Neil Blanchard Designs

What Do We Do Now? -- Continued

2012-01-29T13:15:00.000-08:00

Electricity is the nexus of many renewable energy resources. Renewable energy sources are all over the place, and no one can monopolize them. These are quite democratizing -- energy is available virtually anywhere and everywhere.

Sure geothermal on the surface is only in a few places (Iceland, parts of the USA, New Zealand, etc.) but wind is in many places, including the corridor from Texas up to the Dakotas, and basically all around the midwest, California, and offshore from our coasts. Wind scales up well, getting more efficient as the turbines get bigger. We now have direct drive turbines that eliminate the weakest piece of the previous generation -- the transmission, and so they generate more power, break less often, cost less to build and maintain, and they save about 17 tons of weight, to boot.

Solar can be virtually anywhere -- Germany even! Germany is about as sunny as Washington state, which is the least sunny place in the lower 49 states. Solar is great for the highest load which is for air conditioning -- and there are no grid losses when it is right in the same building. Solar scales down nicely.

Combining solar and wind along with a few gas turbines (methane from sewage or farm wastes) for peak load, and a hydro power station with an elevated reservoir works very well. Here's how this works in Germany:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR8gEMpzos4

Here's a Scientific American article on powering the USA with renewable energy 100% by 2030:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030

And we can use wave power -- there are three companies (at least) around the world that already make these -- here's the one in New Jersey:

http://www.oceanpowertechnologies.com/

Most of the world's people live close to the coast, so wave power and tidal power are close by.

We need to transition to renewable energy NO MATTER WHAT. Eventually, the finite resources we are using now -- oil, coal, gas and uranium will run out, by definition. The earth is just one planet; and it is the only one we have. The other more likely scenario is that we will cause too much climate change by burning up the carbon fossil fuels dumping all the carbon that has been packed away over million and millions and millions of years back into the atmosphere in less than 200 hundred years, and we will have more chaos in our climate than we can adapt to.

So, hopefully oil and coal gets too expensive so that we will switch to renewable energy -- which will last another billion years -- until the sun explodes! And it will not pollute in ways that we cannot deal with.

We need to stop subsidizing oil and coal. We need to be able to stop requiring a huge military to defend oil supplies.

We need to stop using up all of the finite resources -- our factory agriculture is totally dependent on oil and gas and phosphorus and chemical pesticides. It kills the natural life cycle within the soil -- the dirt that we are utterly dependent on for our lives. Dead unproductive soil that erodes into the sea won't grow anything. It won't hold water and it won't let it filter down into the aquifers that we are pumping dry as fast as we can.

Life itself created all the soil, and we are made of the exact same materials that are in the soil.

Oil is the primary reason that we have accelerated so quickly from living within that cycle of life to living beyond what the earth can sustain. We need to use our intelligence and our scientific knowledge, and our adaptability to change what we now know needs to be changed; before we lose too much of the life support here on this earth that we cannot live without.

There is no "planet B".

What Do We Do Now?

2012-01-04T19:18:00.000-08:00

It is critical that we do something about global climate change and our unsustainable consumption of many important resources -- because we can have an affect. We started the ball rolling, and by the same token, we can work to reverse what we have started. It won't be easy and it will be painful, but as moral beings we have to try.

Paul Gilding in his book "The Great Disruption" talks about an approximate time line of 5 or 6 years of status quo before we hit a big tipping point, and then very aggressive reduction of carbon output over the next 25-30 years, followed by as much carbon sequestration as we can muster.

We need to take the 2C increase very seriously, and we must not pass ~450ppm or all hell will really break loose. We need to return back down to <350ppm to avoid the worst effects. The equilibrium we had for ~650,000 years was ~270ppm.

When and if we can do this, the world won't be back to what we had, because there is real and lasting damage to biodiversity, but it will probably settle down.

We and all life forms here in the present are the results of all life that has come before us. We would not even have oxygen in the air without plants splitting water in photosynthesis. Each and every molecule in our bodies has been part of myriad other life forms before, many times over.

Think of this as a kind of reincarnation. I love this quote from Neil deGrasseTyson:

We are all connected;
To each other, biologically
Tothe earth, chemically
To the rest of the universe atomically ***

Each and every drop of water has been cycling through life forms, the soil, and the rocks of this planet -- over and over and over and over again and again and again... The oxygen carrying iron in our blood came from the stars. All the gold we have came from supernovas. The soil itself was produced by all of life forms down through the eons.

This is a balanced and efficient and bountiful cycle. The carbon we have so blithely thrown up into the atmosphere in less than 2 centuries was packed away underground over a couple of billion years. We have made a very basic change, and we must take responsibility for it.

***

A recent study said that 83-95% of ALL daily drives in the USA could be done in a Nissan Leaf.

Can you imagine the day when ~90% of all cars in America are electric? We wouldn't need a military any where near as large as we have now. We would stop spending 1.5 BILLION a DAY on foreign oil. Our carbon output could be 20-25% lower (if I am anywhere close on this?), and the air pollution would be hugely reduced, saving many lives and many people would be far healthier with out it.

We could all have solar PV panels on our roofs and we would save another 20-30% of carbon output because all the oldest coal plants could be shut down. We can get almost all out hot water from solar heat vacuum tube collectors, and the most efficient heat pumps, some being geothermal heat pumps would let us heat and cool our houses completely carbon free.

We could employ 250,000+ people building and assembling wind turbines and wave power machines, and in a few decades we could get 100% of our electricity from fuel free renewable energy sources. We would lower our carbon output by 80% overall and we would stop killing coal miners and have zero oil spills and not need to devastate the boreal forests of Alberta or dig for uranium around the Grand Canyon, or poison drinking wells with fracking fluid.

If we switched back to farming like we did it 75 years ago, we would not be poisoning the rivers with chemical runoff, not create dead zones in the ocean, and not add nitrous oxide (the results of chemical nitrogen fertilizers!) to the atmosphere, adding to global climate change. We would all be much healthier and all food could be local and fresh and in season and safer and cancer rates would drop and all food would be fully nutritious and have full flavor.

And we would avoid the worst of global climate change. If we can stay below ~450ppm and keep the Antarctic ice sheets frozen and not mess up crop productivity too much, and not cause too many 1,000's of more species to go extinct and not flood our most populous river deltas and low lying coastal plains and only displace a few million people -- then we might just survive the next millennium, and have chance to correct what we have done in the last century and a half.

We would come back into step with the natural cycle of life that has sustained life for millions of years.

*** This was used in a song, that I blogged about earlier, called "We Are All Connected"

Tar Sands = Peak Oil

2011-09-08T03:35:00.001-07:00

Tar sands is proof of peak oil -- and that should be worrying to anybody who thinks we "have" to have as much oil as we want, and that we have a "right" to use it as quickly as we want to.

Oil is finite.
Coal is finite.
Natural gas (methane from underground sources) is finite.
Uranium is finite.

So why do we humans of this particular generation -- think somehow that we can use up these finite resources as quickly as we want to?

Renewable energy all come either from the sun -- solar, wind, wave, biofuel; or from the earth's core -- geothermal; or from the moon's gravity -- in the case of tidal energy. And all of these will be here as long as the earth is here -- scientists estimate about a billion more years.
There is a huge abundance of renewable energy, all around us. It is available in an excess -- we only need to gather a tiny fraction of it, to more than meet all our needs.

None of these energy sources cause any pollution, and none cause global climate change, and no one has to pay another country to get them. No one can control these energy sources. They are there all over the world, and nobody can dominate them.

So, here's where we are at:
We have burned up a huge amount of these finite energy sources in a very brief period of time, leaving very little for all the generations of humans to come.
We have caused global climate change, that is an unavoidable result of releasing the carbon from millions and millions of years back into the atmosphere in about a century.
We have also caused myriad of more localized damage to the earth we depend on to live.

Oil is running out.
Coal is running out.
Natural gas is running out.
Uranium is running out.

It is totally possible to use renewables for all our needs. The hardest is certainly flying, but biodiesel is coming along fine. There is a huge abundance of energy all around us. And we do not need to "go back to an earlier time" -- electricity and the Internet are here to stay.

Materials for PV panels are (probably) recyclable. The energy to do this can come from ... renewable sources. And we don't have to sit still -- there are going to be new and better ways to gather renewable energy.

Enough sunlight energy hits the earth in one hour to power ALL of human needs for one year. Of course, we cannot gather all of it, so it might take us a week to gather enough energy for the whole year -- and that is just solar energy. Wind power would take about a month to provide enough energy for an entire year. Wave power might take a month, as well. Geothermal energy can be drilled. Tidal power in places like the Bay of Fundy are truly awesome. Biogas (methane aka natural gas) can be produced from every sewage treatment plant in existence, and from farm waste (plant and animal), too.

There is way more renewable energy than we could know what to do with. Energy is the least of our worries.

The true costs of burning oil and coal and gas (and nuclear fission for that matter) are way beyond what we pay for them, in money. We cannot pay enough to make up for the true costs for these finite energy sources. They are far more valuable than the cash/money we pay for them.

We will all pay dearly -- but we cannot afford to not transition to renewable energy. For many reasons, truly renewable energy will be the only energy that be here as long as the earth exists.

Once wind turbines, solar installations, wave power systems -- are installed and producing power, all those jobs are guaranteed to stay local. The profits from the power produced stays local, too. Renewable energy is here to stay as long as the earth exists. And they burn zero fuel and produce no pollution.

The amount of water pollution from the processing the tar sands in staggering. It will take lots of natural gas to heat the water need to even get the tar separated from the sands, and that gas has to be fracked out of the ground, which uses even more water and causes it's own pollution.

A "growth" economy is by definition going to end. It cannot continue to grow forever, even if we humans figure out how to limit ourselves to ~7 billion.
The inevitable conclusion is that the only thing we can do is use renewable energy, if we want to continue to live as we are, here on this earth. This has been a hard lesson, and we had better pay attention.

Sincerely, Neil

CarBEN EV5 Open Source Project part 4 [Updated 10 May 11]

2011-03-24T11:39:00.000-07:00

CarBEN EV5 open source project Part 3

CarBEN EV5 open source project Part 2

CarBEN EV5 open source project Part 1

Some new images of the SketchUp model (Mk 3.9) -- I've arched the trailing roofline -- there is 1-2" more headroom in the passengers seats now, and I think the air flow is better, too. The roof just above the windshield is smoother, too.

I was also considering slightly elongated the front, as well, but I think the aero is better with it as it is? On the (subtle) styling front, there are now two "hard chines" on the edges of the hatch door, and along with the "spine", the three together balance the three hard chines on the hood and front fenders.

Here's a video animation of the SketchUp model:

I'm working on a 1/4 scale model of CarBEN EV, which I am going to do some aerodynamic tuft testing -- or maybe in a wind tunnel? If you have any leads on this, I would greatly appreciate it!

CarBEN EV 1/4, 1/12, and 1/24 scale models

I'll be repairing / correcting with epoxy, and then doing tuft testing as soon as possible. The slot in the front and the gaps in the back in particular, need to be filled in.

The 1/24 scale model (the purple and blue one) is what started it all -- I photographed it and then used these to loft the model in DataCAD X3, and then used that in SketchUp to make a 3D model. The 1/12th scale egg crate model and the 1/4 scale EPS foam model are generated from the SketchUp 3D computer model I made. After I do what aero testing as I can on the 1/4 scale model (maybe in a wind tunnel, too?), I will start on a full size shell; using foam ribs, with a 1/4" foam skin and then overlay that with epoxy fiberglass. At that point, I hope to work with someone, to get it to a working prototype!

