Community > Forum > Official Armadillo Aerospace Forum > Do we live forever that we can afford to waste time

Do we live forever that we can afford to waste time

Posted by: Dan Frederiksen - Wed May 05, 2010 2:57 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 121 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9  Next
Do we live forever that we can afford to waste time 
Author Message
Space Walker
Space Walker
User avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 3:30 am
Posts: 213
Location: USA
Post Re: Do we live forever that we can afford to waste time   Posted on: Mon May 17, 2010 1:54 pm
I have often wondered why the Volt uses a four cylinder instead of a small gas turbine. The Turbine engine would be smaller and more efficient. This courtesy of having only one design rpm to optimize.

I really like the idea of putting such a system in Semi-Trucks. They would benefit more than most from the low end torque that a motor provides. The fuel savings on one truck would dwarf a fleet of smaller cars.

I like the concept of in-wheel-drive. but, I am not sure what that would do for the re-activeness of your shocks. In Big trucks it would be at least nice to put the motors in-line with the drive wheels to avoid twisting the frame.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2004 8:47 am
Posts: 521
Location: Science Park, Cambridge, UK
Post Re: Do we live forever that we can afford to waste time   Posted on: Mon May 17, 2010 2:38 pm
Dan Frederiksen wrote:
JamesHughes, safety requirements has nothing to do with the weight gain. that's a common misconception invoked to avoid realizing the truth.
battery drive is vastly superior to anything else although generators will have a role as range extenders to overcome the one critical weakness of batteries, total capacity. a turbine might serve as such but not yet clear if a small one can be made light, powerful and efficient enough. capstone has promoted their turbines for car use but their specs suck.


Safety requirements of course have an affect on weight. You need side impact bars? They weigh more than NOT having side impact bars (even if designed in to the structure). You need a crumple zone? You need to make the car bigger, adding weight. Now, I'm not saying that the current designs are the best they can be - I am sure they are not, and I am sure that with materials tech that could be made considerably lighter, but with the same safety margin. However, you can put a large amount of money on that being TOO expensive for mass production, otherwise IT WOULD ALREADY HAVE BEEN DONE. Car manufacturers need to make money, so the cheaper they can make their cars the better, and that means materials costs as low as possible - they are not going to put safety stuff on the car they don't need too, unless it is cheaper than what they already do. It all comes down to cost. You COULD make a very tough car, which is also light, but it is just too expensive.

I'm not convinced battery drive is so much better. Batteries are very heavy, and wear out much quicker than conventional fuel systems - and modern higher capacity batteries have a relatively short life even compared with lead acid. I'm sure that will improve. But then, if the same money was spent on making micro gas turbine based systems effective, perhaps they would also improve - perhaps more than batteries.


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:43 pm
Posts: 146
Location: Webster, TX
Post Re: Do we live forever that we can afford to waste time   Posted on: Mon May 17, 2010 2:44 pm
DanielW wrote:
This courtesy of having only one design rpm to optimize
even with a piston engine driving a generator, like in the diesel-electric setup, you'd still be optimizing to a single rpm. and with both cases, you'll have to deal with in-efficincies at start up as they warmup and spin up to the proper RPM. The reason i like the turbine over the pison engine is a matter of parts. Small turbines, like those that Capstone make, have a relatively small amount of parts as compared to a standard piston engine. Matching the output shaft speed to what is needed for a generator is a little easier i think as well, going to have to look that up again (its been a while).
DanielW wrote:
I like the concept of in-wheel-drive. but, I am not sure what that would do for the re-activeness of your shocks. In Big trucks it would be at least nice to put the motors in-line with the drive wheels to avoid twisting the frame.

I think the issue with the suspension system was another reason that in hub motors was not as well suited for car and larger uses.

