Slashdot Mirror


Integrating Capacitors Into Car Frames

necro81 writes "It has long been recognized that adding capacitors in parallel with batteries can improve the performance of hybrid and electric vehicles by accepting and supplying spikes of power, which reduces stress on the battery pack, extending range and improving cycle life. The challenge has been figuring out where to put them, when batteries already compete for space. A new research prototype from Imperial College London has integrated them into the body panels and structural frame of the vehicle itself. In their prototype, carbon fiber serves as both the structure for the vehicle and electrode for the energy storage sandwiched within."

189 comments

  1. What could go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    as a side benefit it functions as reactive armor in a collision.

    1. Re:What could go wrong? by cfriedt · · Score: 1

      yea, totally.

      Also, I bet there will be a big handful of mechanics who get a nice 10A buzz when they remove the panels without properly discharging the capacitors first.

    2. Re:What could go wrong? by myurr · · Score: 1

      Could we also see exploding body panels if they're hit by lightening?

    3. Re:What could go wrong? by Interoperable · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A sure way to see an exploding anything is to hit it lightning.

      --
      So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
    4. Re:What could go wrong? by dotancohen · · Score: 0, Informative

      yea, totally.

      Also, I bet there will be a big handful of mechanics who get a nice 10A buzz when they remove the panels without properly discharging the capacitors first.

      That's a feature, not a bug. Only authorized dealers can work on the thing -> monopoly on service. We already see this in the cars' computers, as well. Did you know that if a non-authorized dealer changes the battery in a modern Ford the radio won't work until the owner brings it in to an authorized dealer for service? Because only authorized dealers (and those who have been burned) know that the "anti-theft" radios disable themselves if they do not get continuous power. Protip: jumper cables to a third batters at the time of battery change prevents this situation.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    5. Re:What could go wrong? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      So does that mean that if you leave a light on and run your battery down, you have to take it to the dealer to get it repaired? What freaking lunatic came up with that one? Not that I'll ever buy a Ford again, given my experiences with them, but that just clinches it.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    6. Re:What could go wrong? by Tanktalus · · Score: 2

      Seriously? I got a used Honda Odyssey earlier this year, and my 2-year-old has already managed to kill the battery once (by turning on a light inside the vehicle that we didn't notice he did). Got a free jump from our local AMA-affiliate (AMA is the Alberta equivalent of the CAA which is the Canadian equivalent of AAA - not sure what the equivalent is in other parts of the world). Noticed the light, turned it off. But the radio and nav systems were both locked out. Opened the user manual where the previous owner put the stickers with the passcodes, entered them in, and everything was working before we left the driveway.

      When looking at these vehicles, I tried some out at the dealership (they wouldn't come down in price far enough, so I left after wasting 5 hours there). In the middle of winter, all the batteries were dead. So I asked the sales critter about it, jokingly complaining about the $35 labour charge for resetting the radio if I didn't already know about it. He said that the sales critters would generally do this for free.

      I'm not sure if he's lying (he is in sales, after all), or if Honda just has nicer policies, but I'd be somewhat surprised if Ford charged for this.

    7. Re:What could go wrong? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Lightening not needed. This will result in exploding body panels if they're hit by a raccoon.

    8. Re:What could go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Off topic, but related to your post. My family has had Hondas for 25 years now (we're probably getting the 6th this year). Honda is generally pretty good on things. But why are you going to the dealer to reset your radio? You can do it yourself.

    9. Re:What could go wrong? by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      I don't know if the dealer would charge for resetting the radio, because i found out about it when getting a quote from the dealer before changing the battery myself. I was lucky. As for the codes, they are not in the user's possession as that would defeat the purpose of having a code in the first place (the dealer's argument when I asked where the codes are). And in any case, even if the codes were in the user's possession, how many would even think to open the fine manual?

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    10. Re:What could go wrong? by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      The truth is full of caveats, but if it gets low enough to warrant replacement and one does not use jumper cables to wire in another battery (dangerous with the positive terminal being very short and near much metal) then the answer is yes. A simple jump start won't require dealer service.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    11. Re:What could go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't know if the dealer would charge for resetting the radio, because i found out about it when getting a quote from the dealer before changing the battery myself. I was lucky. As for the codes, they are not in the user's possession as that would defeat the purpose of having a code in the first place (the dealer's argument when I asked where the codes are). And in any case, even if the codes were in the user's possession, how many would even think to open the fine manual?

      Actually, in the UK, Ford generally put a sticker with the code on the radio itself if it's ever been reset. If you buy a second hand Ford here, pull the radio (insert screwdrivers into the 4 corner holes, pull them towards the middle, and pulll the whole lot out by the screwdrivers) and chances are you'll find it.

    12. Re:What could go wrong? by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 2

      On the bright side, a conductive bullet hitting the side will cause a nice discharge and maybe a fire. Or if a piece of metal pierces the capacitor after a collision, and the discharge either ignites gas fumes if the car is a hybrid, or the short heats something and causes a fire. Yes, energy storage in the frame is a really good idea. Also, if capacitors are in a door panel, which of course moves, then the energy-carrying cable leading out of the door will be flexed every time the door moves, until the day the cable breaks. Although window motor cables seem to endure without breaking, so maybe it's okay.

      I remember experiments in college with exploding-wire phenomena, where we pulsed conductors with capacitors and vaporized wires. This both generates a shock pulse and can do a soft X-ray discharge. Yeah, I want that in my car.

    13. Re:What could go wrong? by jo_ham · · Score: 2

      My sister just bought a brand new Ford - the radio code is "in her possession" in that it's included with the car's manual. They do suggest you don't keep it in the car with the rest of the car's documentation, and that you don't lose it.

      Code-locked radios (for anti theft) have been common for years, mainly because the factory radios don;t usually have removable facias.

    14. Re:What could go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes just what i was about to say what about in a smash nice big high current discharge guarenteed to cause at the very minimum a fire hazard .

      Not a good idea at all much like electric cars in general very alpha work in progress

         

    15. Re:What could go wrong? by ArcCoyote · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Stop spreading FUD.

      Some anti-theft radios have a code, provided with the owner's manual, that you can enter after the radio has lost standby power. Others know what vehicle they are in.

      I'm fairly sure what you were trying to say is that in modern vehicles (As in Fords with the Sync system) the electronics are keyed to the VIN, which is provided by the car's computer. If you remove the radio and put it in another vehicle, it will require rekeying, which can only be performed by authorized service centers.

      There are strict laws when it comes to car safety. Car manufacturers can NOT knowingly (intentional or otherwise) make it dangerous to service a car, as doing so may affect emergency personnel or the driver/passengers in breakdown situations.

    16. Re:What could go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Italian geek here.

      Well, the reported fact regarding Ford cars and radio is really true. I experienced it when my battery went down (broken) all in a sudden during winter and after replacing it the car radio wasn't working at all. No code request at all (inspite of what stated on owner's manual).

      Only bringing the car to the Ford car dealer I got it fixed up.
      No other dealer or shop was able to fix it up: all said to go the a Ford shop.

      I like my Ford Focus, but that awesomely annoyed me.

    17. Re:What could go wrong? by ygslash · · Score: 1

      Better be careful not to stand in a puddle when you open your car door.

    18. Re:What could go wrong? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      caps in my car? not for us auto-philes: we prefer our cars to be dc-coupled.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    19. Re:What could go wrong? by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      If the facts regarding the case of my 2007 Ford Focus impress fear, uncertainty, and doubt upon those who read them, then complain to your friendly Ford engineer, not to me. There is no reason for me to not tell what happened.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    20. Re:What could go wrong? by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      It might be dealer policy, then, rather than corporate policy. I'll ask the dealer, thanks.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    21. Re:What could go wrong? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      I hate it when somebody fires a raccoon at me while I'm driving.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    22. Re:What could go wrong? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      I remember experiments in college with exploding-wire phenomena, where we pulsed conductors with capacitors and vaporized wires. This both generates a shock pulse and can do a soft X-ray discharge. Yeah, I want that in my car.

      Why not? It sounds like something that might give you superhero powers...

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    23. Re:What could go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      people may pay attention while they are driving more often after seeing a couple of collisions first hand.

      Imagaine a couple of 100 farad capacitors on the car and an overheating problem

    24. Re:What could go wrong? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's going to be difficult for you to convince us that you didn't get the code for your radio and then manage to misplace it, given that the rest of us have got the codes with our radios.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    25. Re:What could go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll let you try it first.

    26. Re:What could go wrong? by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      On the bright side, a conductive bullet hitting the side will cause a nice discharge and maybe a fire.

      You mean, if I'm in one of these cars, getting shot at with bullets COULD BE DANGEROUS? Goodness!

      Or if a piece of metal pierces the capacitor after a collision, and the discharge either ignites gas fumes if the car is a hybrid, or the short heats something and causes a fire.

      Again, I don't see how that would be unique to capacitors in the frame. Seems that if you have a collision, and gas is released, -that's- the dangerous part.

      Also, if capacitors are in a door panel, which of course moves, then the energy-carrying cable leading out of the door will be flexed every time the door moves, until the day the cable breaks. Although window motor cables seem to endure without breaking, so maybe it's okay.

      And power locks, and power to the mirrors. So... we agree this is probably not actually an insurmountable problem that engineers would be unable to solve, right?

      I remember experiments in college with exploding-wire phenomena, where we pulsed conductors with capacitors and vaporized wires. This both generates a shock pulse and can do a soft X-ray discharge. Yeah, I want that in my car.

      Ideally the engineers would have taken more classes on the subject and would be able to discern whether or not it was -safe- and would do some testing.

    27. Re:What could go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's an anti-theft feature and has been found in VW's forever, Honda's forever, etc. And it *does not* require a trip to the dealership. Some radios have a "hidden sequence" that spits out a 4 to 6 digit code that you can then cross reference to get the unlock code, while others you pull the radio and write down the serial number, call the dealership, and give them your VIN and radio S/N and they'll give you the unlock code.