If you want me to send you the SketchUp model and/or the CAD drawings, please email me, or comment here, and I'd be happy to send it!

Edit: I've now done a couple of preliminary tuft tests! Here are the (noisy) videos:

CarBEN EV5 by Neil Blanchard is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

On Regenerative Braking and Coasting

2010-11-24T05:50:00.000-08:00

Having to hold the accelerator pedal exactly in one position to be able to coast is difficult and tricky, and should not have to be learned. Driving long distance like this is not good for efficiency, or for the leg muscles. I do a lot of ecodriving, and coasting is by far the most efficient way to roll -- in an EV, you would use zero energy, and reclaim the potential energy directly.

If you have to use the brakes, then you have accelerated too much. Regenerative brakes should only be used to slow the car in unanticipated situations, and at the last moments to come to a stop.

Not only is ecodriving much more efficient, but it also helps to improve traffic flow. The worst thing for traffic flow is also the least efficient way to drive: accelerate hard and then brake hard. This sets up lots of oscillations in the traffic flow, which causes many drivers to apply their brakes for no apparent reason.

Smooth predictable driving results in smooth and predictable traffic flow, and it is the most efficient way to drive.

Heated brakes are to be avoided, and having hot brakes for normal driving is the clearest indicator that the driver can improve their efficiency.

Coasting uses the weight and momentum of the car in the best way possible. So, it makes sense that making it as easy as possible to coast -- by just lifting your right foot completely off the accelerator to coast will predictably; and by the way, provide a couple of moments to relax the muscles in the driver's leg, too.

All the braking should be engaged by the brake pedal; pure and simple. On an EV, all the regenerative braking should be used to regain as much of the energy as possible -- but this is less efficient than coasting, by definition; so it should not be the way you drive to maximize range on an EV. So, as much braking as possible should come from regeneration, and the engineers need to integrate the hydraulic brakes to provide emergency braking and stop the car at slow speeds; when regen cannot.

Yes, the data is out there -- how do you think a Honda CRX HF gets 118MPG?

http://ecomodder.com/blog/20-yearold-modified-honda-crx-hf-scores-118-mpg-fuel-economy-run/

Coasting is better for several reasons:

When you coast you are getting most of the energy that it took to accelerate back; as you only lose from aero and rolling drag.

With regenerative braking, you lose the aero and rolling drag AND from the losses of the generator/charger/batteries, too.

More importantly, in many situations if you cannot coast easily -- it is too easy to accelerate and then immediately brake. So, you over accelerate and then have to over brake.

Think about it: there are three possible modes of driving, right?

1) Accelerating
2) Coasting
3) Decelerating

Accelerating uses energy, depending on the weight of the car, the steepness of the grade, and the rate of acceleration.

Coasting uses no added energy, and it uses the accumulated momentum / kinetic energy gained by the acceleration. It only loses energy to aerodynamic and rolling drag.

Decelerating loses energy to energy to aerodynamic and rolling drag and either to losses in the regen, and/or converting kinetic energy to heat in the brakes.

To be the most efficient, we need to minimize the energy it takes to accelerate and the energy lost through braking, and we need the car to lose a minimum amount of kinetic energy by being as low aerodynamic and rolling drag as possible.

To cover the most distance with the least energy, we need to accelerate up to a speed that will then allow the car to coast as close to the end as possible, and then use regen to regain some of the remaining kinetic energy. The brakes needs to stay as cool as possible.

Of course, cruising longer distances and/or up hills requires some additional acceleration; either to maintain a constant speed, or to climb a hill / slope. You can do pulse and glide instead of constant acceleration (using the terrain as possible) and climbing hills well requires what I call "swooping". This involves accelerating ahead of the uphill slope (when gaining speed takes less energy) and then use this to help carry speed up the hill. Think how a bicyclist would climb a hill, and you'll understand.

Coasting downhill is a no-brainer, and it certainly is easier to do this when you don't have to constantly fine tune your foot on the accelerator pedal. If you go too fast, then use the regenerative brakes, on the brake pedal! And prepare to "swoop" if there is an uphill.

If coasting is the most efficient way to cover distance, then it should be the easiest mode to achieve; not the hardest. If all the regenerative braking is integrated into the brake pedal, and lifting your right foot off the accelerator lets you free-wheel coast -- then you will quickly learn how to maximize the time spent coasting. You will learn the dynamics of your car, on the routes you routinely drive, and you will maximize your range / efficiency; ICE or EV.

Sincerely, Neil

CarBEN EV5 Open Source Project Part 3 - Updated 12 Jan 2011

2010-09-29T06:56:00.000-07:00

CarBEN EV5 Part 1

CarBEN EV5 Part 2

CarBEN EV5 Part 4

The single entry is probably the most controversial feature of the CarBEN EV -- it has to do with weight savings and surrounding safety structure.

It's not like the the benefits aren't well worth the minor sacrifice: the CarBEN EV could well be the most efficient car yet made, and it could be one of the first electric cars to have a range of 400 miles (or more) on a single charge. If I was able to take part in the X-Prize, the CarBEN EV would have held the most people of any car in the contest. It might have a Cd under 0.14 and weigh less than a ton; hopefully less than a ton with the driver onboard.

I'm serious about these goals, and I have to make choices that save weight, while not diminishing safety, and yes, body gaps add aerodynamic drag. The Bionic increased the Cd from 0.095 (the early blue clay model that I am starting with) up to 0.19. The main reasons for much of this increase is the uncovered wheels and the cooling for the diesel engine.

Since about 97% of all accidents involve impacts on the front and sides of the car, I want to have maximum protection in those areas.

Since a square encloses the most area with the least perimeter (except for a circle, naturally), it is the best shape to make a car with a given frontal area, and it gets the most usable interior volume. The Mercedes Bionic/Boxfish model provides an amazing opportunity: it combines an amazingly low coefficient of drag (Cd) in a shape that is nearly a square in the frontal area. This makes it possible to have comfortable seating for 5 people in a car less than 14 feet long.

A compact car can be much lighter and stronger, and still keep the frontal area down to ~25 sq ft (2.323 sq m). If the Cd of CarBEN EV is 0.14, then the effective frontal area (CdA) is 3.5 sq ft (0.325 sq m). And it is possible to get the Cd as low as 0.11 or so, and that would lower the CdA to 2.75 sq ft (0.255 sq m).

These would be unprecedented drag numbers for any car, let alone one that seats up to 5 people. Having an electric drive train also contributes a lot to this packaging efficiency: the electric motor is much smaller than an equivalent ICE and it's transmission (an electric motor only needs a reduction gear -- or can be direct drive!) and they need just a fraction of the cooling air flow.

And here's one of the reasons where the aero and the aero shape enter into why the entry door is in the back: since truncating the back of the shape (called a Kamm back) makes the vehicle makes it much more practical, and has a very small increase in drag (and the Boxfish model achieves it's staggering Cd of 0.095 with a Kamm back), and this is where a small fraction of the accidents occur anyway, this is where I chose to put the main entry door.

Side doors add weight and reduce the safety; by cutting big holes in the structure (think about a large box beam web) which then has to be reinforced all around the perimeter, and the door itself has to have a similar frame all around the perimeter, and you add the hinges and if you want to have as much strength as possible, you need 2-4 latches (instead of the usual 1). Adding the latches, means that you gain back some/much of the strength you had with no side doors, but it will weight more.

Since I would need a rear hatch door anyway if I put in a side door; I can save a lot of weight and get the safety protection even better than most cars.

Another aspect of the aero that affects many other things, including the seating arrangement: the tapered shape required for ultra low drag means that conventional rows of seats is not the best way to fit everything in. Since the electric motor is so compact, the driver can be moved forward between the front wheels, opening up more room. And the staggered seating means that even more legroom is available by angling your legs off to the side. So, the CarBEN EV fits 5 comfortably, in a package that most cars fit 4 less comfortably. The mesh seats are also a big part of this.

On the asymmetrical seating -- basically, the most the weight would be unbalanced is about 300-350 pounds (the two "extra" seats are for shorter adult/kids), and that weight is on the higher part of the road crown; and away from the much rougher right side edge. I've only ever had to replace wheel bearings and the like on the right side of any of my cars. The battery pack in the floor is 800-900 pounds, and since most cars have the driver on the left -- and most often the driver is the only person in the car; so, most of the time the CarBEN will be in total balance! On the other hand, most cars are usually out of balance by up to 250 pounds (or more).

I think I've shown that the choices I've made so far, are aimed at achieving unprecedented ultra-efficiency, in a compact, very practical people moving machine. Since the most import part of that function is just that: moving people with safety, the small inconveniences of slightly more effort getting in and out of the car are more than offset, if I can get anywhere near the performance I think are possible. Form follows function, and I think the CarBEN EV can function at a very high level, indeed.

As Oliver Kuttner says: you must get the physics right to get to higher efficiency; and all design choices affect the efficiency. Using less energy is my focus, and that is where I cannot compromise.

After I get a prototype and running, I hope to experiment with rigid wheels and solid (non-inflatable) tires and regenerative shock absorbers. The solid tires and rigid wheels could be much lighter weight (which counts double to weight losses anywhere else), and they could have vanishingly low rolling resistance, and they would pass along most of the energy to the regenerative shocks; making their effect greater than it would be with conventional tires.

The ride quality could actually be better than with conventional tires, since light wheels makes the system more compliant (they move rather than moving the car), and the suspension can be fully tuned and damped to match the wheels.

This could help get the energy consumption even lower than 100Wh/mile, and that could extend the range, as well as recharging the batteries (a bit) from the energy regained from the shock absorbers (instead of wasting it as heat). Every little bit counts.

****************

Here's the latest video animation: Final Design Intent Video

Here are the newest images and of the SketchUp model. If you want a copy of the model, I'd be happy to email you a copy!

Some pictures of a 1/12th scale (1" = 1') model of the eggcrate frame similar to what could be used to lay the fiberglass shell:

CarBEN EV5 by Neil Blanchard is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Oil Is Finite, Electricity Is Infinite

2010-09-05T10:09:00.001-07:00

Oil has a lot of embedded energy to account for:

Exploration is getting harder all the time; and can take years; and lots of energy is consumed doing so.

Drilling is very hard to do, and takes a lot of energy, including making a lot of "drilling mud", which takes a lot of energy to make, and to inject deep down underground. Look it up! The BP drilling rig is nowhere the deepest at ~23,000 feet below the surface of the ocean.

Extraction takes a lot of electricity (with all of it's overhead!) -- possibly more than refining(!); never mind the energy to build and move and operate those gigantic oil rigs.

Transportation to land is expensive, and super tankers burn a lot of fuel, with it's overhead of embedded energy. The routes taken now have to be lengthened to avoid pirates, and pipelines are hard to build and maintain.

Oil then has to be pumped into tanks onshore for storage, and/or into pipelines. Any energy used along the way has it's own overhead of embedded power.

It then has to be transported to refineries; burning more fuel with it's embedded overhead.

Refineries use a lot of electricity (and all it's overhead!) and they use a lot of natural gas to heat the oil, in a process that takes days. There is a lot of blending and other chemicals used, all of which that have to be made ahead of time, using yet more energy and all of it's overhead. The various fuels and by products are then pumped again to storage tanks.