The Semi concept I've been off and on working on would use two traction motors driving the rear two axles, with the option of disabling one of the two during high-way cruising. If I remember correctly, the traction motors in Deisel-electric trains are positioned in the trucks parallel to the axles, though because of space, something else would probably have to be done for a semi (granted smaller motors would be used there as well).
DanielW wrote:
I have often wondered why the Volt uses a four cylinder instead of a small gas turbine
I'd see if can find that one out, though my guess is GM's limited experience with micro-turbines, and also that it may make it harder to sell (sound supression being an issue). Some may say the hot exhaust is an issue too, but I would counter that they just aren't doing enough to recycle that wasted heat.

hey James... how much do you know about current SuperCapacitors? I've only heard about them in passing.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:39 pm
Posts: 266
Location: Denmark
Post Re: Do we live forever that we can afford to waste time   Posted on: Mon May 17, 2010 7:19 pm
JamesHughes, batteries are not too heavy. 0-100km/h in less than 2 seconds is easy with 200kg of batteries.
and if you mean a gas turbine for primary drive, then what would that run on? fossil fuel? the primary purpose is avoiding global warming, secondary is peak oil which will hit very soon btw. combustion engine cars need not apply.
when I say electric drive is superior then it is so. I have spent 3½ years thinking about environmental car tech and I am rather intelligent.
and what the moronic car companies do is absolutely not a yard stick for the optimal. they are status quo zombies and some of them in bed with oil interests.

besides, this thread is about what AA should do in rocketry, not electric cars, even though Carmack has a decent EV. it's good if you spend some time on green cars too but here it's rockets. I suggest you read the green car newssite green.autoblog.com where I can educate you further in the comments, as I am the rest of the world.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:44 am
Posts: 707
Location: Haarlem, The Netherlands
Post Re: Do we live forever that we can afford to waste time   Posted on: Mon May 17, 2010 8:21 pm
Dan Frederiksen wrote:
Lourens, sigh
maybe the freeranger has slightly better acceleration than the 2CV..
maybe slightly better energy efficiency..

I'm sorry, I think we are looking from different perspectives here. You are looking at the technology of the Freeranger. I'm looking at the product, or the use case if you wish. Both cars are not well suited for long range trips on the highway; they're both much better for a short trip to a (super)market, or a short commute. That is also why I'm not interested very much in acceleration: it's not going to get me to work appreciably faster. Energy efficiency is only important to the user in that it affects the range (both cars are good enough) and running costs (Freeranger will be cheaper per km in fuel costs). Well and perhaps a few Greens-voting, eco-friendly products buying folks like me will feel good about it.

There are similarities though, between the 2CV and the Freeranger, from a technical perspective too: both are light, relatively low power (the 2CV has 6-33 hp depending on the model, Freeranger 16 hp, a mid-range Mazda 3 compact car has over 100 hp, with larger family cars going up to 150 hp at least), and fuel efficient (33 km for 1 litre of petrol, or 78 mpg, for the 2CV).

There are also differences: The 2CV was designed for off-road use, while the Freeranger will only run on asphalt (I'd think anyway); modern materials make the Freeranger more efficient in absolute terms, and because of the use of top-of-the-line parts, Freeranger will be much, much more expensive. Carbon fibre is very expensive, and mass production technology isn't available yet for carbon fibre. Polyester is better in that respect, but not as strong. The batteries are very expensive, as will be the motors (if even available). The Freeranger won't be a car for the masses like the 2CV was.

Quote:
I didn't refer to an SUV as a 70 ton tank. read it again

True, strictly speaking. But any mention of 70 ton tanks in the context of personal road transportation is hyperbole. That's all I'm going to say, I don't want to distract the discussion away from the Freeranger any further.

Quote:
when did you argue that a formula 1 car is less safe than the freeranger?

Sorry, I meant the opposite. Since I only have an ordinary brain, I can not just see these things, like you can. So I have to go look up all the formulas and do the maths, and it takes a lot of time and effort. I spent an entire evening on that big post, and by the time I wrote that last sentence, it was 1 am and I was really tired. I'm sorry for confusing you.