      BUT the new cars are suppose to have the code on a card or in the manual, so you can use it SHOULD the battery die. Some even place a stick with the code on the trunk lid or in the glove box. It's not Ford's fault you didn't get a code, it's the dealerships fault for forgetting to give you the code. (Plus honestly I think only the newest of the Ford radios do this, if even half of the new ones... older Fords didn't require a code. I've been a professional installer of alarms, remote starts, audio and video in cars for over 14 years now)

    28. Re:What could go wrong? by tombeard · · Score: 1

      Does a 9V battery hooked in the the lighter socket no longer work?

      --
      The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
    29. Re:What could go wrong? by arivanov · · Score: 1

      No boom today, boom tomorrow, there will always be a boom tomorrow.

      Damn, someone needs to put the things into perspective here...

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    30. Re:What could go wrong? by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      Can body panels change color by themselves?

      Why would body panels explode just because they got lighter?

    31. Re:What could go wrong? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Well...
      "Again, I don't see how that would be unique to capacitors in the frame. Seems that if you have a collision, and gas is released, -that's- the dangerous part."
      They are talking about using body panels. So any impact could cause a breach. Ever see a wreck where no body panel has been damaged? Take a look at a gas tank and you will see how small it is and how they put the "frame" around it to protect it. There that should show the difference.
      and now.
      "And power locks, and power to the mirrors. So... we agree this is probably not actually an insurmountable problem that engineers would be unable to solve, right?"

      I suggest that you read up on how electricity works. Power door locks are tiny 12 volt motors they are low amperage. For simple lesson go open your car door and look how big the wire is. Now open your hood and see how big your battery cable is. For a battery the size of a door will need as least as big of a cable as your battery. So no I don't agree that it is insurmountable of not. It hasn't been done yet. The only way I can think of making it work would be a large flat conductor.

      "Ideally the engineers would have taken more classes on the subject and would be able to discern whether or not it was -safe- and would do some testing."
      Well there you go. They don't take classes in this because it is something new. You take classes in what has been done. And guess what they they are in testing now. Guess what they are in the hey lets try this mode. They are trying to see what as the poster said, "what could possible go wrong stage".

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    32. Re:What could go wrong? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      hah, a typical 9mm or 10mm bullet isn't going to just stop inside the door of any modern car. You'll have bigger concerns such as the holes in you or your passengers.

    33. Re:What could go wrong? by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      I don't know. Nice one!

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    34. Re:What could go wrong? by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      Whether it is dealer policy or Ford policy for not giving the user the code I don't know. But in my case the result is the same. Maybe Ford should make it a policy or requiring their dealers to give out the codes.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    35. Re:What could go wrong? by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      Then I won't bother convincing you. Have a nice week.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    36. Re:What could go wrong? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      What freaking lunatic came up with that one?

      Errr, one whose job specification read (approximately) "create a system that guarantees registered dealers a continuous profit stream".

      What made you think that you were the important one in this relationship? The set up is all about extracting money from your pockets into the various companies pockets.

      I believe it's something called "capitalism", and you're the victim.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    37. Re:What could go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  2. WARNING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WARNING: Do not travel over 88mph in cars with capacitors in the body framework.

    1. Re:WARNING by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      As long as the capacitors don't store 1.21 jiggawatts of energy it should be okay.

    2. Re:WARNING by arisvega · · Score: 1

      1.21 jiggawatts of energy

      Sir, this is not a number.

      --
      The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
    3. Re:WARNING by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Technically, it's an incorrect spelling of a valid alternate pronunciation of gigawatt...

    4. Re:WARNING by John+Bresnahan · · Score: 1

      1.21 jiggawatts of energy

      Sir, this is not a number.

      Sure it is. What it's not is a unit of measure.

    5. Re:WARNING by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      To clarify, watts are not a valid measure of a charge of energy. The energy in a capacitor is it's charge, which is measured in coulombs.

    6. Re:WARNING by Ruie · · Score: 1
      Energy is energy, charge is charge.

      If you know the capacitance and how much charge is stored you can compute the energy you could extract from the capacitor: E=Q^2/2C (see wikipedia).

      Larger capacitors (larger C) store less energy for the same charge (i.e. it is easier to charge them), but can store larger amounts of charge overall. Typically you charge up to a certain voltage, in that case E=V^2C/2, so the stored energy goes up with capacitance.

    7. Re:WARNING by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      To clarify, watts are not a valid measure of a charge of energy. The energy in a capacitor is it's charge, which is measured in coulombs.

      Charge is not energy. The energy in a capacitor is measured in Joules, just like any other sort of energy. Now for a capacitor, the energy stored in it is a function of its charge, which is indeed measured in Coulombs. But they are not the same (they are not even proportional, and capacitors of different capacity store different energy for the same charge).

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    8. Re:WARNING by arisvega · · Score: 1

      In that case, it IS a unit of measurement. What is not, is a proper multiple for it.

      --
      The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
    9. Re:WARNING by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      1.21 jiggawatts of energy

      Sir, this is not a number.

      You can tell Doc Brown then.

    10. Re:WARNING by zevans · · Score: 1

      He doesn't need units where he's going.

      --
      "... and more and more now there are all kinds of electronic goodies available" -- Pink Floyd 1972
  3. We build excitement! by whitelabrat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Does anyone fail to see the problem of having what would likely be several Farads of high voltage stashed away in the body panels? I would expect if fully charged the capacitors if shorted, in a fender bender or whatever, they would leave little trace that they or anything that touches them ever existed. Just a spot of charred metal and the smell of electrolyte.

    And what about the aging of capacitors or capacitor failure? It's certainly exiting when a small capacitor goes POP! Imagine when one of these suckers blow your doors off while you're driving!

    1. Re:We build excitement! by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      in a fender bender or whatever, they would leave little trace that they or anything that touches them ever existed

      Could save a fortune in tow trucks.

    2. Re:We build excitement! by mangu · · Score: 2

      It's certainly exiting when a small capacitor goes POP! Imagine when one of these suckers blow your doors off while you're driving!

      Capacitors that go POP are usually electrolytics, where the electrolyte boils when it gets shorted. There are capacitors that are self-repairing, a short vaporizes the conductor around the failure. Presumably, the capacitors they are proposing here, doping the carbon fibers with lithium, would work that way.

    3. Re:We build excitement! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since the idea of using high voltage at all seems to be pulled out of your ass I assume that you are a troll.
      It is highly contraproductive to put a different voltage over the capacitors than the battery voltage.
      If you don't like the idea, don't buy that car.

    4. Re:We build excitement! by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      what would likely be several Farads of high voltage

      The term you are looking for is coulombs of energy. The coulombs in a charged capacitor is C x V, or the capacitance times the voltage the capacitor is charged to. Coulombs can also be expressed in terms of I x T, or the time at which a discharge at a specific current will take.

      These two figures kind of define capacitance, and it gives you a handy way of figuring out the (theoretical) amount of discharge current versus time a charged capacitor of known value will deliver. It's also an offbeat way of measuring the value of a capacitor (charge to known voltage, measure coulombs you get from a full discharge by integrating time x current.)

    5. Re:We build excitement! by dolo724 · · Score: 1

      When I was in the first grade (1968ish), we had a Sears and Roebuck television set with whatever special warranty for service. This was a big deal, because it went past the "mechanical massage" stage of repair, so dad called the Sears Television Repairman to the house.
      All I remember of this is:
      1. the nice man sticking a screwdriver into the back of the set
      2. a loud POOF
      3. tiny bits of foil floating amid all the smoke in the living room
      and
      4. the nice man says "yup, this is going into the shop"

      --
      But you just gotta have another sigarette
    6. Re:We build excitement! by ko7 · · Score: 1

      Actually, Coulombs is a measure of charge, not energy. The energy (in Joules) stored in a capacitor is 1/2 CV^2. Stated another way, the amount of energy stored in joules is equal to one half the number of coulombs of charge times the voltage across the capacitance. But otherwise, your statement about the total charge being equal to the integral of the current over time (which can be construed as a count of electrons moved... 1 Coulomb = 6.241 x 10^18 electrons worth of charge ; 1 amp of current = 1 Coulomb/sec)

    7. Re:We build excitement! by mangu · · Score: 1

      That must have been an electrolytic capacitor. The larger ones have a safety pressure relief vent, smaller ones have striations on the top so that if it blows up the case will be forced towards the circuit board, instead of flying up. Older ones didn't have this, I have seen several of them blown up, lots of bits of foil and fluff from the paper insulation flying around.

    8. Re:We build excitement! by ichthus · · Score: 1

      Dielectric breakdown (the dielectric being the material between the plates of a capacitor) can be violent in any capacitor medium.

      --
      sig: sauer
    9. Re:We build excitement! by whitelabrat · · Score: 1

      Actually a film type capacitor can be even more dangerous where they generally have a lower ESR. I have 600uF 500v metallized film caps that would probably blow a hole in the wall if it had a serious internal short.

      A cap is a cap either way. I suppose the same danger applies to the battery pack too. Oh well.

    10. Re:We build excitement! by Splab · · Score: 1

      Reminds me, many a years ago I did a short internship in an Olivetti service center, on my first monitor repair the guy teaching me told me to check the cap wasn't charged before disassembling the monitor - young and naive I asked how to do that; he gave me a screwdriver and told me to short the pins. Did teach me to have respect for large caps :-). (Not sure what the proper procedure is, but dumping the charge like that sure is exciting).

  4. yeah so by papasui · · Score: 1

    touch the wrong thing in your car and it kills you.

    1. Re:yeah so by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Like in a hybrid car. Or in a powered on anything car.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:yeah so by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      So like any normal car then.