Then the gasoline/diesel is pumped and transported using pipelines, trucks, and trains, burning more fuel and using electricity, added yet more to the overhead.

It then has to be pumped into the storage tanks at the filling stations, and then pumped out again into the cars, using more electricity, adding that overhead of energy.

By rights, we should also include the military used to defend and maintain our access to oil, and maintaining stability in oil prices. There are huge hidden subsidies in foreign policy, too. Don't fool yourself to think that much of our battle with terrorism is tied to this whole messy and corrupt situation. Do you know how much oil gets stolen in the Congo or in Iraq?

I almost forgot -- it isn't just the fuel! ICE engines require a lot of lubrication and maintenance: you have to add in all the steps to find, produce, transport, store, refine, store, transport, use, then dispose of the engine oils used in the ICE. So, many of the same steps I listed above have to be repeated for the other consumable carbon based things used by ICE machines, including the lubrication oils and the filters, etc. This accumulates even more carbon footprint.

I HAVE PROBABLY OVER SIMPLIFIED THIS LONG AND ENERGY INTENSIVE PROCESS.

Electricity from coal, on the other hand is fairly easy: mining takes a lot of effort and energy, then moving it around in the storage yards, then transporting it on trains (which are the most efficient way to move anything!), then moving it around storage yards, then burning it, and disposing of the ash waste. This fly ash can be used as aggregate in concrete. Dealing with fly ash is a significant challenge.

Electricity generated from natural gas is more similar to making gasoline/diesel, except for the refining stage. Coal produces the most carbon waste, but has less embedded energy, while natural gas produces far less carbon, but represents a greater amount of embedded energy; just not nearly as much as oil.

Grids losses are not as bad as you might think: the average is a bit less than 8% loss on the grid. Any and all of the overhead for electricity that is used at all the various stages along the way to produce oil -- get added to the oil! So, the 7.5kWh PER GALLON of gasoline could instead just be used directly to move a car 30-60 miles *rather* that making the gasoline.

Electricity can come from renewable sources: solar PV, solar heat, wind power, geothermal (by drilling deep holes!), biomass (methane from plant and animal waste and others), wave power, tidal power, small scale hydro, etc. The more we use of these, the smaller the carbon footprint becomes in the future, as we make the new wind turbines from renewable energy, and so on, and so on.

All of these use energy from our sun, in one form or another -- much more directly that oil an gas. The Sun is our big-fusion-reactor-in-the-sky!

Each gallon of petroleum fuel represents ~100 TONS of biological material, that is millions and millions of years old. We are squandering it -- using so little of it potential. We should use it only when absolutely necessary.

The cost of electricity is very low compared to gasoline -- an EV can be driven the same distance as an ICE powered car for a fraction of the cost. And again, we are not talking price; but rather the amount of embedded energy.

So, in total gasoline/diesel represents a FAR GREATER amount of carbon per mile traveled -- even now before we produce very much electricity from renewable energy.

And that, my friends, is electricity's greatest strength -- it can come from a great variety of energy resources; many of them being renewable.

Petroleum in finite.

Electricity is (for all intents and purposes, until our Sun burns out) infinite. If we used mostly/all renewable energy sources, then we would not even have to conserve...

We *must* think very long term, if we are to survive on this Eaarth we share. We can live without a lot, but we cannot live without the Eaarth.

Eaarth

2010-09-03T12:47:00.000-07:00

Originally posted on 14 Aug 2010:

"Eaarth" by Bill McKibben

"Read it, please. Straight through to the end. Whatever else you were planning to do next, nothing could be more important." —Barbara Kingsolver

I agree.

Please read "Eaarth". Check it out from your local library, or buy it and pass it along to someone.

[From now on, I will be spelling the name of the planet we all share "E-a-a-r-t-h".]

More Vehicle Efficiencies!

2010-09-03T12:44:00.000-07:00

This post is a continuation/generalization/more organized version of my earlier blog post.

There are a lot of improvements possible for internal combustion engines (aka ICE's). It helps to list the areas that are causing losses, to start:

-- The geometry of the physical layout of the piston, connecting rod and the crankshaft is less than ideal. The connecting rod needs to be ~60 degrees past top dead center to get the best leverage on the crankpin; but the pressure from the fuel ignition occurs much earlier than this; when the connecting rod is essentially trying to bend the crankshaft sideways. The motion of the piston is necessarily sinusoidal.

- The power stroke is only 25% of the full cycle, and there is a lot of mass that has to be accelerated, stopped and accelerated again.

- The valvetrain has to physically resist being moved, and it has to work against the air flows.

- The piston tends to scrape the sides of the cylinder, because it would "rather" twist that stay straight. The rings must exert friction on the cylinder.

- The oil must be pumped through little tiny passageways.

- Electricity must be generated.

- An ICE is a self-powered air pump, in essence. Air flow and the pressures generated, and the cyclical nature of them cause resonances, and backpressures, and the gasses become spring-like.

- Small volumes, like the space above the top ring and the top edge of the piston, trap unburned fuel because the flame cannot reach it.

- Everything flexes and springs -- the crankshaft and the camshaft flex torsionally and longitudinally, the piston vibrates and distorts, as do the cylinders. Valves bounce and stretch and distort into potato chip shapes.

The list goes on... The net result is a typical internal combustion engine that uses ~20% of the energy in the fuel for output motion at best, and requires a transmission to keep the torque of the engine relatively close to the speed of the vehicle.

So, knowing all this, how can we make incremental or wholesale improvements?

+ Offsetting the crankshaft center away from the power downstroke gives the connecting rod some better mechanical leverage -- but is the compression stroke adversely affected?

+ Variable valve timing allows the torque to be available over a broader range of RPM's.

+ Valves can be electrically/hydraulically moved in both directions (opened and closed) to avoid fighting the springs. This also makes it easier to use subtle or more abrupt adjustments to the valve timing.

+ Use cams rather than the crankshaft, to gain a lot more mechanical leverage, and to allow the piston motion to be controlled by the designer; like the Revetec:

This particular design also reduces piston scrape (but it introduces some tendency to spin the piston within the cylinder). It also avoid big changes in crankcase pressures (in configurations with even numbers of pistons). This design effectively doubles the efficiency.

+ Use the Atkinson valve timing, like the Prius does, which has a lot of overlap of the exhaust valve with the beginning of the intake downstroke (I think?) so that there is built in exhaust gas recirculation (aka EGR). This also effectively doubles the efficiency.
Hmmm, how well would a 2-cylinder Revetec with Atkinson cycle and electrically activated valves work?

+ Use a rotary design that reduces the reciprocal motion.

+ Use a 2-stroke design to cut the parasitic losses in half.

++ Use a continuous burn design to further reduce the cyclical nature of the engine; or at least reduce the time between power cycles.

+ Figure out how to reduce waste heat from being produced, and then try to use the remaining excess heat to produce output.

What are other ideas to improve ICE's?

X-Prize Knockout Round - Con't.

2010-09-03T12:42:00.000-07:00

Originally posted 1 July 2010:

I think that the X-Prize competition is fulfilling the objective of focusing on vehicle efficiency. Starting with the results so far, I am hoping to contribute to the discussion and to the process.

Here's the link to the PDF that shows the results of the X-Prize Knockout Round:
Progressive Automotive X-Prize Knockout Round Results

The measured MPGe of the teams in this round -- remember this is the Combined number from the City, Urban, and Highway tests:

American HyPower   54.5   Hybrid
Spira                           84.8   ICE (E10)
FVT eVaro                152.5   Hybrid (serial)
Zap                            111.0   EV
Tata                           134.3   EV
Electric Raceabout   128.1   EV
AMP'd Sky                  86.7   EV
West Philly (MS)   63.5   Hybrid
West Philly (Alt)          53.7   Hybrid
Global-E                      50.4   Hybrid
Li-ion                          182.3   EV
Aptera                        140.1   EV
TW4XP                       107.0   EV
WWU                             92.5   Hybrid
Tango                            86.8   EV
BITW                             51.1   ICE (diesel)
X-Tracer (#72)             180.0   EV
X-Tracer (#79)             188.8   EV
Illuminati                       119.8   EV
Enginer       53.0   Hybrid (electric/ICE w/ steam heat recovery)
Edison2 (#95 Alt)            97.0   ICE (E85)
Edison2 (#97 MS)         101.4   ICE (E85)
Edison2 (#98 MS)       80.3   ICE (E85)

I think these results speak for themselves! The electric cars are in general, giving much better efficiency, and several of those (the X-Tracer, FVT, Tata, and the Aptera) also have excellent acceleration. The Li-ion, Illuminati, TW4XP, and Edison2 (among others) were not as quick -- the Li-ion and Edison2 cars are through to the finals, though. I am sad that neither the FVT eVaro nor the Illuminati Seven made it through, due to (relatively) minor technical reasons. They failed at the moment (which is how racing/competitions work, to be sure), but I think their problems are solvable, and the strong merits of their vehicles are obvious.

The Aptera is through, but still a bit disappointing -- it's aero is equal or better to anybody (save the X-Tracer), but their efficiency seems to have suffered. It barely betters the Tata, which is "just" a well executed EV conversion of a decent but ordinary hatchback. The Global-E had an ignition mapping error that made their number lower.

So the lowest MPGe of an electric drive; the AMP'd Sky was 86.7MPGe (Tango was 86.8), while the best of a car with an internal combustion is the Edison2 #97 at 101.4. (Actually, the FVT has a ICE powered generator onboard, but did not need it *at all* in the X-Prize. It would be great to see how the eVaro does for MPGe in charging mode!) The hybrids all were all below the 67MPGe -- except the WWU at 92.5 (and the FVT).

The average of the 12 vehicles using electric drive MPGe (I'm including the FVT in this) was 134.7MPGe
The average of the 6 hybrids (not including the FVT) was 61.26MPGe (Please note, these are all parallel hybrids?)
The average of the 5 internal combustion drive cars was 82.92MPGe

The X-Prize results table does not include weights, but I daresay that the average weight of the internal combustion cars was lowest (the Edison2 and Spira are all much lighter!).

The best aero drag is on the X-Tracer, followed by a very close group including the Aptera, Edison2, Li-ion.

As many have said, the X-Prize is setting a very high standard (which is both good and bad). They are essentially looking for the complete package, and virtually no glitches. Even the well financed/professional teams had several glitches. I would have set up the X-Prize a bit differently; to measure (and therefore emphasize and encourage) the four main things that need to be improved to get the maximum efficiency.

Those four critical things are; from most important to least important (as I am interpreting the Knockout results):

   * Drivetrain Efficiency
   * Aerodynamic Drag
   * Weight
   * Rolling Efficiency

I would have scored these in relative terms, which pits each vehicle against the others (rather than setting standards that are somewhat arbitrary). On drivetrain efficiency, I would either use a dynamometer or the best result of the three economy tests: the City, Urban, or Highway. (This will indicate what vehicle is good for a particular role, and measures the drivetrain at it's best.)
For Drivetrain Efficiency, the points awarded would be the best MPGe x Number of Seats. So, using the Overall MPGe for 23 vehicles that competed in the Knockout Round listed above (we do not have the separate measured results from the City, Urban, and Highway test): the X-Tracer #79 would be 188.8 x 2 = 377.6 points, and so on. The best mainstream MPGe was the Illuminati Seven: 119.8 x 4 = 479.2 points.

