DEMAND because it existed.
That you think i said that demonstrates that you dont even read the posts you respond to.
But to be honest I think there should be some regulation. If you want to drive a car that gets 10 miles a gallon you should get slapped in the head. I cant charge them money since they already pay it, but if you do you definately get ZERO pity points when you complain about expensive gas and how you can't pay your bills.
If there was a gas shortage however then i would go ahead and say lets start luxury taxing the morons. Don't get me wrong if you drive a hummer or a suburban and aren't hauling a ton of shit around I think you are a wasteful moron. But you have the right to be one, and spend your money as you wish. I hate saying that but i like my rights and i'm not giving them up to tell someone else how to be responsible.
"Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny" ~Frank Zappa
EdelFactor
I'd like to rant, but just 10 seconds of fact checkiing should be done before ...
:-) ).
luggage space (Kofferraumvolumen):
VW Polo 1.4 Comfortline 5-türig: 270 Liter (80 hp, 15.104 Euros)
Toyota Yaris 1.3 Sol 5-türig: 275 Liter (87 PS, 15.542 Euro)
Opel Corsa 1.2 Twinport Catch Me 5-türig285 Liter (80 hp, 15.080 Euro)
Nissan Micra 1.4 Acenta 5-türig251 Liter (88 hp, 15.090 Euro)
I couldn't find the Sirion in the list, but I've seen it and compared to my Polo the luggage volume is lower.
Btw. I'm sure, that if you compare cars in the same class there isn't anything major that differs by more than 25%. All cars are mostly equal.
And a 2nd btw: My second car is an Audi A2. Yes, the A pillars are thick. But they are thick in most (Mini)-Vans as well. At least for me the higher seating position in those kind of cars is more important than the thick A-pillars. But your mileage may vary (mine is 64.20 mpg
Bye egghat
-- "As a human being I claim the right to be widely inconsistent", John Peel
Note that what you need for towing is torque, not horsepower.
And the only real way to get high torque is through high engine volume. In other words, trucks have big engines because thats the only way to get big torque. And big torque is what you need to pull the boat or the enclosed trailer full of quads to the sand dunes.
Now, that being said, shutting off some cylinders during low load _is_ a valid way to reduce fuel consumption when you dont need the torque. But it doesnt reduce the overall weight of the vehicle. So you're still going to get crappy gas mileage, you just will get a little bit better than you would without it.
What does 'need' have to do with anything? And what about the person driving the Hummer? Do they have a big family? Do they need to haul cargo/tow trailers, or are they just trying to impress people with the amount of money they can afford to waste? Maybe its because they like driving a big powerful vehicle. There doesnt have to be any other reason.
I fit into this category. I drive a Dodge Ram with the 5.7L hemi engine. I rarely tow anything (though it does come up now and then), and if I was big into towing, I'd get a bigger, heavier, more powerful truck (3/4 ton with a diesel).
And you know what, the only reason I got that truck with that engine, is because it gives me pleasure. I enjoy driving it. I enjoy the feel of 350 horsepower and 400 lb-ft of torque. I just plain like it.
And for me, the extra cost of the low mileage (10 in the city, 17 on the highway), is fine, and worth it for the pleasure I get out of it.
I know its hard to understand, but not everyone in the world thinks like you, and has the same value system as you do. The point is that unless you have a definite, consistent use for a vehicle that only gets 18 miles per gallon, you're wasting a resource that could be put to better use. Better by whose definition? Yours or mine? By my definition, the cost is a valid tradeoff. And its a market economy on oil, so as long as its sold on the open market and I can afford to buy it, I'll make my own cost/benefit trade-offs, thank you very much.
We dont live in a command economy where you are in charge. And this is a good thing, because not everybody is the same. The things you value, only a relatively small portion of the population values as well. And I'm not saying that your views are a minority, but there are just so many damn views, and opinions, that the only way we can make it work is by us each deciding how we want to spend the fruits of our labor.
I've tried to rent a small towing vehicle for a long road trip and ran into problems. Hopefully you know of something, I'm getting too old to break my rental agreement so much. In the past I've rented a vehicle, bought a hitch, installed it (drilling holes in the frame) and removed it when I'm done. The rental agreement always states that I am FORBIDDEN from towing anything ever. I've never gotten in trouble. Who'd check for holes in the frame anyway?
The only legal options I found were u-haul and equivalents, that charge by the mile. I'm putting 2000 miles on it and the difference in cost is extreme. My install-a-hitch method cost $500 for a week, including the hitch. The legal methods started at $2k, which makes buying a vehicle and selling it afterwards cheaper.
Any suggestions? This is a yearly trip, 1k miles each way, and I need to drag a trailer. My primary vehicle is a Toyota Echo, which cannot be safely made to tow. I wish the cheap rental places (dollar, budget, etc) would have a hitch available but absolutely none of them do.
Man, you really need that seminar!
You are correct, however you may be surprised at the efficiency of these systems. (for their size weight and horse power)n t/ From the wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Fuel_Manageme
http://www.gmc.com/modelSelector.jsp/ select trucks - Active Fuel Management
These look like a step in the right direction. These (according to specs) can get up to 22MPG and 367max hp. Doesn't list torque but states towing cap of 10,500 pounds. (bet that mpg isn't at that hp rating or towing anything:)