    3. Re:yeah so by zerro · · Score: 1

      so much FUD here! - try touching the space in between a serpentine belt and any tensioner/roller - Might not kill you, but the effect may not be any better than touching a large, live capacitor...

  5. Good idea but... by Sollord · · Score: 2

    I'd think they'd be far safer in the front and rear quarter panels I wouldn't want a capacitor in my cars door or roof that is just asking for trouble when it comes to accidents especially ones where the passengers might have to be cut free from a wreck.

    1. Re:Good idea but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think sometimes commenters mean well but then they post long comments I think punctuation helps in those circumstances to really help break the words up into individual sentences I really feel like this is a constructive process that is lost on a few of them.

  6. innovative idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Whe not being used for driving, the capacitors can double as a theft deterant by zapping the crooks with 50,000 volts... sweet.

  7. risk to emergency medical services by sleep-doc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Besides mechanics, please recall that EMS and police often face the issue of getting through metal to reach injured passengers. The 200 volts typically in a hybrid battery is one issue, knowing the location of batteries and how to disconnnect them another, but the thought of potentially still charged capacitors in the body frame sounds like an issue that could hinder response to emergencies.

    1. Re:risk to emergency medical services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as much as it is a risk, it is probably also easier to just earth the entire frame, before cutting, probably a standard procedure anyway with modern hybrid cars cause you just don't know if there is a short and the entire car body is live. Not only that but they will probably put them somewhere like the chassis, ( perhaps near the engine mount, isolated from the rest of the frame but still near the engine and possible to run wires through the chassis to the batteries etc ) out of the way and where hazard crews wont get buzzed if they try get the person out.

      Another Potential problem perhaps more serious then risk to safety crews, is risk to yourself, when filling up a hybrid car. who's to say that during a short, when filling your car with *insert type of gasoline you use here* the sudden addition of a grounded metal device entering the car causes a spark to jump from your car to the pump with highly flammable liquids passing through.

    2. Re:risk to emergency medical services by rrossman2 · · Score: 2

      You sir, need to do a little more research :)

      " ( perhaps near the engine mount, isolated from the rest of the frame but still near the engine and possible to run wires through the chassis to the batteries etc ) out of the way and where hazard crews wont get buzzed if they try get the person out."

      If you hit the wire coming from the PARALLEL wired cap, no matter if it's the engine side in your example or the wire going to the battery side, BOTH sides of the wire to where the parallel caps are hooked up carry the EXACT same charge. So even if you hit the wire going to the batteries in your example, is no different than cutting the wire between the capacitor(s) and the engine (again in your example).

      Plus your grounding idea has issues of it's own :)

    3. Re:risk to emergency medical services by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      you guys are missing the point. this is not a novel idea. it's just moving the caps to a place where they imagine there's extra space that's going unused. and there's plenty of stuff to put inside body panels nowadays, like sound dampening. the actual challenge isn't anything about where to put them, really. plenty of space inside any econobox's engine compartment and boot - but the parts cost doesn't go away no matter where you stash them in the car.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:risk to emergency medical services by luisdom · · Score: 1

      Put them into floor reinforcements. Hollow, very hard to break, and EMS will avoid them anyway when doing the cutting part.

  8. Not very well thought out... by s13g3 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Agreed with previous posters, having electricity stored in such a way throughout a vehicle - regardless of volts or amps - doesn't seem like such a hot idea (pun intended). It would certainly be a no-go on any vehicle with any sort of secondary, fueled motor, be it gas, hydrogen, etc., and the potential for other accident based on age, faulty manufacture, simple atmospheric conditions (how well will these fare when exposed to salt air in coastal areas) and too many other things to list here is simply enormous. There is danger enough in basic battery systems during a car accident, especially a major one that might involve another I.C.E. vehicle on fire... I don't relish the idea of trying to an injured person out a car that might kill me for touching the wrong exposed part of a wrecked frame.

    --
    "Inveniemus Viam Aut Faciemus" 'We will find a way... Or we will make one!' --Hannibal of Carthage
    1. Re:Not very well thought out... by houghi · · Score: 2

      If you replace electricity with fuel, you would get to the same result, I assume.

      At least they try to think outside the box and then see where it leads them. Sure it might kill a few people, but so did planes and steam engines and a lot of other things before they were turned into more save designs.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    2. Re:Not very well thought out... by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      It would certainly be a no-go on any vehicle with any sort of secondary, fueled motor, be it gas, hydrogen, etc.

      Why? Even if the vehicle in question lacks an ICE and liquid fuel, it has potential to crash into another vehicle so equipped.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    3. Re:Not very well thought out... by westlake · · Score: 1

      Sure it might kill a few people, but so did planes and steam engines and a lot of other things before they were turned into more safe designs.

      The Wright Flyer, 1903. The DC-3,1936.

      It can take a long time to build trust and safety into your new machine.

      The hybrid gas-electric car with a capacitor enters a market where there are many good - competitive - alternatives. It won't be granted a bye on safety simply because the tech is new.

      It isn't as if you were launching the first passenger steamboat on the Mississippi.

    4. Re:Not very well thought out... by inKubus · · Score: 1

      Couldn't you just put some sort of microcontroller in with the caps so they only discharge if they are getting a code signal? Certainly you'd need some relays or big ass FETs or SCRs inside but you'd need those anyway for your "throttle", why not just put it in with the power source in one package? Then there's no worries about the emergency responders, car wrecks, etc. because you can just stick it all in a hardened package and just have a few connectors to the rest of the car. Obviously the body panels idea isn't super great if not well thought through..

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
    5. Re:Not very well thought out... by inKubus · · Score: 1

      Or even better, put the capacitors, throttle, and motor one hardened modular package. Some type of coupling on it to connect to the transmission. Scheduled maintenance will remove the entire package to be serviced in the far East for far less than your mechanic charges, replacing with a fresh pack. Batteries and/or generation equipment would be a separate module. All the modules could have standard sizes. Your car could get efficiency upgrades when new modules come out. The competition between companies would essentially be what it already is, interior and exterior styling. This is the future model of the car business and whoever can do it first and best will win.

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
    6. Re:Not very well thought out... by zevans · · Score: 1

      They're not quite thinking OUTSIDE the box, just on the very perimeter of it. :-)

      --
      "... and more and more now there are all kinds of electronic goodies available" -- Pink Floyd 1972
  9. throw away car? by roman_mir · · Score: 2

    Combine these capacitors in body together with the motor in wheel thing, and you'll get that much closer to a car, that you can't fix without replacing too many functional parts, when all you needed to do was to replace wheels (how about winter?) and do some body work after a minor accident, so at some point the most economic thing will be just to toss the car away and get a new one.

    Is that where they are going with this?

    How about stopping with all this nonsense with the batteries and working on nuclear engines instead?

    1. Re:throw away car? by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Given how badly the morons around here drive, the last thing I'd want is them in charge of is a small nuclear reactor.

    2. Re:throw away car? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Why? A small nuclear reactor would be much safer than a tank of gas for example, as small nuclear reactors are only based on decay of the non-fissionable elements. Containing small amounts of nuclear material inside a metal box is not really that complicated, and it does not explode on impact for example.

    3. Re:throw away car? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      True, but I can already see the 'after-market power booster kits' that would crop up. So every clank-clank motorhead moron is now digging into the sealed metal box and trying to 'supercharge' the nuclear reactor.

      No, we need to continue to let the tweaks do things like put LED illuminated cables in their PC's with transparent cases, etc, not have the same sort of tweaks fooling with mini nuclear reactors.

    4. Re:throw away car? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      At some point I expect people to start using nuclear to run airplanes, then trucks and buses and then eventually cars, as the costs of not doing it will be getting higher and higher compared to costs of using such devices. Whatever objections we may have today, will have to give way to the economic realities that are coming in the future, of growing populations, desire to own vehicles and ability of the manufacturers to sell those vehicles, in the market, which will demand less and less pollution, increased energy efficiencies, etc.

      It is difficult to push that right now, but let's see what happens 5 years from now, as USA will have its currency and economy destroyed, maybe that's going to be the catalyst for US to start new types of development, to get back into the world economy.

    5. Re:throw away car? by tuxicle · · Score: 1

      Sure, because a nuclear engine is so much more easier to fix, right?

    6. Re:throw away car? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      As opposed to fixing car's body, which incidentally also serves as a battery, or fixing wheels, which also serve as the engine?

      Actually there would be nothing to fix in that scenario, the reactor would have to be self contained and likely not user serviceable, while what it actually is, is just some hot material, and whatever method of energy extraction, be it a closed circuit water pump or a thermo-couple or something else, with a battery like interface and some instrumentation gauge interface to an on-board computer.

    7. Re:throw away car? by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      A leak in the reactor could cause a few problems though.

    8. Re:throw away car? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeh, its not really all that complicated to someone who doesn't understand anything about it.

    9. Re:throw away car? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if it was possible, safe, and cute like rainbows and unicorns, it would still never happen. Politics and the memory of Japan would put an end to that idea in a hurry.

    10. Re:throw away car? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      here is what I am talking about, I am sure if they can use something like that on a space craft, they can figure out how to use something of that type in a car, having a number of precautions, including various counters etc., what would prevent any problem ahead of time. It's all a matter of cost, any issue is a matter of cost, but with nuclear reactors the problem is not cost today, it's government not letting people to work with it without government getting their panties in a knot.

    11. Re:throw away car? by optimism · · Score: 2

      "Combine these capacitors in body together with the motor in wheel [e-traction.com] thing, and you'll get that much closer to a car, that you can't fix without replacing too many functional parts, when all you needed to do was to replace wheels (how about winter?) and do some body work after a minor accident"

      On the contrary, the motor-in-wheel concept radically ~improves~ the maintainability of a car.