Aerodynamic Drag would use the Weight and the Rolling Efficiency, and the results of a Coastdown test to determine the Cd of each car. I would take the inverse of the number of entrants divided by the Cd, then multiplied by the Number of Seats: So the Aptera and the Li-ion and the Edison2 alternate cars may be at the top: 23 (22, 21) / 0.15 x 2 = ~306.6 and ~293.3 and ~280 points respectively. The Edison2 mainstream cars would get 20 and 19 (or higher depending on their Cd) resulting in 20 (19) / 0.15 x 4 = 533.3 and 506.6 points respectively.

For Weight, I would take the lightest one and score it by inverting the number of Entrants x the Number of Seats – the Spira would get 23 x 2 (seats) giving it 46 points. The Edison2 alternate car would be next with 22 x 2 = 44 points. The two Edison2 mainstream cars would be 21 x 4 = 84 points and 20 x 4 = 80 points respectively; and so on. This give priority to the cars that seat more people, and it is realistic in terms of what is achievable in the real world.

Rolling Efficiency includes tires and alignment and would be prorated for weight – a slower coastdown test using a ramp would be needed. I think an inverted number of the entrants would be a fair way to award points.

Obviously, all four of the critical factors are interrelated, and they all would be reflected in the Overall MPGe number – but testing for them and awarding points (in some manner) for them separately, helps focus the designs on the most important aspects – and more importantly helps demonstrate their performance; whether or not the designs get ALL of them right and in the right balance, and if there is something that lags (or breaks) and the vehicle is DQ'd, people will still be able to judge the merits of the design.

We could quibble about how each of these was scored – I am just throwing this out there. At this moment in time, I feel that the emphasis on the safety, and meeting the letter of the rules, etc. are distracting the designers from the main point; of maximizing the efficiency. Obviously, for a finished, production, reasonably priced, appealing vehicle – ALL of these things are also critically important. These would be determined by finished vehicle, and the buying public. But, I feel that an emphasis on the overall efficiency, and the four most important factors that directly contribute to maximum efficiency, would have better served the purposes of the X-Prize.

One of the most important things I learned while I was at the X-Prize Knockout competition was: do not dismiss or ignore anybody! There is a LOT more than meets the eye with all of the entrants, and no matter the results, all the designs have strengths – and weaknesses that are all very informative.

I also was floored by the height of passion by so many people; on all the teams.   Emanuele Pirro -- 5-time Le Mans winner, was there driving for the Edison2 team -- because he wanted to do his part. The sight of Oliver Kuttner with tears streaming down his face; returning from the starting line of the City Test with the first of his cars about to actually get to the heart of the matter; moves me to tears, as well. And I'm quite sure that every person involved in the X-Prize, who has put in a similar Herculean effort, feels the same.

Progressive Automotive X-Prize Knockout Round!

2010-09-03T12:40:00.000-07:00

Originally posted on 22 June 2010:

I am at the Michigan Speedway, as a volunteer member of the Edison2 team -- Oliver Kuttner made this generous offer and I was all too happy to accept. I have a fair number of pictures, which I am starting to upload. I arrived Sunday (which I calling Day 1, even though it was just setting up; and I'll be here through Friday! :-)

We have been very busy so far, prep and cleaning up loose ends -- two of the four Edison2 cars go in for technical inspection Monday the 21st, and two go in Tuesday the 22nd. The first Edison2 Very Light Car tandem (#95 which was the one without wheel pods at the Shakedown) passed this morning and the first of the two mainstream cars was in the process. The weight of the #95 car was 702 pounds. I not sure how this is figured, but it will be required to carry 99 pounds of ballast weight.

I saw the Aptera for my first time in person, it looks very good "in real life". And I got to sit in the driver's seat -- there is almost too much leg room, and I fit well, though there is not a lot of "extra" head room. (I'm 6'-4"). For that matter -- obviously, this is the first time I have seen any of the vehicles: the Illuminati Seven, the FVT eVaro, the Twike, the X-Tracers, etc., etc. Pretty cool stuff all of it!

The cars that had not completed all the tests in the Shakedown were here earlier last week and they are taking runs on the (very large, high banked) oval track. Other events will happen on the road track.
Tomorrow (Tuesday the 22nd) will be more tech inspections, and the "biggie" economy runs that are the raison d'être are on Wednesday and Thursday! And actually there will also be economy runs on Friday, which is the Public Day, but that schedule has not been fully settled yet.

CarBEN Concept EV: An Open Source Project

2010-09-03T12:38:00.000-07:00

CarBŒN Concept EV

An Open Source Project

Revised 17 September 2010

I've been revising the model in SketchUp (and I can email you the file if you want!), and here are some new images:

Slightly older version:

Some images comparing CarBŒN v Smart ForTwo:

Renderings of an earlier version:

These were rendered for me by C. Michael Lewis, from Portland ME. Proving it is a small world, he works both in architecture (and has mutual friends) and he races in the Electrathon series, and he currently holds the speed record of 62 Miles in an hour; while getting 2,249MPGe!

This is the first model, made from basswood:

CarBEN EV Concept

Project Outline

Design and build an uber-efficient electric car; that has very low aerodynamic drag, as low weight as possible, is designed with good safety and crash protection, is practical to drive (i.e. it is not too big and has nimble handling), and I would like it to carry 4-5 people. By the way, the reason I chose the name

CarBŒN: it is a play on the word carbon (I want to not waste any), and the change in spelling are my initials backwards; combined with the correct spelling... :-)

Boxfish Model

The basis for the aerodynamics is an early clay model of the Mercedes Bionic car (aka “Boxfish”) that was itself based on the boxfish. The tested coefficient of drag (Cd) of this model was an amazing 0.095 (http://www.ae-plus.com/key%20topics/cc-mercedes-news10.htm) and it seems like a great place to start! The later Bionic car had a Cd of 0.19, which is still very good; but the open wheels and wider shape in the back are the primary reasons for the increase in drag. Another design that inspired a lot of the CarBŒN design is the Schlörwagen – a very aerodynamic design from 1939.

My idea that will allow the wheels to remain covered, and therefore (hopefully) achieve a Cd nearer to the blue model than to the Bionic car, is to have articulated front wheel covers that move with the wheels in sharper turns. I'll get more into the details of how this could work later on.

To achieve low weight, I think the ideal structure would be carbon fiber reinforced plastic. But this is difficult for me to work with, as I have no experience with it, and I think the prospect of making molds and the fumes, etc. is daunting. I've also considered welding a steel tube chassis, and then make either a fiberglass or aluminum body. But I think this would be heavier, and while I have access to a MIG welder; it is not as good as an aluminum monocoque chassis.

I got the idea for how to do this from seeing a friend who is building an airplane from scratch. It is a 2 seat acrobatic capable, and the dry weight (including the 4 cylinder 80HP engine) is between 570 and 620 pounds. I think the process he is using, which plotting out full size templates, and then forming the 6061-T6 sheets into the ribs and the skin; using wooden forms – makes a lot of sense to use this method to build this car.

Aluminum is fully recyclable, it is not dusty, has no fumes, and only requires a small bandsaw, a pair of “pleating” pliers, a soft hammer, and riveting tools. If I start with a 3D CAD model and drawings generated from that, the templates will be accurate. The resulting chassis should be lighter than I could manage with steel, and it forms the body at the same time.

Starting with the Sonex airplane (http://www.sonexaircraft.com/aircraft/sonex.html) and its weight of 620 pounds (~130 pounds for the engine is included in that) – the 22' wingspan and 18' long fuselage have roughly similar surface area to my CarBEN design and so it should weigh about the same (490 pounds). The AC electric motor and mechanical drive train are maybe a little heavier than the plane's engine; say 150 pounds. Add the four wheels, brakes, and the suspension (say 250 pounds) and the battery pack (say 400 – 600 pounds), the seats (which will be quite light – more later) and miscellaneous stuff will add 150 pounds. The the total vehicle weight could be in the 1450-1650 pound range. I would be very happy with anything under 1800 pounds.

The first order of business is to get the overall chassis to be as low drag as possible: I can loft a 3D CAD model from the wooden model I have made, but I think it would be better/faster/cheaper to have the model 3D scanned and use the mesh model for virtual aerodynamic testing. A program that can do 3D flow would be very important to check the form and to adjust it to lower the drag as much as possible without making it impractical to drive. i.e. I'm 6'-4” and I want to fit comfortably, and I need to fit my family, too.

For the safety considerations, the first thing I am doing is making the structure surround the passengers, and in order not to weaken it with doors, like most cars do. Like all design decisions, this involves some compromise, and I have been considering what some other designers have done: both the VW 1L and the FVT eVaro have canopies (like a jet fighter airplane), so that the structure around the passengers is continuous; the compromise comes in inclement weather, as the roof is not over the seats. Another car design that uses an unusual door and entry method is the Loremo; the entire windshield and hood hinge up (from the front) and you step over the side and pull the door back down in place. This also involves the steering wheel and column hinging up and out of the way with the door. The passengers get in through the rear hatch (and they sit facing backwards).

So, the initial door concept I am hoping to use is: in order to maintain a wraparound structure for safety, there is a single door in the rear of the CarBŒN. It has two parts: a sloped hatch that is approximately the back 1/3 of the roof; it lifts up but remains (mostly) covering the opening from precipitation. The rear fascia of the car is a pair of small hinged doors that swing out. This is a a good a place as any to put in the drawing:

CarBŒN Concept EV Mk 2.7

(I need to update the drawings to reflect the latest computer model.)

To get in the CarBŒN, people would step up to the floor, and then turn to close the back doors, and the walk up the “aisle” to their seat. (This hopefully explains the staggered seat placement?) The overhead hatch would be closed – the details need to be worked out. If this door idea is not workable, or involves too much effort, then the fallback solution is to have conventional side doors – but I would use 3 or more latches (instead of the usual one) so that the door has 5 (or more) points of attachment (instead of the usual 3) so that the opening is not unduly weakened, and the passengers would be well protected from side impacts.

The other key solution to getting the CarBŒN to work within a very low drag chassis, is the idea of articulated front wheel skirts (see the top, side and bottom views in the drawing). [Edit: I think these would be easier to make, using a vertical hinge down the center (or steering pivot) line, with a front section and rear section. Only the section that is needed to protrude out to allow room for the wheel would be moved. This system would be much simpler than the first idea I came up with, which follows.]: These consist of a ¾ moon panel on the bottom (shown with a dotted line) and another ¾ moon panel on the outside of the front wheel (also shown with a dotted line). There is a slot in the bottom panel where the wheel protrudes out, and there is an inner fender and curved panels that keep the wheel covered even when the steering is all the way to one lock or the other. The suspension motion of the wheel does not move the skirt assembly – the tire moves up and down through the slot and within the inner fender. The whole assembly pivots on grooved rollers around the edge of the bottom panel (see the small circles on the bottom view drawing) and a pivot at the top of the inner fender.

The steering pushrods are connected to the skirt assembly, and swing it with the wheel when the steering angle is sharper than needed for highway driving. So, at high speeds the aerodynamic shape remains unchanged, but at low(er) speeds when sharper steering angles are needed, the panels move to maintain clearance around the wheels. This is the biggest compromise made in the Schlörwagen design – they made the front wide enough to enclose the wheels even when they are at either steering lock. The Schlörwagen is 2.1 meters wide (6'-11”) which has a large affect on the area and hence the drag (CdA) and the car is wide; making it more difficult to drive. It also means there would be more body roll than would otherwise happen.