Quote:
if you mean the other way around, then try to realize the shape of the freeranger is a lot like a formula 1 car and can of course employ the same safety design or better. higher weight is not a simple advantage. that's just more weight you have to stop as well.
I'm not going to answer you again unless you own up and stop your massive mistakes.

Again, I'm sorry. This is really difficult for me. I did some more research, and it was indeed Robert Kubica in that crash, in 2007. You can see the car disintegrating in the picture as well, at least the outer parts that function as a crumple zone. Apparently it was at 300 km/h even, but not a head-on collision (75 degrees rather than 90).

However, an F1 car weighs over 400 kg empty, and the monocoque is wrapped much more tightly around the driver. You mention the Freeranger being rather spacious, with the driver sitting more upright. And it only weighs 130 kg empty. So, with the curvature of the shell being larger, and it having at most half the weight, how could it be just as strong?

Thank you for answering, your comments are very enlightening.

_________________
Say, can you feel the thunder in the air? Just like the moment ’fore it hits – then it’s everywhere
What is this spell we’re under, do you care? The might to rise above it is now within your sphere
Machinae Supremacy – Sid Icarus


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:39 pm
Posts: 266
Location: Denmark
Post Re: Do we live forever that we can afford to waste time   Posted on: Mon May 17, 2010 9:09 pm
Lourens, when I say it has 80hp then please don't say it has 16. it's that kind of continued intentional mistakes that make me not want to answer you.
electric motors are rated differently and operate differently than combustion engines. 2 15hp rated forklift motors pushed a 1972 datsun to an 11 second quarter mile. that's veyron territory. could you please by default assume I know what I'm talking about instead of ignorantly assuming that I don't.
it weighs less than a third of a 2CV and it has a lot more power. it is incomparably more powerful relative to its mass.
and it's not a track car either. it has plenty of clearance for running on dirt roads if necessary.

and it wont cost more than a 2CV. it will be cheaper. and I intend it to be fiber glass, not carbon, because it's also very strong, near that of carbon and much cheaper. it is a very simple construction.

as for formula 1, it's true it's stronger but also has that much more weight to stop. at some point that should sink in. again, think foam car. something that weighs very little yet can easily cushion you on impact.
take the time to understand what I say. listen to me, not your prejudice.

as for safety seat, I have considered a bucket seat with wide belts to spread out the strain, even a head mask to stop the head. that should really be done even though some might find it impractical but they also found it impractical to wear a seatbelt and the stupid car makers fought against crumple zones, seatbelts, and collapsable steering column. they fight anything reasonable. it took law to make them comply.

formula 1 car is primarily safe because it holds all of the body in place. that can easily be done in the freeranger too, but that's entirely a matter of acceptability, not material strength.


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:43 pm
Posts: 146
Location: Webster, TX
Post Re: Do we live forever that we can afford to waste time   Posted on: Tue May 18, 2010 2:41 am
lollers... ok i am going to have fun with this one.
Dan Frederiksen wrote:
could you please by default assume I know what I'm talking about instead of ignorantly assuming that I don't.
well that is not a problem, seeing as i never assumed anything. I knew from the beginning that you didn't know what you were talking about.
Dan Frederiksen wrote:
2 15hp rated forklift motors pushed a 1972 datsun to an 11 second quarter mile. that's veyron territory.
Ok, first of all, the Veyron is an overpriced piece of junk, not worth the material its made of. second. I've seen Dodge Neons do the quarter in 10. big fricken deal. and I can guarantee you that the Datsun you mentioned would certainly not get 100km per charge.
Dan Frederiksen wrote:
and it wont cost more than a 2CV. it will be cheaper. and I intend it to be fiber glass, not carbon, because it's also very strong, near that of carbon and much cheaper. it is a very simple construction.
as for formula 1, it's true it's stronger but also has that much more weight to stop. at some point that should sink in. again, think foam car. something that weighs very little yet can easily cushion you on impact.
Ok, so in addition to zero knowledge of Electrical and electromotive systems, we can add materials and structures to the garbage you like to BS about.
wee... troll baiting is fun! lets see what else I can find..... OH! here's one!
Dan Frederiksen wrote:
even a head mask to stop the head.
wow...lol... yeah i won't even get into that one now that i think about it.