      Motor-in-wheel eliminates the transmission, differentials, drive shafts, and CV joints. That's a whole lot of stuff that is expensive to repair on modern cars. Also since the power losses of that complex drivetrain are eliminated, a motor-in-wheel car can use a much smaller/cheaper power system. And regenerative braking allows smaller/cheaper mechanical brakes.

      Wheel swaps are not an issue at all. All of the motor-in-wheel designs that I've seen, use a tire/rim assembly that bolts on to the motorized hub, just like our wheels today bolt onto the hub. If anything, the rims should be lighter and cheaper than current rims. So more people will be able to keep a set of winter wheels.

      The biggest problem with the motor-in-wheel design appears to be the increased unsprung mass, which affects suspension response. I'm confident that problem will be solved by a combination of modern lightweight components, plus changing driver expectations of performance. Folks who drive hybrids today, have already accepted that lower performance and ride quality are an acceptable price for better mileage.

    12. Re:throw away car? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      and the shock to the motor assembly? I didn't say it's a completely useless idea, it has limited use potential for fork lifters maybe, but for outside use in cars/trucks/buses/whatever? Yeah, not until we have roads made of perfectly straight glass.

    13. Re:throw away car? by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Safe use of RTGs requires containment of the radioisotopes long after the productive life of the unit.

      This?

    14. Re:throw away car? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We really don't want RTGs everywhere.

      It's much better, not to mention more efficient to keep all the nuclear materials at the power plant and use batteries.

    15. Re:throw away car? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Sure, absolutely. That's where the research needs to go, and where the private research would go if there was no government impeding on our freedoms.

    16. Re:throw away car? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      AFAIC we want RTGs everywhere, where they make sense, and they make much more sense in vehicles, than anything else we have today. If government was not impeding on our freedoms, we could have private development in that area, just like the time before government decided to use the nuclear power for war, and shut down any private use of it.

    17. Re:throw away car? by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      So you would trust corporations to do this properly even though the link your sig is an object lesson in what happens when corporations aren't watched properly? Corporations can't be given absolute freedom, especially when the well-being of large amounts of people is at stake. A satellite orbiting the earth is so much less of a threat to health than millions of cars with the same power cell. It's a good idea, but I wouldn't trust Ford et al as far as I could throw them to do it properly.

    18. Re:throw away car? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      So you would trust corporations to do this properly even though the link your sig is an object lesson in what happens when corporations aren't watched properly?

      - if you actually watched the video in that link, you'd understand that the failure was the government meddling in business and economy, not corporations, and that's why the guy was able to predict it accurately, because it was very logical as to what government was doing to the money and laws that was going eventually to crash the housing bubble and eventually the currency and economy.

      If you watched that video and got the message that there was a need for more government regulations, rather than for less government distorting the economy in the first place, then I cannot help but wonder, how did you come to that conclusion...

      Corporations can't be given absolute freedom, especially when the well-being of large amounts of people is at stake.

      - no no, you got it wrong. Government can't be given absolute freedoms, they are sure to destroy our freedoms in the process.

      Corporations should not be given any extra privileges by government power - that's true. So for example owners/managers of corporations should not be able to hide behind 'limited liability' clauses, established by the government - that leads to abuse.

      I see businesses as idea/product/service/economic activity generators, which increase our wealth, and I see governments as at best the necessary evil to guard the borders and maintain a working justice system, however the last 2 decades made me question my assumptions as to whether governments on national level should even exist at all, and whether they can be trusted even with those 2 functions. I have serious doubts that they can, and yes, I much rather have businesses running things for their profit, which in absence of government distorting the markets, would result in better quality, cheaper, more variety of products for consumers.

      I honestly trust Ford as a company much more, than I trust ANY government on this particular planet to do ANYTHING right.

      That's my position, and the good thing about it is that I do not have to buy Ford. But at least one of those governments is trying hard to actively control my life in much more destructive ways than Ford ever could even imagine.

    19. Re:throw away car? by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      What I got from the video was that, while government meddling contributed, it was the selling of debt that really brought the house down. In the good old days if an organisation lent you money they expected to get paid back. With the selling on of debt that was no longer a problem so these companies started throwing money at people who would never be able to pay it back. Now you can blame your government for that behaviour but I'm not sure why.

      Not buying Ford wouldn't keep you from being poisoned by their power supplies. Government regulation of how those items are made would.

      Governments do control lives. They punish murderers, thieves and dangerous drivers. They ensure that our food and water supply isn't contaminated, that products we use are safe, that our borders are defended and, in civilised countries they ensure that everyone has access to the healthcare they need. They aren't perfect, but to paraphrase Churchill, "it's the worst system apart from all the others". Just as a matter of interest, how would removing limited liability help if there weren't any government to prosecute the misbehaving corporation. Would an individual have to sue?

    20. Re:throw away car? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      it was the selling of debt that really brought the house down

      - you should watch it again. The lax lending standards were the result of government policies, pushed via housing acts, FHA, Freddie/Fannie, while the money came from the Fed.

      In absence of government, banks compete based on risk aversion and lending standards are high. Government created FDIC, which destroyed the reason for customers to bother checking the banks' risk aversion, destroyed reason for banks to bother with that, customers won't leave, they don't care.

      Government regulation creates the moral hazard, which absent without government regulations.

      With the selling on of debt that was no longer a problem so these companies started throwing money at people who would never be able to pay it back

      - you missed the main point. The reason why debt could be sold, was government guarantee behind it.

      It was government agenda, that it would back those liar and other risky loans, that's why banks made them. Rewatch the video.

      They punish murderers, thieves and dangerous drivers.

      - don't need government to do that, private police force and competing justice systems would suffice.

      They ensure that our food and water supply isn't contaminated,

      - not when it creates moral hazard of 10million USD oil caps.

      that products we use are safe, that our borders are defended

      - not anymore. They now make sure that you are always under control by the TSA and oil fields in Iraq are under control, that's all.

      and, in civilised countries they ensure that everyone has access to the healthcare they need.

      - gov't can't do that either, unless you are calling most of the West uncivilized.

      They aren't perfect, but to paraphrase Churchill, "it's the worst system apart from all the others".

      - free market capitalism and Constitutional republic that US had was better than what Churchill was talking about.

      Just as a matter of interest, how would removing limited liability help if there weren't any government to prosecute the misbehaving corporation. Would an individual have to sue?

      - competing justice systems for absence of government. But if you have to have gov't, then the justice system provided by it must do this right: criminal and contract law.

    21. Re:throw away car? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      You should start calling it a "nuclear battery" instead of a "reactor" when you're talking about it here. Doing so will give everybody else a more reasonable impression (because when you say "reactor" they're thinking Fukushima, or at least fission-powered naval vessel).

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    22. Re:throw away car? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      The biggest problem with the motor-in-wheel design appears to be the increased unsprung mass, which affects suspension response. I'm confident that problem will be solved by a combination of modern lightweight components, plus changing driver expectations of performance. Folks who drive hybrids today, have already accepted that lower performance and ride quality are an acceptable price for better mileage.

      The only way "changing driver expectations of performance" is going to fly is if the performance is improved. The folks that drive hybrids today never cared about performance or ride quality to begin with; they are either the ones who used to drive pre-hybrid econoboxes, or they're the ones who pick their car according to how cool or trendy it is.

      The people who care about fuel efficiency and performance are driving VW TDIs (or conventional gasoline-powered sport compact cars).

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    23. Re:throw away car? by optimism · · Score: 1

      Wheel bearings today are perfectly capable of handling whatever road shocks we throw at them.

      There is no reason that this would change just because the bearings live inside a motor.

      If you follow your own link to e-traction, you will see that one of their early applications is city buses. Bumps are not an issue. The issue at this point is scaling it down to performant passenger cars.

    24. Re:throw away car? by optimism · · Score: 1

      The folks that drive hybrids today never cared about performance or ride quality to begin with; they are either the ones who used to drive pre-hybrid econoboxes, or they're the ones who pick their car according to how cool or trendy it is.

      Well, I only have a sample size of 3, but my friends & family who drive hybrids today, used to care more about performance.

      I can't say whether they changed their tune because of the economy, or their maturity. Probably both. But I can tell you for a fact that they weren't trying to be "cool or trendy". Just practical.

    25. Re:throw away car? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Wheel bearings today are perfectly capable of handling whatever road shocks we throw at them.

      Maybe in Miami, maybe in LA and possibly on Autobahn, but not in Toronto or St. Petersburg or Moscow, and even in Miami the road is not always perfectly polished, and those wheel assemblies, with electrical motors in them will come apart.

    26. Re:throw away car? by geekgirlandrea · · Score: 1

      That's not a nuclear reactor, that's an RTG, and the power-to-weight ratio is a couple orders of magnitude too low to power a usable car.

      On the other hand, something like the SAFE-400 would be viable, if a bit heavy. Good luck shielding one well enough that it wouldn't release fission waste products in a worst-case accident, though.

    27. Re:throw away car? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How would in-wheel motors preclude repair? There's a lot more to a car than just the powertrain, and even in-wheel motors would be simpler than an ICE to rebuild. For that matter, they'd be a lot easier to replace, and possibly easier to recycle.

      The body-panel capacitors depicted in their infographic are all on areas that are easily replaceable on virtually every modern car, so even that wouldn't be a problem.

      Also, nuclear-powered cars would be a bad idea for proliferation and disposal reasons. Sure they might be safer while being used for their intended purpose, but outside and after that, you've got problems. (Do you really want 5 dead nuclear powered cars rotting on your methhead neighbor's lawn?)

    28. Re:throw away car? by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Did you NOT see what happens to the atomic powered cars wrecks in Fallout 3?

      Those who forget dystopian alternate reality video games are doomed to repeat them.