The battery pack (the 4' x 4' x 6”rectangle) should fit in the floor, between the four wheels. The AC electric drive train is a typical front wheel drive system; which will provide the best ability to have regenerative braking, to regain some of the power. I intend to use a super capacitor in parallel with the battery pack, which allows higher current to be absorbed from regenerative braking to be absorbed, and it can provide bursts of high current for acceleration, greatly reducing the battery load during charging and discharging, while driving. The folks at http://chargecar.org/ (at Carnegie Mellon) are working on enhancing this kind of system with “smart” programing that uses data from your commonly driven routes (using GPS to locate where you are driving) and elevation data to “anticipate” how to best manage the regenerated power, and to make the best use of the supercapacitor; as a power cache.

In order for me to design a simple braking system (without the complexity of an integrated braking system), I would use two brake pedals: the center pedal would be a conventional brake pedal, that operates the hydraulic braking system. This would let the driver's habits be the default in a panic situation. The pedal on the left (about where the clutch would be in a manual shift car) would be the regenerative brake pedal. This would allow for a true coasting mode – both feet off of all pedals, that is easy an predictable. (This is key to good ecodriving; no matter what is powering the car.) Then, if some slowing is needed, the driver can use the regenerative brake as much as possible, and then use the hydraulic brake to supplement the regenerative brakes, if needed.

To save weight and space inside the car, I would make the seats with a mesh fabric stretched over frames; like some office chairs. This sort of seat are now being used in several concept cars, from VW, Toyota, and Honda for example. With the right ergonomics, these would be very comfortable, even for long trips, and they would “breathe”to help keep people cooler in the summer; reducing the need for other cooling methods.

I will try to make an effective passive air circulation system, with the intake(s) located in high velocity areas on the front or sides of the car, and I would provide for passive air extraction out the back of the car; exhausting into the low pressure wake zone at the back of the car. This could actually improve the drag a little; or at least minimize the increase due to the air flowing through the car. This passive air flow could also be tapped to cool the battery pack, and or the electric motor if needed.

The wheels and tires initially would be conventional, but instead of inflating the tires with air, I would use a foam – this would negate the need to keep track of the pressure, and it would probably minimize the rolling resistance, and tire wear would probably improve, because the temperatures would be kept low, since there would be virtually no flexing. The suspension would be designed to do all of the work (air inflated tires absorb a fair bit of the smaller bumps in the road), and it would provide very low rolling resistance. Later, I would install regenerative shock absorbers (apparently, these are currently being developed at Tufts University), and as much of the energy from the motion of the suspension as could be regained would help reduce the losses, by recharging the battery pack a little. (Rather than being wasted as heat in the tires and in conventional hydraulic shock absorbers.)

My intention is to test the aerodynamic drag virtually, using a 3D “solid” model. The computer model could be made from the wooden model, using laser scanning, or it could be made from scratch based on the 2D drawings that I've made based on the wooden model. If there is anybody who is interested in contributing work on this computer model, please contact me.

Here's some more photos of the wooden model:

The standing figure is 5'-9" tall for a visual reference, and these are perspective images, so things closer to you appear larger. The windows and lights are a first pass, so do not read too much into them, though I think that they are schematically close to what is needed.

My next step is to test the 3D model in a CFD (computational fluid dynamics) program to see if it is aerodynamic enough -- hopefully I can then make improvements in it, and start thinking more about the chassis construction.

I made a video animation of the model in SketchUp on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ymuo6_JpaJs

I will lay them out in DataCAD to try and fit as many as possible on each sheet. I'd like to be able to test the physical size and layout of the entry method and seat layout etc., before committing to build this car.

Now, I want to have a composite foam sandwich monocoque, both for strength and for thermal insulation, so do I need to form the inner walls on the inside of the formers first, and then do the outer surface, and then foam in between?

How do I best form the surface using the formers?
Do I need to use Styrofoam and carve it, or can I use wires and/or screening as a substrate for the composite?
It is okay to leave the plywood in place and have it as part of the structure, or is is better to pull it out and then rejoin the surfaces with spacers/foam?
Is fiberglass significantly less expensive than carbon fiber, and what are the advantages/issues with each?

I can cut the plywood so that the windows are slightly recessed, to form the lip/flange -- should the windows just be left open and trim the edges, or does it help to cover them over completely and then cut out the openings?
For the main hatch door, and the rear doors, should they be formed as part of the whole outer skin, and then cut out? Or, should the opening be left out of the main piece and then make the doors themselves separately?

I want to form a surrounding "beam" around the front and sides of the passenger compartment (which will double as the main air duct into the passenger compartment) -- I hope to have it flush on the inside, and let it into the formers. If the beam was metal, it could be hollow -- can it be made from composite and be hollow?

I'm trying to figure out how to best do the crumple zone in the front: a tubular subframe or a composite structure? Have you seen "crush cones" used between a structural bumper and the firewall/structural passenger cell?

How does the suspension get attached to the monocoque -- do reinforcing plates need to be embedded, or...?

I'm hoping to hear from FVT about the size of their battery pack, so I can try and lay out how it will fit inside the floor. I would ideally try and at least have the space for a really big battery pack (50-60kWh!!) so I can get 300-400 mile range. This would be incredible if it could be made to fit!

I would love to hear whatever your thoughts are! Thanks in advance.

CarBEN EV5 by Neil Blanchard is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

CarBEN 1/24th scale wooden model of EV - Updated 1 March 10

2010-09-03T12:19:00.000-07:00

Originally posted on 26 Jan 2010:

Here's the beginning of a project that I think/hope I can pull off -- I'm trying to build an EV from scratch. I have started with making a 1/24th scale (aka 1/2" = 1') model of the car I have been contemplating. It is approximately 13 feet long by 5 feet 8 inches wide by 5 feet high. In other words, it is very similar to my Scion xA -- it is about 2 inches wider and 5-6 inches taller. Here are photos of the model so far:

CarBEN side view with wheels

CarBEN top view

CarBEN rear quarter view with wheels

CarBEN side / bottom view showing wheels

CarBEN rear view with wheels

CarBEN rear quarter view with wheels

CarBEN front quarter view

I've added wheels, and contoured the bottom somewhat: The fronts would have to be slightly articulated i.e. the skirts would move when turning sharply. I'm thinking that the front wheel skirts are articulated by connecting them to the steering rods. The wheels will be able to move a small amount without moving the skirts, but at low speeds, which is the only time you steer up to the lock, the skirts kick out as required. The bottom could be a truncated circle, that rotates with the skirt.The wheels are 27mm diameter, which is 25.5" on the full size car, and they are ~9" wide in the tread. I bought them at the slotcar track I frequent -- hence the white letter sidewalls... The actual wheels and tires would probably be narrower than this.
The rear is ~4'-6" wide, and virtually the same from the ground to the "peak". My biggest mistake on the model so far is the bottom of the rear should not curve up -- it should be straight back, and have a crisp corner, like the sides and top. I probably should add some epoxy there to correct this.
I can't narrow the back unless it extended farther back, and the top slope is already limiting the usable headroom. I'm going to try to draw it and see how I can arrange the seats, etc. I'm think that I'd like to have the driver sit in the center front; and I'm going to try to think about structure and safety, and how the door(s) will work. I'd also love to work in an electromagnetic regenerative suspension system, using something like what Bose makes.
The batteries (and supercapacitor?) will be under the floor, and interior floor will be flat. I'm going to try to use hub motors. There are other things that I am trying to work out, and I'll post progress photos and updates as I go along.
Update: I've done a drawing of the CarBEN concept, showing 5 seats -- assuming an entry hatch/door in the back; or, in addition a hinged side door. The door(s) will have multiple latches to secure them fully as part of the structure, to greatly increase the strength of the chassis; particularly in a crash.

CarBENConceptEV-Drawing2.png

The main reason for having just the rear door, would be to be able to have a continuous elongated U-shaped structure that wraps around the front and sides of the passenger compartment (as shown on top view); providing as much crash protection as possible, with no breaks for doors that weaken it.
Ideally, the chassis would be constructed by a composite skin and honeycomb sandwich, which are very strong and very lightweight, and can be formed into compound curves needed for low drag. This type of construction would also have very few seams, and it would provide thermal insulation; for both the people inside, and the battery pack as well.
Having said that, I think it is likely that the first version of this car would be made with a welded steel tubular chassis, with an aluminum skin; because this is much more achievable for me to make, and it would be more easily recyclable. It will probably have the surface look of an AirStream trailer! :-O
I think that I will implement the regenerative braking with it's own pedal -- so, three pedals in total:
Accelerator pedal on the right
Conventional hydraulic brake in the middle (where a driver who is used to an automatic would expect it)
Regenerative brake on the left (where the clutch would be in a manual shift car)
This would allow the driver to use the regenerative braking at the level they need to, and then if more braking power is required, they can use the hydraulic brakes as well.
So, what do you think? If you are interested, I can send you a DWG (or a DataCAD AEC file). I will (hopefully) be starting a 3D CAD model soon.

*************

A brief update on my CarBEN EV concept: Here's a Sonex airplane that my friend Mike Smith is building from scratch: http://www.sonexaircraft.com/aircraft/sonex.html

I think the 4-cylinder 80HP engine weighs ~130 pounds, and the dry weight of the whole plane (including the engine) is 570-620 pounds. 22' wingspan, and th...e fuselage is 18' long. +6G and -3G in a 440-490 pound structure is great! This construction method is pretty straightforward. It uses 0.025" and 0.032" 6061-T6 Aluminum sheets, and some aluminum plate and angle stock -- and thousands of pop rivets.

picture of Sonex components

What my friend did is he drew the patterns full size in DataCAD (which the way you always draw things!) and he plotted them out full size (you can choose any scale for plotting) and he used spray adhesive to stick the paper onto the aluminum sheets. Then he cut them out, drilled all the holes, deburred them, clamped them in wood forms (two halves cut out of OSB board and wing nut and bolted) and used a soft plastic hammer and a pair of special pliers to pleat the flange around curves.

He's spent about 500 hours and he has almost all the components made. He's spent ~$1,600 on stock and ~$900 on tools.

Doing a similar process on a car would not seem to be all that hard.

Oh, and I'm continuing on the drawings -- I'd like to be able to test the aerodynamics of it before committing it to reality...or at least before building a working chassis!

CarBEN EV5 by Neil Blanchard is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

"Smarter" more efficient electric cars

2010-09-03T12:17:00.000-07:00

Originally posted 7 Jan 2010:

If you have any interest at all in EV's then you need to watch this video!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCArK17Hu1M

Carnegie Mellon Robotics Institute professor Illah Nourbakhsh presents
the CREATE Lab project ChargeCar, a community approach to electric cars.

The lecture is part of the Sustainability and Computer Science... Seminar,
a forum for discussion of ways in which computer science can and will
contribute to sustainability, energy, and the environment, and to
foster greater consciousness, conversation, and collaboration in this
area.

In a nutshell, their research (which is continuing) strongly points to using a combination of a relatively small supercapacitor and a battery to power an EV, especially for one that will be used in urban or other high traffic, and/or hilly driving conditions.
Here's an article that talks about the research that Carnegie Mellon has started on this:
http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/automotive/carnegie_mellon_customizing_electric_cars_cost_143837.html

The researchers calculate that an intelligent electric car controller could recapture 48 percent of the energy during braking and that a supercapacitor could reduce 56 percent of the load on the batteries and reduce heating of the batteries — which shortens battery life — by 53 percent.