Dan Frederiksen wrote:
it took law to make them comply.
you know who one of the first major players for seatbelts was? and in fact made them mandatory on all military vehicles? Col.Stapp. yep. military. let that bounce around your tinfoil hat for a bit. And dont even think about questioning Stapp and all that he did.
Dan Frederiksen wrote:
formula 1 car is primarily safe because it holds all of the body in place. that can easily be done in the freeranger too, but that's entirely a matter of acceptability, not material strength.

Again, thank you for revealing your utter lack of real engineering.

wow this was fun. And to think i was about to give this up...


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:39 pm
Posts: 266
Location: Denmark
Post Re: Do we live forever that we can afford to waste time   Posted on: Tue May 18, 2010 3:15 am
MFL, maybe realize that you are the one lolling and having fun with provocation. you are the troll.

I'll just touch on one point. I have succesfully designed and built power electronics circuits. just a small demo running 320V regulating 2000Watt with a programmed microcontroller but I could easily scale it to be the power electronics in an electric car beating a veyron.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2004 8:47 am
Posts: 521
Location: Science Park, Cambridge, UK
Post Re: Do we live forever that we can afford to waste time   Posted on: Tue May 18, 2010 8:22 am
MFL wrote:
hey James... how much do you know about current SuperCapacitors? I've only heard about them in passing.


Not overly knowledgeable about them - try Wikipedia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_capacitor


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2004 8:47 am
Posts: 521
Location: Science Park, Cambridge, UK
Post Re: Do we live forever that we can afford to waste time   Posted on: Tue May 18, 2010 8:33 am
Dan Frederiksen wrote:
JamesHughes, batteries are not too heavy. 0-100km/h in less than 2 seconds is easy with 200kg of batteries.
and if you mean a gas turbine for primary drive, then what would that run on? fossil fuel? the primary purpose is avoiding global warming, secondary is peak oil which will hit very soon btw. combustion engine cars need not apply.


Batteries are heavy - so if you can come up with a scheme with a higher energy density than batteries, that is by definition better from an efficiency POV. You shouldn't fixate on performance -the performance sectors is pretty small - most people just want to get to and from work as cheaply as possible.

As for the source of the energy - batteries need to be charged. Most electricity is generated by fossil fueled power stations - sad but true.

Gas turbines can run on a lot of different hydrocarbon fuels, so are not so reliant on oil supply, but there are certainly not a panacea. If someone can develop a way of making hydrocarbon fuel from the CO2 in the air, plus solar power, they will have it made! That would be a good area to apply your massive brain.


Dan Frederiksen wrote:
when I say electric drive is superior then it is so. I have spent 3½ years thinking about environmental car tech and I am rather intelligent.
and what the moronic car companies do is absolutely not a yard stick for the optimal. they are status quo zombies and some of them in bed with oil interests.


Hmm, I wonder if this is the reason why you have to do all your development work yourself? Presentation skills are rather important when trying to pitch ideas to incumbent industry. Might be worth applying your massive brain power to that area too.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:39 pm
Posts: 266
Location: Denmark
Post Re: Do we live forever that we can afford to waste time   Posted on: Tue May 18, 2010 9:11 am
JamesHughes, Einstein wouldn't have labelled mankind with infinite stupidity if it was just about the form of the presentation.