    29. Re:throw away car? by OnePumpChump · · Score: 1

      Disposal and proliferation. What happens when your redneck neighbor lets his nuclear-powered beater corrode in the back yard for 10 years? And do you really want someone being able to go to any car dealer to get their dirty bomb payload? The device itself, in good condition and being used properly would be superior to any car on the road now. Unfortunately when it comes into contact with reality, the dream falls to pieces.

    30. Re:throw away car? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mind you, the use of that much carbon fiber would alone likely at least double the cost of the car.

    31. Re:throw away car? by zevans · · Score: 1

      Not on Autobahn. The wheels on an RX8 weigh approx 9.5 kilos each which is LOW for a road car; but there were plenty of parts of the autobahn network where I dare not drive over 80mph entirely because of the surface.

      On the other hand, ironically, I passed the BBS factory itself at about 130mph. :-)

      --
      "... and more and more now there are all kinds of electronic goodies available" -- Pink Floyd 1972
    32. Re:throw away car? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I guess, though when in Germany, I drive to Karlsruhe from Baden Baden sometimes and it's smooth.

    33. Re:throw away car? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They punish murderers, thieves and dangerous drivers.

      - don't need government to do that, private police force and competing justice systems would suffice.

      Nice one, roman. Care to elaborate how that is supposed to work (i.e. your theory) and how it would not degenerate into something like Somalia?

      On the other points - I have a question for you. When was the last time you realized you were wrong on a matter of fact? Because I am sure that never happens to you!

    34. Re:throw away car? by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      I have rewatched the video and the government comes in for far less criticisms than everyone else involved in the housing bubble. The mortgage lenders in particular come in for some fierce criticism. Try watching it again yourself, you've obviously only paid attention to the minute or so where he criticised Greenspan and Bush.

      After you've watched it again please answer the following:

      • When did the US government force lenders to bundle up bad debts and then have 65% of them rated AAA+?
      • When did the US government force people to buy multiple properties and make no money from them?
      • When did the US government force people who couldn't posssibly afford to pay their debts to lie to get a mortgage?
      • When did the government force large corporations to offshore, leading to the unprecedented trade deficit and debt the US has now?
      • When did the US government force lenders here in the UK to behave in exactly the same way? We didn't have Fanny Mae, Freddie Mac and Clinton's housing act and yet all the banks here did exactly the same fuckwitted things that US banks did with exactly the same results. Same in Ireland and Iceland. Global financial crisis remember.

      In absence of government, banks compete based on risk aversion and lending standards are high. Government created FDIC, which destroyed the reason for customers to bother checking the banks' risk aversion, destroyed reason for banks to bother with that, customers won't leave, they don't care.

      The FDIC was created in 1933. The current financial crisis began to take shape in the early 2000s. Explain how the FDIC was so bad that it took over 70 years to cause the events of 2008.

      If you don't trust your government how can you trust them to define what is criminal or define what is a valid contract?

      If our borders are not defended then why haven't we all been invaded?

      gov't can't do that either, unless you are calling most of the West uncivilized.

      Most western countries manage exactly that. It's only the English-speaking countries that insist on burdening healthcare with free-market dogma

      - not when it creates moral hazard of 10million USD oil caps.

      What does that mean? Is it worse than food not being fit to eat and water not being fit to drink?

      - free market capitalism and Constitutional republic that US had was better than what Churchill was talking about.

      When did the US have free market capitalism? 1929 perhaps?

    35. Re:throw away car? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      The mortgage lenders in particular come in for some fierce criticism. Try watching it again yourself, you've obviously only paid attention to the minute or so where he criticised Greenspan and Bush.

      - no, I watched that video probably 4 or 5 times since 2006, so I know what is in it well enough.

      When did the US government force lenders to bundle up bad debts and then have 65% of them rated AAA+?

      - are you looking for a specific point in time, a specific date?

      There is no one date, there are many dates doing many different things.

      Let's start with interest rates

      2001 January 3 Federal Reserve makes surprise rate cut.
      Federal funds rate reduced to 6.0 percent from 6.5 percent.
      Discount rate reduced to 5.5 percent from 6.0 percent.
      Nasdaq jumped a record 14.17 percent.
      2001 January 31 Federal funds rate reduced from 6.0 percent to 5.5 percent.
      Discount rate reduced from 5.5 percent to 5.0 percent.
      2001 March 20 Federal funds rate reduced from 5.5 percent to 5.0 percent.
      Discount rate reduced from 5.0 percent to 4.5 percent.
      2001 April 18 Federal funds rate reduced from 5.0 percent to 4.5 percent.
      Discount rate reduced from 4.5 percent to 4.0 percent.
      2001 May 15 Federal funds rate reduced from 4.5 percent to 4.0 percent.
      Discount rate reduced from 4.0 percent to 3.5 percent.
      2001 June 27 Federal funds rate reduced from 4.00 percent to 3.75 percent.
      Discount rate reduced from 3.50 percent to 3.25 percent.
      2001 June 29 First quarter GDP growth rate revised to 1.2 percent.
      2001 August 21 Federal funds rate reduced from 3.75 percent to 3.50 percent.
      Discount rate reduced from 3.25 percent to 3.00 percent.
      2001 September 17 Federal funds rate reduced from 3.50 percent to 3.00 percent.
      2001 Discount rate reduced from 3.00 percent to 2.50 percent.
      2001 October 2 Federal funds rate reduced from 3.00 percent to 2.50 percent.
      Discount rate reduced from 2.50 percent to 2.00 percent.
      2001 November 6 Federal funds rate reduced from 2.50 percent to 2.00 percent.
      Discount rate reduced from 2.00 percent to 1.50 percent
      2001 December 11 Federal funds rate reduced from 2.00 percent to 1.75 percent.
      2001 Discount rate reduced from 1.50 percent to 1.25 percent.

      2002 November 6 Federal funds rate reduced from 1.75 percent to 1.25 percent.
      Discount rate reduced from 1.25 percent to 0.75 percent.

      2002 June 25 Federal funds rate reduced from 1.25 percent to 1 percent, the lowest rate in 45 years.

      --
      Let's see some other interesting dates:

      MORTGAGEE LETTER 2004-10
      TO: ALL APPROVED MORTGAGEES
      SUBJECT: Adjustable Rate Mortgages

      On March 10, 2004, the Department of Housing and Urban Development published a final rule in the Federal Register amending the mortgage insurance regulations to implement additional product offerings known as âoehybridâ adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs). The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) has insured ARMs since 1984; however, these were limited to 1-year ARMs. Under the terms and conditions described below, FHA is now offering mortgage insurance on 3-year, 5-year, 7-year and 10-year ARMs. These hybrid ARMs expand home buying opportunities through the creation of additional product offerings tailored to the financial conditions and desires of the borrowers.

      that's just one of the FHA letters I could find. The time-line of FHA is such that by early 1990s, the requirement to provide so called 'affordable housing' - which means housing insured by government, regardless of the lending standards by banks was under between 25 and 30%, by late 1990s it was near 50% and by 2006 it was about 68% or so. The position of FHA was to push people into the housing markets by specifically insuring the most dangerous types of mortgages - variable rate mortgages with little to no downpayment, even some mortgages that had

    36. Re:throw away car? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does that mean? Is it worse than food not being fit to eat and water not being fit to drink?

      - as if government has anything to do with quality of food and drink

      Haha, roman. Without government, there would be very little that would be safe to eat for the vast majority of the population. The above sounds every bit like "as if the earth was round, and not the center of the universe". And outs you as a true loon.

      The real question, though, is: do you really believe the mad and crazy things you keep posting?

    37. Re:throw away car? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Without government, there would be very little that would be safe to eat for the vast majority of the population.

      - pure unadulterated nonsense. Companies want to make profits, which means they want repeat customers and they need a large customer base.

      Without government there is much more competition in the food market, like in any market, and besides, the government policies in food and drink and agriculture subsidies are the reason the population is so sick and obese today in US and other Western nations.

    38. Re:throw away car? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without government, there would be very little that would be safe to eat for the vast majority of the population.

      - pure unadulterated nonsense. Companies want to make profits, which means they want repeat customers and they need a large customer base.

      What you are saying is that you have a logical argument against it, so it must be wrong, no matter what the data says. This is a fallacy, of course. In reality, without government regulation a lot of food would be unsafe to eat. There's ample historical evidence on this.

      Your logic, btw, is also flawed on the issue at hand: you can make profits without repeat customers. You also may have a large customer base that is not healthy. It is possible to have very weird business models.

      besides, the government policies in food and drink and agriculture subsidies are the reason the population is so sick and obese today in US and other Western nations.

      It's pretty clear in that video that companies and customers have had the initiative.

      Anyway, roman, do you remember ever having been wrong?

    39. Re:throw away car? by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      So food and water was safer before these regulations. There was no typhoid or cholera no, no everything was completely rosy for the average US and UK citizen in the 19th century. Watch your video again, try to switch of the fundamentalist libertarian bullshit for an hour and see how critical Schiff is of EVERYONE.

    40. Re:throw away car? by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Now in all that waffle you have failed to answer one simple question. When were any of the private actors FORCED to behave the way they did. Watch the video again, you missed how he criticised EVERYONE involved. You hate government so much that you're quite happy to excuse the stupidity of all the other people involved.

      As for 'competition' between legal systems - it's a criminal justice system not a McDonalds. It's supposed to protect society by punishing criminals not turn a profit.

      I have no idea how BP has anything to do with the government deciding whether food is safe to eat and water is safe to drink. Plus their liability for the accident now that it's happened is huge, which you should approve of since you're fundamentally against any kind of prevention of these sorts of things.

    41. Re:throw away car? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      When were any of the private actors FORCED to behave the way they did.

      - that's a BS question. You want to pose a question that has no bearing on reality - go ahead, but it's a bunch of bullshit.