Directly related to this is something called "split-pi" which lets you use the supercaps with batteries that run at a higher voltage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-pi

Apparently, high voltage capacitors are very expensive, and unless you use low voltage batteries and drive motors (and the associated heavy cabling), the cost becomes prohibitive. So, if you can raise the voltage using the split-pi power converter -- which is 2-way, then you can use higher voltage batteries and motor, and use smaller gauge cabling, too.

Here's a video demonstration of the split-pi -- it is software controlled, and can double the DC voltage in one direction, and in the other direction, it can cut it by up to half.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqbXPkpsN5A

FVT eVaro plug-in serial hybrid 122-325MPGe

2010-09-03T12:11:00.000-07:00

Originally posted on 6 Jan 2010:

Greetings,

I'm growing more interested in the FVT eVaro, which is a 3-wheeled plug-in serial hybrid:

The gasoline version got 92mpg, and the eVaro is electric front wheel drive, and has a fuel vaporizing (for efficient combustion) onboard charger that can charge it in 1 hour. Plug-in charging (220v) takes ~3 hours, and the all electric range is ~100 miles. This vehicle is very fast (0-60mph in ~5 seconds!) and it is capable of 1.2G turns.

Here's the claims they make for the eVaro:

* Between 122 mpge and 325 mpge (miles per gallon equivalent)
* 100-125 mile range on electricity alone
* unlimited extended range with onboard FVT gas generator
* 3 hour re-charge time plug in at home, 1 hour with FVT on board generator

I don't know what they mean by "unlimited extended range" -- surely the fuel tank range would be a better thing to talk about? "Unlimited" sounds too good to be true; even if they just mean that you can refuel it...

My biggest reservations about it are the canopy entry, and the somewhat cramped (looking) rear seat. It may be a 1+1, in reality. I like the small team built in the garage aspect -- they built 3 or 4 prototypes (or more?) with less than $1M (Canadian?). And I like the quote they have on their web page:

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world.
Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead

We Need "Lender Ratings"

2010-09-03T12:09:00.000-07:00

Originally posted 20 Dec 2009:

Okay, here's a way we could probably fix part of the banking problem: you've heard of credit ratings, right?

What we need is a Lender Rating. So, when a bank has to do a foreclosure -- they obviously did something wrong in lending money to that person. So, this should lower their lender's rating, and the next loan they write should have to be on better terms for the borrower, and/or a lower interest rate.

If they have lots of bad loans, then they need to write loans with a lot better terms for the borrower and at a lower interest rate -- so that the borrower will be able to pay off the whole loan. Once the bank can show that they are writing responsible loans that work through until they are paid off -- they then earn the right to raise their interest rates, or otherwise earn more profit from writing loans.

And when there is a foreclosure, the loan should be renegotiated at the current market value of the property. This is the best result for everybody -- the bank gets a fair return on the property, and the property owner who has already committed to the property gets to continue to use it. This prevents the downward spiral of property values.

Here's an earlier blog entry I wrote on this:
Proposal for the Mortgage Problem

LlewTube.com "Carpool"

2010-09-03T12:08:00.000-07:00

Originally posted 14 Dec 2009:

Hi,
Here's a fellow named Robert Llewellyn who does a weekly podcast called "Carpool"; and there are several that are very interesting all about electric cars.

http://www.llewtube.com/

Check out these (in the order from the newest to to oldest/top to bottom on the list on the right side):

* Paul Scott Carpool -- owner of a RAV4 EV and who is involved in http://www.pluginamerica.org/

* Mitsubishi iMiEV Carpool -- Robert Llewellyn will be driving this car on the show for the next year or so; replacing his Prius.

* Chelsea Sexton Carpool -- she was an engineer on the EV1 and appears in "Who Killed the Electric Car?"

* Tesla Carpool -- where Robert Llewellyn interviews a fellow who worked for Colin Powell and knows a fair bit about national security and international energy policy, as well as battery technology.

[Robert Llewellyn now has a YouTube channel called "Fully Charged" that is always about EV's.]

Britten V1000/V1100 - The Most Innovative Motorcycle Ever?

2010-09-03T12:05:00.000-07:00

Originally posted on 11 Dec 2009:

John Britten designed and built these amazing machines: they have (at least) 5 major design elements: "skin & bones" carbon fiber wheels, beam suspension with no "stiction" and controllable geometry, 4-valve hand cast stressed member engine in frame-less chassis, unique aerodynamics (dubbed "torpedo over blade"), and the fully ducted cooling system that made this narrow design possible. It weighs just 145kg (320 pounds).

John Britten on Wikipedia
Top Gear on Britten
Isle of Man TT race video
Best Motorcycles Ever #6
Britten V1000 Superbike Motorcycle - History

These are especially delicious for us aspiring engineering types: [This video is no longer available...]
Britten Bike Story - One Man's Dream Pt1
Britten Bike Story - One Man's Dream Pt2
Britten Bike Story - One Man's Dream Pt3
Britten Bike Story - One Man's Dream Pt4
Britten Bike Story - One Man's Dream Pt5
Britten Bike Story - One Man's Dream Pt6
Britten Bike Story - One Man's Dream Pt7
Britten Bike Story - One Man's Dream Pt8
Britten Bike Story - One Man's Dream Pt9
Front view showing cooling intake scoops:

Profile/side view showing all the goodness (carbon fiber wheels and beam suspension, stressed member engine, unique aerodynamics):

Rear cooling exhaust vent:

Symphony of Science

2010-09-03T12:03:00.000-07:00

Originally posted 2 Dec 2009:

I found out about these great "music" videos -- they are put together by someone who has a web page called Symphony of Science.

They are a video assemblage of Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, Michio Kaku and Robert Jastrow. With heavy use of AutoTune these great scientists "sing" their words like poetry. You need to watch it to get the full effect, but here are the lyrics to my favorite of the three, called "We Are All Connected":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk

(Richard Feynman on hand drums and chanting)
[deGrasse Tyson] We are all connected; To each other, biologically To the earth, chemically To the rest of the universe atomically
[Feynman] I think nature's imagination Is so much greater than man's She's never going to let us relax
[Sagan] We live in an in-between universe Where things change all right But according to patterns, rules, Or as we call them, laws of nature
[Nye] I'm this guy standing on a planet Really I'm just a speck I'm just a speck Compared with a star, the planet is just another speck To think about all of this To think about the vast emptiness of space There's billions and billions of stars Billions and billions of specks
[Sagan] The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it But the way those atoms are put together The cosmos is also within us We're made of star stuff We are a way for the cosmos to know itself
Across the sea of space The stars are other suns We have traveled this way before And there is much to be learned
[deGrasse Tyson] We are all connected; To each other, biologically To the earth, chemically To the rest of the universe atomically
[Sagan] I find it elevating and exhilarating To discover that we live in a universe Which permits the evolution of molecular machines As intricate and subtle as we
(Richard Feynman on hand drums and chanting)
[deGrasse Tyson] I know that the molecules in my body are traceable To phenomena in the cosmos That makes me want to grab people in the street And say, have you heard this??
[Sagan] The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it But the way those atoms are put together The cosmos is also within us We're made of star stuff We are a way for the cosmos to know itself
(Richard Feynman on hand drums and chanting)
[Feynman] There's this tremendous mess Of waves all over in space Which is the light bouncing around the room And going from one thing to the other
And it's all really there But you gotta stop and think about it About the complexity to really get the pleasure And it's all really there The inconceivable nature of nature
[Nye] To think about all of this To think about the vast emptiness of space There's billions and billions of stars Billions and billions of specks
[Sagan] The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it But the way those atoms are put together The cosmos is also within us We're made of star stuff We are a way for the cosmos to know itself
Across the sea of space The stars are other suns We have traveled this way before And there is much to be learned

I love the spirituality of their words. Enjoy!
Here are some of the source videos: Richard Feynman, Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Nissan Leaf

2010-09-03T12:01:00.000-07:00

Originally posted on 6 Aug 2009:

I am very happy to see another electric vehicle on the near horizon: the Nissan Leaf was announced on August 2nd. There’s a very comprehensive post on AutoBlogGreen, including a video.

Nissan Leaf

They appear to have done a lot of careful design: they did as much aerodynamic design as they could without having obvious things like wheel skirts. They did not want it to look like a Prius/Insight, and though it has the same basic shape of those cars, it obviously looks more “normal” than they do. Personally, I would prefer a lower window sill line — which would improve rearward visibility. And I hope that it can be had with steel wheels, so one can use smooth wheel covers.

I want it to work well; and as long as it avoids any “stupid” styling (which I think it does!) that hurt how it works, then I’m happy. Form should follow function, like with the Aptera. Styling should be limited to the “graphic” adjustments of the aerodynamic shape. Again, the best example of this is comparing the earlier Aptera MK-0 and Typ-1 to the current model. They changed the height, and they changed the “graphics” of things like the shape of the windows and the headlights, and while the overall shape is the same slippery form, the newer models look much better.
To quote the ABG article on this subject:

A Question of Style
Interestingly, unlike the current alt-fuel darlings from Toyota and Honda, Nissan has purposefully eschewed a fastback shape for a more formal five-door appearance. Shiro Nakamura, Nissan’s senior vice president and chief creative officer (read: styling director) admits he wanted the car to be unique, but not so bizarre as to be off-putting to most car buyers:
“From the beginning, we did not want to make the car very strange, because one of the perceptions of the EV [is that] people think that EVs are toys, or cheap… that you cannot drive high-speed, that EV means ‘not real car.’ But the car we have is a real car – you can drive it at 140 kilometers, you can sit four or five passengers comfortably.By that measure, the more upright yet unique Leaf is a success – it is a slippery shape with real passenger space, yet it doesn’t resort to visually polarizing aerodynamic tricks like faired-in wheel housings and to maximize aero. Instead, it has a smooth face (secreting two charging ports hiding beneath the Nissan logo), strangely prominent blue-tinted headlamps that manage airflow as much as they do nighttime vision, and a roofline whose rearmost pillar reminds us of another Nissan – the Murano. The Leaf has an almost Gallic rump that recalls that of the Versa, a design that in turn reminds us of offerings from Nissan’s European partner, Renault.

Nissan Leaf 120v charging

From what we have been told so far, the Leaf will have range of 100 miles, carrying four adults or five people, and it has two charging plugs: a 120v and a 240v (~16 hours and ~8 hours for a full charge, respectively) — and there is the ability to use a 3-phase fast charge (if you have access to an expensive special charger) that does an 80% charge in less than 30 minutes, or an ~30% charge in about 10 minutes. The battery pack is ~200kg (440 pounds) and is made up of 48 laptop-sized modules (each of which has 4 magazine-sized cells). These are thin, laminated lithium ion cells (that may be similar to the battery used in the newest MacBook Pro laptops) — and they are installed in the floor of the Leaf. The total weight of the car is probably similar to say the Versa, but the Cg is probably much lower because of where the batteries are installed.
Here's a post on Green Car Congress with some specific information about the initial release of ~5,000 Leafs in 2010:

Up to 5,000 Nissan LEAF EVs in 5 Regions

So, the (non-exhaustive) list of EV’s that we already have seen, or will be seeing in the next few years grows a bit longer:

Nissan Leaf
Toyota/Scion FT-EV
Mitsubishi iMiEV (say: I-meev)
Aptera 2e
Coda Automotive
Ford Focus EV
Mini E
Th!nk City
BYD F3DM

Chicken Feathers!