as for making liquid fuel from atmospheric CO2 that is all existing technology. it just awaits implementation, which is where the problem of infinite human stupidity comes in again. fixing global warming and getting off fossil fuel completely is technologically easy.
light plugin hybrids and fuel/feedstock synthesis from solar and wind power and that's that. trivial. but getting the dumb sheep to move is near impossible.
I am right about the car, cars in general and I am right about what AA should do. it would be amazing but it's like talking to a wall. you move so slowly. you think so little


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:43 pm
Posts: 146
Location: Webster, TX
Post Re: Do we live forever that we can afford to waste time   Posted on: Tue May 18, 2010 12:58 pm
Dan Frederiksen wrote:
maybe realize that you are the one lolling and having fun with provocation. you are the troll.
but Dan, this is exactly what you've been doing, I'm just trying to show you the light. the Error of your ways.... you know I am right afterall.

But in all seriousness.....
Dan Frederiksen wrote:
I'll just touch on one point. I have succesfully designed and built power electronics circuits. just a small demo running 320V regulating 2000Watt with a programmed microcontroller but I could easily scale it to be the power electronics in an electric car beating a veyron.

If you are using the Veyron as a goal post ... you are seriously misguided. You really want to win the public over, design the vehicle to match the capabilities of an SUV. That is, 5 to 7 passengers plus cargo and towing capability, with a range better than 100km. It can be done. probably easier than a supercar wannabe. THAT is a goal worth achieving. Why? Because there is one simple fact that you have yet to grasp hold of. Driving conditions and needs are vastly different here in the USA than there in Europe. I'm not saying one is better than the other (granted your roads are probably better maintained than ours), but the situation and the needs of the drivers are different depending on where you are. Hell I would gladly work with you on a SUV / Crossover vehicle replacement project.

While I'll never laud the benefits of an SUV (I hate the damn things) you'll never catch me driving anything smaller than a corvette either. Not with all the people around who sit in the driver's seat of SUVs and HUmmers that can't actually drive. But I also won't disregard much of the reason that peple own SUVs and crossovers (forget hummers, if its not a Diesel H1, its worthless). The small electric car, like what you propose, and like the SMART cars, have limited use. If I were in the city, I might have one, but i'd just as soon have a bike. *shrugs* personal preference.

And no. I do not, and will not, ever own an SUV.

Dan Frederiksen wrote:
Einstein wouldn't have labelled mankind with infinite stupidity if it was just about the form of the presentation

you clearly missed his point on that one

@James
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanation
Yeah i saw the wiki link on supercaps.. going to have to dig through the companies' websites and see if i can get more useful info.

Dan Frederiksen wrote:
fixing global warming and getting off fossil fuel completely is technologically easy.
light plugin hybrids and fuel/feedstock synthesis from solar and wind power and that's that. trivial. but getting the dumb sheep to move is near impossible
technologically easy.... eeehhhh... kinda. not really.
trivial?If you honestly think that a few plugin hybrids (OMG OMG HYDROCARBON FUELS!!!!!!!!) and synthetic feedstocks is going to make everything better (synthetic or not CO2 and CO are still emitted)and is a trivial process, you are truly delusional. and If you think that its a matter of getting the "dumb sheep" to move, then think about this. who is going to pay to replace everyone's car? to replace all their lightbulbs with solid state lighting (none of that CFL crap) to re-insulate all their homes to modern insulation standards and upgrade their heating and cooling systems as well? What about the infrastructure necessary to pay for the fuel changes? Those things are only the tip of the iceburg.who would pay for that? If you think that everyone should gladly pay for that on their own, then you are sadly mistaken.


Back to top
Profile
Online
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 2:21 pm
Posts: 438
Location: B.O.A. UK
Post Re: Do we live forever that we can afford to waste time   Posted on: Tue May 18, 2010 2:31 pm
JamesHughes wrote:
Gas turbines can run on a lot of different hydrocarbon fuels, so are not so reliant on oil supply, but there are certainly not a panacea. If someone can develop a way of making hydrocarbon fuel from the CO2 in the air, plus solar power, they will have it made! That would be a good area to apply your massive brain.