      Nobody forces anybody to make profit, people just want to make profit, so your question can be restated: who is forcing these companies to follow procedures that are set up by the government, and to take up on the offers that are provided by the government, so that these companies would make more profit with less work?

      What kind of a ass-backwards question is that?

      Why does anybody start a company? To make money. Once you start a company, you assume there will be competition. However once government comes in and says: here is a bunch of free money, and here are our new requirements for 'affordable housing', you can use these however you like, it's easy to get the money from us and we'll rubber-stamp the loans you make regardless of the quality of the borrower.... and you are asking who is "forcing" them?

      Nobody is forcing anybody, that's the beauty of it - you don't have to force people to get them to change their behavior, all you need to do is to give them incentives.

      You hate government so much that you're quite happy to excuse the stupidity of all the other people involved.

      - I hate the government for fucking up a good thing, which is the free market, yes.

      As for 'competition' between legal systems - it's a criminal justice system not a McDonalds. It's supposed to protect society by punishing criminals not turn a profit.

      - and why do you believe the government to be the best judge of how best to judge the criminals, or what penalties to impose on those who violate contracts?

      I have no idea how BP has anything to do with the government deciding whether food is safe to eat and water is safe to drink.

      - BP does not have anything to do with government deciding anything about food or drink. BP is an example of how government creates moral hazard, by "removing" risk of liability (setting the liability cap at 10Million or so dollars for a spill in this case)

      Plus their liability for the accident now that it's happened is huge, which you should approve of since you're fundamentally against any kind of prevention of these sorts of things.

      - they operated based on what they knew at the time was in law for them from the government, they were certain that 10 million liability was in law, so they wouldn't have to pay out more in liability, and that was weighing on their decision making before the accident.

      In fact, government repealing that liability for BP accident AFTER the accident is just another default by the government. You can't pretend to have a law, and then retroactively change it, just because you don't like the outcome of your law.

      You like the government involved in business and everything? Well, you are in UK, right? Your economy will be crashed too, and if you are blinded by this inability to see through the action-reaction response of people towards the existing laws, if you can't understand the concept of moral hazard, you won't learn anything from the economic/currency crash, that you probably will also have in UK, as government causes the investment flight, drives jobs out and prints money to monetize it's 'social obligations' and other debt.

    42. Re:throw away car? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      So food and water was safer before these regulations. There was no typhoid or cholera no, no everything was completely rosy for the average US and UK citizen in the 19th century. Watch your video again, try to switch of the fundamentalist libertarian bullshit for an hour and see how critical Schiff is of EVERYONE.

      - Food and water was becoming safer due to the free market forces creating new ways to make food and water safer, all the other nonsense, all the laws, etc., it has no bearing on reality beside one simple thing: reduction of competition, leading to higher prices, lower quality and fewer options.

      Refrigeration was not a government invention. Neither was food preservation or pasteurization. The government involvement starts after the fact, when somebody comes up with a new way to use technology to make things better in some way, but government comes in and starts mandating that everybody and anybody must use this technology, this creates barriers to entry for those, who do not have the capital for that particular technology, it creates a monopoly for that technology on the market, with government mandates and all this government moral hazard of patent/copyright nonsense, then other private ideas and research for other types of technologies stall, as they are priced out of the market simply by the fact of the mandate.

      Basically government cannot create, but it can destroy. Unfortunately with sentiments like yours, that's what it ends up doing with enough support from the gullible public, and this worsens the market conditions. Competition is preferable on the market, and when government comes up with yet another agency, like FDA, the market suffers reduced competition, increased prices and stalling of many new technologies. All this is totally unnecessary. I must have an option to buy food/drugs that doesn't have the FDA rubber stamp on it. But if I cared for a stamp from some agency, I would be looking for the food, that is certified by somebody privately, and if I like the food and there are no horror stories all over the place about the food, certified by that company, I probably would pay a little extra for that certified food.

      But maybe I wouldn't, and instead I'd take my chances. Maybe my cooking style allows me to prepare anything safely (this is especially true for Chinese food, which is never raw, and this prevents most problems, except for the most difficult cases, like Mad Cow). but that's maybe if I weren't a vegetarian, I'd do - buy everything without any certifications, but only buy meat that is certified by one of the companies I trust. And I certainly do not trust the government.

      Why should I trust the government? They can't do anything in an efficient way, they don't have the profit motive, they have a monopoly, which cannot be challenged, so they don't care if they lose their face with their 'customers', who are really captive audience more than anything.

      But I guess you prefer that system, well, that's why you live where you live, and I live where I live, and it ain't USA either anymore.

      Cheers.

    43. Re:throw away car? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government involvement starts after the fact, when somebody comes up with a new way to use technology to make things better in some way, but government comes in and starts mandating that everybody and anybody must use this technology, this creates barriers to entry for those, who do not have the capital for that particular technology

      Fair enough, but in the case of pasteurization, for example, that's a good thing, no? BTW, it is funny you mention pasteurization, because the good old Pasteur worked in a very statist institution.

      Basically government cannot create

      That's a rather strange assertion on a planet where most roads are public. We could also talk about sewage systems, etc. Your statement is only a little less wrong than "birds can't fly" or something like that. And it must be obvious to you that it is this way. Why are you claiming these things? Do you truly believe they are true?

      Out of curiosity - how did you come by your libertarian convictions? Did you read a specific book you can recomend?

    44. Re:throw away car? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Louis Pasteur became a professor and worked at the university of Strasbourg, this does not make him a government worker, regardless of you mindless accusations.

      That's a rather strange assertion on a planet where most roads are public.

      - taxes destroy infrastructure - I don't have to repeat myself.

      Out of curiosity - how did you come by your libertarian convictions? Did you read a specific book you can recomend?

      - I worked most of my life, that's how.

    45. Re:throw away car? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - taxes destroy infrastructure - I don't have to repeat myself.

      No, no point repeating yourself. you would be as wrong every time!

      Anyway, do you really believe the things you write?

      "Out of curiosity - how did you come by your libertarian convictions? Did you read a specific book you can recomend?"

      - I worked most of my life, that's how.

      The vast majority of people that work most their lives have far, far less extreme views of the world than you seem to have. Did you come up with them by yourself?

    46. Re:throw away car? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      No, no point repeating yourself. you would be as wrong every time!

      - your disagreement does not imply incorrectness, likely it is has a correlative effect that things you disagree with are in fact correct.

      Anyway, do you really believe the things you write?

      - why would I write things I do not personally believe in?

      The vast majority of people that work most their lives have far, far less extreme views of the world than you seem to have.

      - majority of people also vote for bread and circuses economic destruction every time, your point is?

      Did you come up with them by yourself?

      - for myself, yes. I am not the first one to understand it either.

      Question to you: what do you care?

      Another point: I find talking to an AC on /. to be a waste of time. I just had a long plane flight, third in 30 days, if you want another response, you'll log into your account.

    47. Re:throw away car? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your disagreement does not imply incorrectness, likely it is has a correlative effect that things you disagree with are in fact correct.

      If your position were correct, then maybe, but that's quite an assumption. It suits you, of course. You believe all sorts of crazy shit, like in the virtues of deflation for an economy. No, thanks, it is you who is a raving loon.

      Another point: I find talking to an AC on /. to be a waste of time.

      Why is that, roman_mir? do you want to cause me harm?

    48. Re:throw away car? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      By the way, here is an easy way for me to prevent you from any further mis-characterization of what Schiff was saying, because he has his radio program here, and he often repeats the same thing, but if you for example download the one form the 8th of June, 2011, and listen from minute 11 for 1 minute, you'll hear him say:

      I understood exactly what was causing the problem, and I was pointing directly at Fed's policy

      .

      See, he does not say; fucking banks took advantage of the obvious incentives provided by the government, he does not go there, the way you want to characterize it.

      He is very specific, he says he saw the crash coming because he understood that the Fed's policy is going to cause it, that's all.

      You can obviously continue pretending that that is not what he is saying, but you can't deny the guy's own words, unless Bernanke is your relative (sorry for the insult).

    49. Re:throw away car? by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      I'm tired of stating the same point but just to recap. Banks did something very stupid. They weren't forced to, anyone with an ounce of common sense could have seen that being allowed to sell on debt would lead to no-one giving a shit about who they lent to. The internet stock bubble was very similar; I guess that was the evil Fed's fault as well.

      If BP has nothing to do with food and drink why mention it?

      I don't like the government at all as it happens, but I have studied the history of my country and how shit life was for people before the end of World War II and how much better it is now. In fact the life expectancy and general quality of life has expanded more in the last 50 years than it did in the previous 5,000 despite your assertion that government intervention in anything is evil and to be avoided.

      As for setting laws, who should do it? A king? A warlord? You? At least with a democratic government there are some checks and balances on those laws. The system sucks a lot but far less than the paradise you imagine a corporate free-for-all would. Do you think cartels and monopolies wouldn't form if there was no-one to stop them?

      By the way I am genuinely interested in what you have to say. Could you point me to where you're getting all this stuff from as I had a hard time finding, for example, how the US was propping up the UK pound in the 20s?

  10. I thought of this too, BUT.... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    I mean, it sounds good at first. Make the whole car frame into a battery with supplementary capacitors. Maximize the power to weight ratio. Why not?

    Well... battery material isn't necessarily a great structural material. Preventing short circuits in a vibrating frame with moving parts sounds fairly nightmarish. Replacing a worn out battery means replacing your car. And try not to get into an accident, and god help the EMT that tries to pry you out of the accident, especially if it's raining. That's what I can think of right off. I'm sure there are more reasons too.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    1. Re:I thought of this too, BUT.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean, it sounds good at first. Make the whole car frame into a battery with supplementary capacitors. Maximize the power to weight ratio. Why not?

      Well... battery material isn't necessarily a great structural material. Preventing short circuits in a vibrating frame with moving parts sounds fairly nightmarish. Replacing a worn out battery means replacing your car.