2010-09-03T11:59:00.000-07:00

Originally posted on 26 June 2009:

What would you say about using "cooked" chicken feathers to store hydrogen very efficiently? How about using chicken feathers as carbon fiber reinforcement in things like wind turbine blades?

The answer to both questions is -- yes you can!

Science Friday: "Hydrogen Storage in Chicken Feathers?"

Researchers say they've come up with a new material for storing hydrogen fuel -- carbonized chicken feathers. Speaking this week at at the 13th Annual Green Chemistry & Engineering Conference in College Park, MD, researchers said that carbonized chicken feathers could absorb as much or perhaps more hydrogen than other materials for hydrogen storage, including carbon nanotubes or metal hydrides, at a much lower cost.

Link to podcast

Here's another source: Happy News

While I'm on the subject of Science Friday, the second segment in today's show was also very interesting; talking about the enormous potential for wind power to far exceed all our needs.

Science Friday: Wind Energy Potential

Link to podcast

Would you lease a hydrogen fuel cell car for $315/month?

2010-09-03T11:58:00.000-07:00

Originally posted on 25 June 2009:

Here’s a new one on me; the Riversimple open source hydrogen fuel cell car.

Not too many details are available yet: it has a 1kg tank of hydrogen and a whopping 6kW (8HP) fuel cell that give it a range of 240 miles, and a top speed of 50mph. It weighs just 350kg (~771 pounds), owing mostly to the carbon fiber chassis. They are looking to produce 10 next year, and ~50 the year after that, with leases available in 2012, for £200 ($315) per month, including the hydrogen fuel. Key to their design is efficient regenerative braking (50% returned energy) using some ultracapacitors.

It looks like they are using hub motors in each wheel, and carbon fiber for the chassis. It does not appear to be on their web page (yet), but they plan to release their plans so that anybody can build one. I really like this idea of sharing the design information. The aerodynamics seem to be worked out pretty well — the range of the car with just 1kg of hydrogen is proof of this! The one (possible) snag is whether or not the side windows are operable — I guess toll roads can be handled with a wireless unit, though. There is an intake grill, which may be used for ventilating the car.

I have my concerns with hydrogen — you can either get it from processing natural gas (which is obviously not very “green”) — or you need to use renewable energy (electricity from solar/wind/tidal/wave/biomass, etc.) to make the hydrogen. There is no infrastructure for hydrogen, and this is a nontrivial hurdle. But with this Riversimple car, they provide the hydrogen as part of the lease. So this design concept works if you are located close to where they will have service.

If you do not agree that Global Cimate Change is real...

2010-09-03T11:56:00.000-07:00

Originally posted 8 June 2009:

What other parts of science do you not believe are true?

Do you believe that the Theory of Gravity is correct? Or, do you believe in Intelligent Falling?

Do you believe in evolution? Or, do you believe in Intelligent Design?

Do you believe in the theory of atomic structure? Or, something else is responsible for how physics and chemistry work?

Do you believe in DNA? Or, do you believe that God chooses what characteristics to give your child?
What about the theory of how the Universe works, and the life cycles of stars and galaxies? Or, do you believe that God created it all in 6 days?

Do you believe that the Earth and the other SEVEN planets are orbiting the Sun? Or, does everything revolve around the Earth?

Are plate tectonics real? Or is there some other explanation for volcanoes and earthquakes?

Is the Earth (approximately) a sphere -- or is it flat?

Do you believe that medical drugs are developed using scientific methods? Or, are they just lucky guesses?

You see, you can't believe in just parts of science -- it all works the same: we explore the unknown, and as we find out more and more, we theorize about how it works. Then, based on the evidence and peer review, the accepted theory emerges; and is continuously tested and debated. Things settle more, as scientist come into closer and closer agreement.

This is how it is for all scientific endeavors -- they are not just making this up! Global Climate Change is real and it is the predominant scientific conclusion that humans have affected an abrupt change in the climate, by burning old carbon fuels; releasing millions of years worth of old carbon in about 150 years.

A few naysayers here and there may be right -- but on the other hand, maybe the large majority of the scientists who study this are right? Which is the bigger risk: that the naysayers are right and we conserve too much fuel and move to renewable energy anyway -- or, we keep on keepin' on and the ocean rises 40 feet in the next 100 years or so, and parts of the world go into an ice age, other parts go into drought, etc. etc. etc. -- who knows what the risks are??

Are you willing to take that risk?

Post Script:
Since Intelligent Design is a renaming of Creationism -- and neither one of them is science, then you can believe in it if you want to. The Theory of Gravity is science, and so it remains true whether you accept it or not. If you choose to take a similar tact to believing in Intelligent Design instead of accepting Evolution as the science that it is, then you might need to try to work out calling gravity Intelligent Falling as well.

My intent is to point out that science is a process where based on the facts, we humans work to understand and name the best -- and most consistent theories possible to make all the facts that we know to fit together. Scientists are constantly testing all the theories, and exploring the unknown. When they find something that they cannot explain -- they DO NOT just attribute it to some unknown cause; like we all do in our faiths all the time! This is the different between science and faith. Science looks to either find out more about the unknown, until either the new thing fits into the accepted theory, or they have to change the theory to fit with everything that has come before AND with the new thing. Faith simply accepts the unknown thing without question.

I apologize for this sentence in particular: "Or, do you believe that God created it all?". Later on I edited this to say "Or, do you believe that God created it all in 6 days?". There is a BIG difference there, because it means something very different -- so again I apologize.

The difference is that one could believe that a God created the world as a matter of faith AND the creation process is what science is working to explain and understand. But believing that God created the universe, the world, and all living things in a literal 6 days is a matter of faith which is conflict with science. I hope that I have made the difference a little clearer.

Again, it was not my intent to debate the difference between faith and science; though this is obviously part of the discussion. My main point was to try to point out the need for consistency in the understanding of science: if the scientific process has produced strong theories (which are very different from hypothesis') for things like gravity, atomic theory, plate tectonics, evolution, electricity, astronomy -- all of these things and much more -- are *inseparable* from the way we live and the way we understand all things in science. To be intellectually consistent, all of these and more -- including global climate change must be accepted as a whole! If you reject one part, then you must reject all the others, too -- because they are part of the whole.

This certainly does not mean that one cannot question any or all of these things -- this is what scientists do ALL THE TIME! This is EXACTLY what scientists DO all the time. But to throw out the theory of evolution say, on the basis of a few examples, is frankly throwing out the baby with the bath water. If one is to pronounce that any part of accepted science as bunk, then one had better be ready to show that they have a fully working alternative theory -- and to defend it scientifically, through accepted scientific process.

I urge all of you who are interested in this to watch a NOVA video online, or the next time it is broadcast on your local PBS station:

PBS NOVA page
Watch show online

Sincerely, Neil

"eyes forward" Video Mirrors on my xA

2010-09-03T11:54:00.000-07:00

Originally posted on 3 June 2009:

Hello,

I have installed my own video mirrors on my Scion xA, and it has reduced my frontal area by ~62 sq. in., and I will be doing another coast down test to see how much it may have helped lower my Cd. I did one set of coast down tests and I got ~0.267 (down from 0.31 of the stock car); though this is based on an estimated rolling resistance of 0.011 for my 44PSI Yokohama Avid tires.

Here's my post about the installation on EcoModder:

Installation post on EcoModder.com

Video Mirrors in action!

Now that I've driven with the video mirrors for a few days now, and I'm close to being used to their location. I drove in the heavy rain yesterday -- and they work much better than optical mirrors! The lower resolution "misses" much of the mist (kicked up from the tires) and their aperture adjustment makes the images on the screens quite bright. Ditto for dusk operation. I have not driven at night except once, and I think I now have the windshield reflection issue solved...(see the picture below for the current set up, that eliminates the reflection)
If I were to design this from scratch, I would say that a slightly less wide angle of view would be plenty (90-100 degrees instead of the ~110 degrees these cameras provide). The wide angle is great and I love being able to see a bit of the side of my car in both screens, but frankly, it takes getting used to. And that leads me to my next improvement:
I would want the lens optics to compensate for the barrel distortion (and maybe overcompensate?) so the cars behind in the adjacent lanes were shown larger and appeared to be closer. I am still looking over my shoulder to confirm that I have room (which is probably wise in any situation!), because they look pretty small when they are ~100' behind me.
Large (semi) trucks behind me show up in all three mirrors! And the way they work in the rain is quite impressive -- the lens get a few drops when the car is parked, which show up as soft-focus distortions on part of the screen, but if you wipe these off, then they stay dry when you are driving. It doesn't matter if your windows get fogged up, either!
I averaged (just) above 50mpg on a tank, for the first time! The passenger side was put on about 1/3 through the tank, and the driver side about 2/3 through -- not too bad, if I say so myself.
Here's some pictures of what the video mirrors look like at dusk and near dark -- it's a little tricky getting an exposure that shows it close to what I can actually see!

Video Mirrors at sunset

a little darker...

Video mirrors at nearly dark

These are getting progressively darker top to bottom -- the middle one especially makes it look darker outside than it actually is, and the cameras really seem to open up their apertures in this light, and they sometimes are slightly overexposed on one or the other, depending on the direction of the sun. The last one is sitting in my driveway, and there is very little ambient light -- you can kinda make out the light thrown by my taillights in the right screen...the light ahead is my porch light.
Why did I install video mirrors? To reduce the aerodynamic drag. Compare the before and after:

World's Fastest (homemade?) Electric Car!

2010-09-03T11:52:00.000-07:00

Originally posted on 3 May 2009:

Check this out!

World's Fastest Electric Car!

Solar Cogeneration!

2010-09-03T11:51:00.000-07:00

Originally posted 3 May 2009:

Hello,

Here's a really smart idea that I'm surprised that I have not heard about before:

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/04/28/in-israel-solar-power-that-wont-need-subsidies/

They cool the PV with water to make it more efficient, and they can also use the heat that is gathered. It's as obvious as the nose on your face!

There are metal roofs for houses that do similar things: they collect both PV and heat energy in the same roof (and you can collect rain water, too).

http://www.englertinc.com/Solar_info.aspx

This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized 1024x768.

(It looks like the PV laminate is on the shed dormer.)
http://www.englertinc.com/ThinfilmSo...fo.aspx?Page=1

This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized 942x627.

Cars to Emulate and Study

2010-09-03T11:49:00.000-07:00

Originally posted on 3 Apr 2009:

Hi again,

I want to start a list of cars that are exceptional in at least one important way, that improves efficiency.

Aptera 2e: exceptionally low aerodynamic drag with a Cd of 0.15 and a CdA of less than 3 (sq ft). Low weight (~1,700pounds) and drive train that is aimed at maximizing efficiency: it gets an equivalent of 200mpg on the EPA cycle. It seats two people side by side, and has plenty of storage capacity, and is supposed to be quite crash worthy.

Aptera 2e

2 comments

VW 1Liter car: Nearly as aerodynamic as the Aptera with a Cd of 0.16, and probably a lower CdA, the prototype got ~264mpg US (0.89L/100km). It weighed just ~650 pounds! It seats two people one behind the other, and has limited storage capacity.