Its already been figured out a little electrolysis and a zirconia catalyst

http://www.geoffreylandis.com/propellant.html

The trouble is that unless you have a lot of cheap solar its not really economical in our current climate. Its one of the reasons i am an advocate of the solar power space stations broadcasting energy down here. Energy is the L.C.D. of our technological society and unless we use the cheap energy that we currently get from fossil fuels to bootstrap our next stage of energy use by developing space technologies that can maintain our technological civilization in the long term we may end up finding its more politically economical fighting each other for the last drops of oil when it becomes becomes so expensive that our shared standard of living starts to drop.

I am with Dan on being frustrated on how long its taking to develop some needed technology's but i think the causes are complex social and political conflicts along with inertial some of which is near tinfoil hat territory but i suspect if there were as many Hubble sized satellites in orbit as he has suggested Patrick Moore would have stated a light pollution petition. :twisted:

PS i am also interested in the current state of super capacitors IIRC i did see some references that they were getting close to being good enough as a battery replacement technology but i cant remember where i saw it and it was probably a while ago and a lightweight thin version might be useful in one of my current projects.

_________________
Someone has to tilt at windmills.
So that we know what to do when the real giants come!!!!


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:44 am
Posts: 707
Location: Haarlem, The Netherlands
Post Re: Do we live forever that we can afford to waste time   Posted on: Tue May 18, 2010 4:49 pm
Dan Frederiksen wrote:
Lourens, when I say it has 80hp then please don't say it has 16. it's that kind of continued intentional mistakes that make me not want to answer you.
I'm sorry, that is due to a little personal problem of mine. You see, I really like milk, but it has to be fresh and cold. When it gets warm or even just a little sour, it bothers me a lot.

You mentioned 85% efficiency for electric motors. So, if it outputs 80 hp, then there must be 80 / 0.85 = 94 hp of electrical power going in, 14 hp of which is converted into heat. That is 14 * 750 = 10500 W.

Now, your motors weigh 9.5 kg each, so 19 kg in total. Assuming a specific weight of roughly 55 g/mol and a specific heat capacity of 25 J/mol/K (figures taken from iron), 10500 J will increase the temperature of the motors by 10500 / (19000 / 55) = 30 K. And your motors output that amount of heat every second. So, starting at 20 C, motor temperature will rise to 60 * 30 + 20 = 1820 C in about a minute (it will take me at least a minute to reach the supermarket).

Now the problem with that is that it will no doubt start radiating some of that heat into my groceries, which will warm and possibly even sour my milk. And since, as I said, I really don't like warm milk, I'm sticking with the rated maximum continuous output of 8 hp per engine (see earlier links).

But you are right of course. What I didn't think of, is that I also really like tea, and my tea I do like hot. Using the Freeranger at 80 hp, I would be able to heat a litre of water to 100 C in about 35 seconds. So while the milk will be spoilt, I can have a cup of tea instead. I never realised that, I'm sorry. I wish I were a genius like you, then I would have.

<hangs head in shame>

_________________
Say, can you feel the thunder in the air? Just like the moment ’fore it hits – then it’s everywhere
What is this spell we’re under, do you care? The might to rise above it is now within your sphere
Machinae Supremacy – Sid Icarus


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 1:04 pm
Posts: 254
Location: Norway
Post Re: Do we live forever that we can afford to waste time   Posted on: Tue May 18, 2010 9:10 pm
DanielW wrote:
I have often wondered why the Volt uses a four cylinder instead of a small gas turbine. The Turbine engine would be smaller and more efficient. This courtesy of having only one design rpm to optimize.


Because they have it more or less already in production, and will by that increase the number of engines being produced, which decreases the cost per engine, both for the volt/ampera and other cars using the engine directly.


Back to top
Profile ICQ
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 121 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9  Next

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests


© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use