      Batteries and, even more so, capacitors can work in parallel to each other, so instead of 1 large car-shaped battery or capacitor you could have multiple units with a degree of access (for qualified personnel) that won't overly complicate replacing them.

      And try not to get into an accident

      Good advice.

      god help the EMT that tries to pry you out of the accident, especially if it's raining.

      Electricity already runs between ends of the car. Granted possibly not at the voltage that the proposed car would have, unless it's a seriously pimped out ride. Some degree of caution on the part of the Emergency Services is already advised, I think, and by the time these cars are sold, they'll be quite aware not to touch a crashed vehicle without your rubber gloves.

    2. Re:I thought of this too, BUT.... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "I'm sure there are more reasons too."

      Maintenance and repair alone are deal-breakers.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    3. Re:I thought of this too, BUT.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The voltage isn't as big an issue as the amps.

  11. Re:We build excitement! && Danger by foolish_to_be_here · · Score: 1

    Does anyone fail to see the problem of having what would likely be several Farads of high voltage stashed away in the body panels? I would expect if fully charged the capacitors if shorted, in a fender bender or whatever, they would leave little trace that they or anything that touches them ever existed. Just a spot of charred metal and the smell of electrolyte.

    And what about the aging of capacitors or capacitor failure? It's certainly exiting when a small capacitor goes POP! Imagine when one of these suckers blow your doors off while you're driving!

    Mod parent up. In the effort to improve the safety of the driving public a high energy arc as a result of a minor vendor bender is going the wrong way. It is insanity.

    --
    Please mod me 1 or troll. It's where the truth is these days, even on Slashdot. Beware the power of moderators everywh
  12. Invention of petrol car/LPG by metalmonkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What could possibly go wrong driving around at speed with a tank of highly flammable liquid strapped to the undercarriage of the car.
    What insanity!!!
    The same can be said for LPG a high pressure canister of highly flammable GAS just behind your seat - imagine that in a crash.

    Any dense energy source put into a car has a potential for that energy to be released in a way that is not intended especially in a crash. It is the details of the design that can make the energy storage (relatively) safe.

    1. Re:Invention of petrol car/LPG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LPG powered cars are very popular in eastern Europe and it doesn't look like it's a big issue. Haven't heard about LPG tank explosion (in my home country, Lithuania) in years, let alone one killing car driver/passengers.

    2. Re:Invention of petrol car/LPG by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      There's a differences in not the worst case, but the simple case of your examples from this one. We have a tank of volatile liquid which is dangerous when exposed only to an ignition source and oxygen, vs something that could make the car live.

      An emergency services worker probably knows full well not to step in a car to help a victim when there's fuel leaking everywhere and a fire nearby. The same can not be said for someone approaching a wreckage which now simply may be live. There's no indication of the danger. Worse still when the standard method of saving something stuck in a wreaking involves the jaws of life going through a power cable it becomes quite hard whereas fuel lines and fuel tanks were typically run in quite well defined areas of a car i.e. not in the roof or in the doors where these could go.

      Ironically enough an LPG tank is one of the most solidly built things in a car. There's enough cases of cars exploding but I have yet to hear of an LPG powered one doing the same. Doesn't stop our government from requiring all cars have a special dot on the license plate and banning the cars from underground parking garages.

      I agree with you. If the car was invented today it would never pass our safety requirements. You want to go how fast with What chemical strapped in the boot? I mean I can't even walk up the stairs at work without seeing a "stair code" reminding us to take steps one at a time, not use phones, and use the handrails.

    3. Re:Invention of petrol car/LPG by Tanktalus · · Score: 1

      That "whooshing" sound you here is not the leak of propane from your cylinder. It's the sound of sarcasm passing overhead.

    4. Re:Invention of petrol car/LPG by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      a tank of highly flammable liquid

      gasoline is highly flammable, but not in liquid form. It has to be converted to vapor, which is not an easy all-at-once process. The 'exploding cars' you see on those cop chase stories don't happen in real life.

      Whereas a charged capacitor, so long as it's of any use (meaning one that doesn't have a high internal resistance that limits instantaneous discharge) can discharge all of it's energy nearly as quickly as the discharge path allows, and any plain metal bridge serves as an instantaneous maximum discharge path.

    5. Re:Invention of petrol car/LPG by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Good thing you weren't around a hundred years ago, we'd all be riding bicycles today.

      Advancement REQUIRES risk taking.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    6. Re:Invention of petrol car/LPG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compact items can be contained.
      LP tanks are designed to absorb impact.
      Fuel tanks are located and designed to be protected in a crash.
      THE BODY of the vehicle, now sacrificial in modern designs, is WHAT DOES the protecting.
      See the difference?

    7. Re:Invention of petrol car/LPG by couchslug · · Score: 4, Informative

      Doors, hoods, and roofs are frequently subject to damage in crashes. Th

      Fuel tanks are in protected locations. Bodywork is not a protected location.

      Put the capacitors in a nice standard, removable package and it becomes practical because it can be protected AND easily serviced.

      Why, on a supposedly tech-literate forum, does this need to be explained?

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    8. Re:Invention of petrol car/LPG by couchslug · · Score: 2

      "Advancement REQUIRES risk taking."

      You aren't a mechanic I take it? There is a difference between "risky" and "silly".

      I defy you to propose a practical way to implement, maintain, and repair "body panel capacitor" technology. Make it crashworthy, easy to fix, and economical to repair. Make it and its interconnects and power management work well in areas subject to road salt in winter.

      BTW, cars were well-established a century ago.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    9. Re:Invention of petrol car/LPG by penguin_punk · · Score: 1

      I will take my chances. You can ride your bike.

      --
      HURD - Hurd's Under Research & Development
    10. Re:Invention of petrol car/LPG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gas is fairly stable. It is once it is combined with oxygen (why it works better in vapor form) that is becomes combustible.

      Charge caps like you said as long as there is some path for it to follow. And that can include people...

    11. Re:Invention of petrol car/LPG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Computer-tech != mechanical-tech

    12. Re:Invention of petrol car/LPG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well stated.

      And most people have forgotten about the benefits of a flux capacitor in a DeLorean.

    13. Re:Invention of petrol car/LPG by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Except they don't make the fuel tank frames and body panels.
      They are small strong containers thats only stress is contain the fuel.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    14. Re:Invention of petrol car/LPG by metalmonkey · · Score: 1

      My point was not that LPG/Petrol unsafe, with proper design these parts of the car have been made safe. I don't think its ironic that the LPG tank is one of the most solid parts of the car this is a necessary design to make this particular energy source safe. If this was not the case we would be seeing more exploding cars.

      Surely there will be ways to limit the amount of instantaneous discharge while still providing enough discharge to be useful.

      With rescue if this technology becomes standard procedures will be changed, big rubber gloves. (Maybe the drivers will have to be wearing skin-tight rubber suits too - maybe thats the reason for those strange uniforms as seen in sci-fi.)

    15. Re:Invention of petrol car/LPG by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Lol I like that. Body condoms for all. Finally those catsuit manufacturers can break out of the sex industry into the mainstream.

      The only problem is that electrical safety does not involve rubber gloves and forget about it. Workers likely to be anywhere near 200V are mandated to do special training every 6 months. Use equipment rated for the hazard that is checked every 6 months, and also require a safety standby person dedicated only to the protection of the workers. Spread that around all the fire departments and you have an organisational nightmare, a lot of people standing around watching each other, and all in all other things that would either lower the life expectancy of the victim and the rescuer.

      Don't get me wrong it's a place we will need to be in the future, but the path there will not be trivial.

  13. Three words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    capacitor leakage current.

    This would effect the range and would cause the batteries to discharge when the vehicle was not opperational.

  14. All they need now is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1.21 jiggawatts of power

  15. Not a good performance trade off by boley1 · · Score: 1

    Capacitors, like batteries, give more bang for the space (and buck) if designed for lower voltages. Lower voltage = more capacity. Also Distance at high currents matters. Greater cable length = wasted power or greater cable length = bigger, longer and heavier cables. So having a distributed (through the vehicle apart from the batteries), and/or high voltage capacitors is not the way to go. Placing a low voltage capacitor next to or integrated with each battery unit or cell, allows for smaller size, greater capacity capacitors with more efficiency. [Built my first electric car in 1975.]

    1. Re:Not a good performance trade off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. E = 0.5*C*V^2, so increasing the voltage of a capacitor actually makes its energy storage ability better than increasing the capacity linearly.

    2. Re:Not a good performance trade off by Bengie · · Score: 1

      All super caps are low voltage, no way around that; There will just be a bunch of them in serial. The other problem is the electric motors typically run at higher voltages because they're more efficient like that and the AC-DC converter works better at higher voltages for energy recapture.

    3. Re:Not a good performance trade off by boley1 · · Score: 1

      True, but all Lithium cells are also low voltage, and placed in series to get the higher voltage. So the ideal spot to augment the slow charging and low current battery cells, is with high current caps is at each battery cell. The low voltage super caps easily span one or two battery cells, without the extra circuitry required to protect series caps from over voltages.

  16. Re:We build excitement! && Danger by dr2chase · · Score: 2

    As opposed to, say, driving around with ten or more gallons of gasoline in the car?
    Or even, real live CNG, since vehicles are out there, and fracked gas is Our Future.
    We'll be fine (or rather, no worse off), as long as an arcs-in-crashmobile doesn't run into a leaks-gas-in-crashmobile. :-)

    And semi-seriously, how many deaths to you predict that this would cause, and how does that number compare with pedestrians killed per year (US, 3000), people-in-cars killed per year (US, 30,000), or people dying early for lack of exercise per year (US, perhaps 300,000 -- it's a good fraction of all CV deaths, as well as some cancers, strokes, complications of diabetes, etc).

  17. Series connections could be a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're using the carbon fiber structure as an electrode, you would have difficulty making the series connections necessary for higher voltages.

    The other problem is mechanical. There's no such thing as a perfectly rigid structure, there is always some flex. For batteries, that could be a good thing or a bad thing, I don't know.

  18. Re:We build excitement! && Danger by Luckyo · · Score: 1

    There is a reason why fuel tank is universally located in a protected area behind and on the side of the car. They're talking about installing capacitors in DOORS.

    Gas tanks in doors would likely get your car banned off the road in a very short order.

  19. Re:We build excitement! && Danger by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    Gasoline is relatively inert, until mixed with the proper amount of air, the function which a carburetor or fuel injection system performs. You can snuff out a lit match in gasoline, as long as the fumes haven't been allowed to build up significantly. This is why gasoline as a fuel is so safe compared to many of the proposed alternatives, such as the looming disaster that hydrogen fuel poses.

  20. Like the shields from ST: Enterprise by Noughmad · · Score: 1

    Polarize the hull plating!

    --
    PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
  21. Static by grumling · · Score: 1

    I wonder if the body panels could be engineered to take advantage of that little bit of static electricity that happens if your tires don't ground your vehicle?

    --
    "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
  22. Body panels? by PPH · · Score: 2

    Or in the frame?

    I'd better remember that the next time I'm drilling some holes to mount a CB radio antenna or eight track player.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Body panels? by papasui · · Score: 1

      Well fortunately its not 1973 anymore so you should be good.

  23. Impact zones and crash repair. by couchslug · · Score: 1

    Any experienced mechanic would laugh at the proposed locations.
    (I'll be polite and avoid the phrase "fucking stupid".)

    The door skins and hood are frequently damaged in minor crashes, and required FLEXIBLE connection to the electrical system because they move. Serviceability would suck, and once damaged the parts would be unusable. Good luck ever fixing your car with aftermarket door skins or hood.

    Take the SAME area, make a nice compact quick-swap STANDARD form-factor "capacitor module", and use those.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    1. Re:Impact zones and crash repair. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The door skins and hood are more and more commonly simply replaced when they are damaged. For the average vehicle a door shell is quite a bit cheaper than any significant body work; only for very new vehicles is this not true. Hoods are generally considered to be economically unrepairable if they have any but the very slightest damage because of the difficulty in getting a repair on a hood to behave like the rest of the hood. Trunk lids are more commonly repaired because they are not so large and thus they are not so prone to oilcan flex.

      Today this is not a good idea. But soon enough it could be workable.

      Flexible connections are not a big problem, most of the electrical connections in the car are flexible even where they don't need to be simply to facilitate service.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  24. Re:We build excitement! && Danger by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

    There is a reason why fuel tank is universally located in a protected area behind and on the side of the car. They're talking about installing capacitors in DOORS.

    Gas tanks in doors would likely get your car banned off the road in a very short order.

    Oh quit whining. They would be protected by the airbags. Snuggled up right next to your elbow. They'll be fine.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  25. Shocking.. by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

    Not one quip 'til now about a Flux Capacitor, or electric/hybrid cars that will be able to travel back in time?
    It's a terrible pun, but they could rename the Prius to "Pre-us"....

    --

    Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  26. Logical extension of the monocoque by jeorgen · · Score: 1

    There was a time when all cars were built with a frame and then an additional external skin or paneling, and similar for aircraft. One then realized that one could combine the load bearing and the skin in one material, and this is called monocoque.

    Using the skin for storing energy (especially storing "weightless" electrical energy) seems to be just a logical extension of the monocoque concept. Maybe cars will be built in some synthetic double shell lined with massive-surfaced nanoscale carbon structures?

  27. Volkswagen too by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    So does that mean that if you leave a light on and run your battery down, you have to take it to the dealer to get it repaired?

    Inded, that is exactly what it means.

    Volkswagen, same thing. Happened to my 1996 Golf. I left the lights on, ran down the battery -- so the radio locked itself tight, awaiting the release code.

    --
    -kgj
    1. Re:Volkswagen too by Silfax · · Score: 1

      Inded, that is exactly what it means.

      Volkswagen, same thing. Happened to my 1996 Golf. I left the lights on, ran down the battery -- so the radio locked itself tight, awaiting the release code.

      With my old departed 95 Jetta (@350k miles), the reset code came on a card in the user manual for the radio.

    2. Re:Volkswagen too by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Wow. If my '99 WIndstar did that, I'd have had to take it to the dealer at least two or three times in any given year. Which is to say that I would have ripped out the alarm system and the radio about a week after the warranty ended....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    3. Re:Volkswagen too by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Awaiting the release code... that was (or should have been) printed in your owner's manual. An anti-theft code is not a problem, so long as the owner is in control of it.

      Note that if you lose your code (which happened to me recently), you can call up VW and have them tell it to you for free. (The asshole dealers, however, will attempt to charge you $20 if the radio isn't original to the car and you need to pull it out of the dash to read the serial number. I borrowed the radio removal tools from a stereo installer at Fry's instead, for free.)

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  28. What about HazMat when the cars burn? by couchslug · · Score: 3, Informative

    Vehicle fires are common, and even without a petrol tank they burn very nicely. Exotic materials can produce dangerous products when burned, and their inhalation isn't just an EMS issue

    When carbon fiber aircraft structures are burned or damaged, Crash Recovery teams are required to spray them with a fixative (commercial floor wax is one) then wrap them in plastic for transport and disposal.

    A CONTAINERIZED capacitor can retain material which will be destroyed in a fire if it's the skin of the vehicle.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    1. Re:What about HazMat when the cars burn? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      When carbon fiber aircraft structures are burned or damaged, Crash Recovery teams are required to spray them with a fixative (commercial floor wax is one) then wrap them in plastic for transport and disposal.

      I wonder, does the same thing happen when rich idiots wreck their supercars?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:What about HazMat when the cars burn? by couchslug · · Score: 1

      [quote]
      I wonder, does the same thing happen when rich idiots wreck their supercars?
      [/quote]
      The same products are produced by burning composite.

      Responders aren't (yet) trained heavily in dealing with burning composite vehicles.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  29. integrating capacitors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Capacitors (with a little resistance) are great integrators - maybe they can do it themselves - with a bit of coaxing - I said they had a bit of resistance (ducks)

  30. Rescue sheet behind the sun visor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have a rescue sheet readily available behind the sun visor, so that the emergency personnel can avoid the capacitors while cutting through the metal. More info about rescue sheets here: http://www.rescuesheet.info/
    Please, spread the word.

    1. Re:Rescue sheet behind the sun visor by rrossman2 · · Score: 1

      yes, but as they aren't required or (as far as I know) often used in the US, chances are the firefighters or whoever show up won't even bother to look behind the sun visor.

      Just a thought.

    2. Re:Rescue sheet behind the sun visor by rrossman2 · · Score: 1

      Err sorry, just to add to my above comment.. the other issue with it being a European (or as the link you've provided German) thing is they don't have all of the cars the US has (such as my Xterra), and they have different safety standards, so unless there's a US version of it there's kind of no point.

  31. oops, a dint causes a short and ENDS YOUR LIFE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And what happens when you have a short? Say from a small dint? Seriously. This is a bad idea no matter which way I rub it on my abdomen.

  32. Re:We build excitement! && Danger by Luckyo · · Score: 1

    This is probably the first time ever on slashdot that simple "DIAF" is an appropriate response and not trolling.

  33. Re:We build excitement! && Danger by Bucc5062 · · Score: 1

    I hate it when there is small fender bump on my commute to work and the people just sit on the side of the road. The traffic piles up with neck cranners, the 30 ride goes to 45 or 50 mins and on a hot day, not fun at all. If a blown capacitor obliterates the two cars into nothing..oh well. Maybe people will start to pay more attention to driving then talking a phone, eating breakfast, dressing or whatever they do other then focus on driving.

    In this day and age why we still subject people to commuting when there is so much opportunity to use the internet and communication tools available to keep people home working. We'd save on energy costs, we'd help local economies, and from one swedish study I read, marriages may last longer. Honestly, maybe capacitors blowing up will get us off the road.

    --
    Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
  34. Re:Stop using cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you consider the Wright Brothers first flight (1903) to be the birth of aviation, than airplanes are 108 years old. Why would you want something so antiquated as an airplane. We should all start riding Segways everywhere. They are the new thing. Hell, they're only 10 years old. I say they are the FUTURE*!

    *until hoverboard technology comes about by the year 2015 as predicted by the documentary "Back To The Future: Part 2".

  35. Re:'Toping by captjc · · Score: 1

    Worse yet, the new in-thing for kids will be to convert their reactors to illegally enrich uranium to sell to rogue nations.

    Don't be a dope. Say NO to 'Tope.

    --
    Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
  36. Larger Caps don't explode more forcefully. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's small caps that explode more easily.

    Larger caps usually just expand slowly and vent in a controlled manner.

    A bullet passing through a large capacitor will destroy it, but is not very likely to cause an explosion.

    A bullet passing through a large transformer is what IS likely to cause an explosion...

    Though safety would be your own risk: Try buying 2 capacitors at radio shack, both rated at 6.3 volts.... one a 1uF and the other a 4700uF.... then attach their leads via alligator clips and jumper wires with enough length to allow the cap to dangle inside an empty soda can...

    Now pay attention to the capacitor's polarity markings and hook them to a car battery, but backwards on purpose....

    I would recommend blowing them separately so you can hear and see the difference between the destruction...

    The 1uF cap should sound roughly like a 22 cal shot (maybe not quite that loud) and the larger capacitor should make a muffled sound closer in volume and tone to a cork popping out of a bottle of the bubbly stuff, though less dramatic.

    Trust me, I'm a doctor.....

  37. good info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0