VW 1 Liter car

Schlörwagen "Pillbug" (1937): built on a Mercedes 170 chassis, the body had an astoundingly low Cd of 0.13, and yet has room for 5-7 people.

Schlör "Pillbug"

I have a copy of the Hucho book on car aerodynamics, and I will be making a 3D model of the Schlör Pillbug! I'll be happy to share it when I get it done.Maybach Stromlinienkarosserie (1939): Another streamlined car with a very low drag coefficient: 0.16 with flat windshield glass, and 0.14 with curved glass. Seating is at least 2, and may be 4 people. This car could go 150mph on just a 150HP engine.

Maybach Stromlinienkarosserie

Mercedes Bionic "Boxfish": A very interesting prototype based on the shape of the boxfish, which is counterintuitively very sleek. The prototype has a Cd of 0.19, seats four with adequate storage, and the structure is also based on the skeleton of the boxfish, which helps reduce weight and increase strength. With a diesel engine, this car gets ~84mpg US.

Mercedes Bionic ("Boxfish")

Toyota 1/X concept car: weighs just 926 pounds (curb weight) and carries 4 people. Can travel over 600 miles on 4 gallons of fuel. Is a plug in (serial?) hybrid with a 500cc ICE and a lithium ion battery pack. This is 150mpg+, folks!

Toyota 1/X concept car

Toyota 1/X images on Google

Toyota 2010 Prius (3rd generation): A Cd of 0.25, and efficient parallel hybrid drive train, seats 5 with generous storage capacity -- it is in production now. It has been driven by a number of folks who managed to get 70+ mpg.

Toyota/Scion 2010 iQ: Soon to sold in the USA (already sold in Japan and in Europe), this little conventionally powered car has a Cd of 0.29, seats 3 adults and 1 child, and has very limited storage unless you have fewer people in the car. It gets 55+ mpg, and should cost ~$13.5K. It is under 10 feet long (only 10" longer than the Smart car), and is front wheel drive, has 9 air bags (1 behind the rear seat), and has very low emissions.

Honda 2009 Fit: Extremely flexible, roomy, and efficient design, mainly because of it's backseat. It is a good aerodynamic shape (though I do not have a Cd number), and can easily get in the 45+ mpg range, and probably higher if ecodriven well. It can seat up to 5 people, with several of them 6'-4" or taller.

Repeating what I wrote below, because I think it is very important:

All companies should use the year that a vehicle is sold as the model year. This takes the pressure off of making change for changes sake. It also (hopefully) will reduce the prevalence of planned obsolescence; and increase the durability and the recycle-ability of the materials used. All these things would greatly lower costs over the long run.

All design changes should be based on functional improvements. Imagine it: higher and higher reliability, better and better efficiency, continuous safety improvements, more and more recycled materials, design changes based on owner’s needs — what a concept!

What is EcoDriving?

2010-09-03T11:46:00.000-07:00

Originally posted on 7 Mar 2009:

In a nutshell, ecodriving is driving in the most economical way possible: it starts with brisk acceleration (trying to use the peak torque of the engine) so you get to "cruising" speed fairly quickly, and then trying to use a minimum of throttle to maintain the speed. Obviously, uphills are your biggest challenge, where it takes throttle just to maintain speed -- if you can, it helps if you let yourself lose a little speed up hills.

Then use the downhills to ease way off the throttle, or if you need to carry speed, put it in neutral and coast (with the engine idling) -- at 60mph at idle in my xA, I get over 300mpg while coasting. I've found it is best to put the car back into gear right before the bottom of the hill, and use a little throttle to carry the speed that you've gained up the next hill, or onto the flat road. This is the corollary to losing speed while going up: gain some speed while going down, and use it to your best advantage.

The other common situation is when you can coast, but you need to slow down, or will soon come to a stop -- then you should downshift into a lower gear. When the engine is being pushed by the wheels, in almost all modern fuel injected cars -- will completely shut off the fuel to the engine; yielding "infinite" mileage for the duration of this kind of coasting. I try to only use my brakes at the very end of the coast right before you stop.

So, if you only use just enough throttle to get you where you need to go, and try not waste energy by heating the brakes; but instead use it to shut off fuel to the engine, and coast to carry speed whenever you can, carrying momentum as far as you can -- then you are most of the way to good ecodriving technique. In hybrid cars, this is when you can use regenerative braking to regain some of the energy you used while accelerating. Without the electrical regenerative braking though, the best we can do is use this energy to be able to stop burning any more fuel while slowing the car down.

There are other things to try, like pulse and glide (when on flat-ish terrain), and minimizing your use of A/C -- and of course if you want to try some simple and reversible modifications: like pumping up your tires a bit above the recommended pressure – up to the maximum pressure listed on the sidewall, or some of the aerodynamic modifications on the grill, etc., then all the better.

Let's try this: how far above the EPA combined mileage rating can you average on a tankful?

2010-09-03T11:44:00.002-07:00

Keep track of your mileage – write down the mileage for each tankful (using the trip odometer) and the amount of fuel you pump each time.

My Scion xA is rated 30mpg in that Combined (2007) EPA rating, so I was over 50% above this last summer, and during the past 90 (winter) days I have been 43.3% above.

The front grill blocks and fog light covers added ~10-12%, and the smooth wheel covers added ~6%, and yes the rear wheel skirts are ~2 to maybe 3%. The rest is gained from ecodriving technique. I use a ScanGauge II to help me see how I am driving, and to help me practice and improve my ecodriving.

Proposal for MassTrans

2010-09-03T11:44:00.000-07:00

Originally posted on 23 Jan 2009:

Build a railroad station at Route 95 & Route 128 intersection, with large parking garage [actually, there is a parking garage very close by, but it is hard to get to from Rt 95], and build train/subway line into Boston. People can then park their cars (after driving up Route 95, or on Route 128 from either direction) and ride on the train into Boston. This would relieve a large portion of the traffic at the 95/93 split, and on the southeastern expressway; as well as decrease the demand on parking in the city.

Build a “ring” railroad/subway along Route 128, with parking garages & stations at all the “spoke” highways that intersect with Route 128. Also, all of the existing train lines that come into Boston/Cambridge should have new stations where they intersect with this new “ring”railroad. People can drive (or bicycle, or walk) to these stations, and travel either along Route 128, or to another train station (Braintree, Route 95 (see above), Riverside, the Purple Lines, etc.) to travel in towards Boston.

This would relieve a large portion of the traffic on Route 128/95 and all roads from there in towards the city. It would be much more energy efficient, as well.

Proposal for Mortgage Problem

2010-09-03T11:42:00.000-07:00

Originally posted 23 Jan 2009:

Any current owner of their residence should be able to “sell” their own house to themselves – and the new mortgage must be kept by the bank that refinances the transaction. It can never be sold to another institution, unless that company is in bankruptcy. The price of the “sale” should be negotiated between the (new) bank that will be financing the renegotiated deal, and the current owner/resident of the property.

The current owner can select the bank that they want to deal with: they should be able to choose between the current institution, and any other local bank i.e. a bank that has a local office. The banks that want to underwrite the new renegotiated loan would be competing to make the new loan.

So, if the current holder of the mortgage wants to keep their investment, they will have to negotiate a fair (current) price for the property, and the owner would have to qualify for the new loan under reasonable and transparent rules; that are set by the government.

If the institution that is the current mortgage holder is refinancing the renegotiated mortgage, then the government doesn't need to pay out anything.

If the new renegotiated mortgage is being held by a new (local) bank, then the government can split the difference 50/50 between the old and the new mortgages, or pay half of the original mortgage, whichever is less, to the old institution; sharing the losses.

Aerodynamic modifications to save gasoline

2010-09-03T11:41:00.000-07:00

Originally posted 3 Jan 2009:

Hi,

I have a long thread, with lots of pictures of the aerodynamic mods that I have done to my Scion xA, over at EcoModder.com

Aero mods on Scion xA

The grill block and the fog light covers were the best improvements = +10% or so improvement in overall fuel economy.

The smooth wheel covers helped ~6% or so.

The rear wheel skirts, and the Kamm back helped some, too.

I'm still keeping above 41mpg even during the winter cold and ice and snow. Before I started ecodriving, my best MPG on a tankful was 42.5, so getting just shy of this for my worst tankful during a New England winter, is a good thing; if I say so myself!

Open Source Information

2010-09-03T11:39:00.000-07:00

Originally posted on 15 Dec 2008:

Like how open source software -- or scientific peer review works, I think that we need to have open source information; about anything and everything. All good ideas need to be shared, and built up, and revised, and improved -- for the benefit of all. Patents are not working; not in the way they were intended. And good solutions to the world's challenges are too important to "sit on".

So, here's an idea I have been working on: a two cylinder diesel cam driven engine (as opposed to a crankshaft driven engine) that directly spins a counter-rotating electrical generator. The torque profile can be optimized for the load of the generator, and since the cams are already rotating in either direction, why not spin the armature in one direction, and the stator in the other direction?

I'll come back with more description, and drawings, and maybe even a 3D model. I want to make a mini version of a diesel train locomotive, and add the huge increase in efficiency that comes from a cam driven engine. The ability to burn biodiesel efficiently, and generate electricity for a serial electric hybrid drive system seems to make a lot of sense to me.

[See my newer post on my CarBŒN EV concept.]

Civil society, taxes, & what we all need from government

2010-09-03T11:34:00.000-07:00

Originally posted 24 Nov 2008:

Greetings,

We are all in this world together, and we all benefit from other people's success, and we all lose when other people fail. This applies to the environment, as well as the economy.

Government is necessary. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln: good government must do what the people cannot, or cannot do well.

So, we need other people to succeed (too) in order for society as a whole to succeed; and we need government to do this -- and therefore, we must pay for the government to function.

How to do this fairly is the question. In the end, it has to happen, and the best government is the kind that adjusts things to work better as time goes on. What we call this kind of government, really doesn't matter in the end.

I love the quote from Winston Churchill: "I think democracy is the worst kind of government -- except for all the others."

How the bailout could work

2010-09-03T11:32:00.000-07:00

Originally posted on 20 Nov 2008:

Hi,

I would suggest giving $1 Billion each to GM, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota -- and and all established car companies with production in the USA; and give $1 Billion each to Aptera, Tesla, (maybe ZAP! if they can show they are legit) and any other start up that has existed for say 4-5 years. We should not play favorites, or pick winners.

This totals ~$8 Billion; leaving 17 Billion.

Pay $7 Billion to the first car company to start production (and produce 10,000 units) of a car that seats four-five that gets at least 50mpg on the combined EPA test. (The Prius already gets 40+ on the combined...)

Pay the remaining $10 Billion to the first car company that starts production (and produce 10,000 units) on a 2+ seat car/vehicle that gets at least 75mpg on the EPA highway test. This car/vehicle would have to be a plug-in hybrid, or be a biodiesel, or be a pure electric with a range of 100+ miles.

[Kinda' like a really BIG X-Prize!]

Higher Efficiency Wind Generator

2010-09-03T11:30:00.000-07:00

Originally posted on 19 Nov 2008:

Greetings,

Here's a wind turbine generator that uses electrical controls to get a "variable transmission", and it gains a lot of efficiency in different wind conditions:

A more efficient generator could convert more of the wind's energy into electricity
ExRo Technologies Inc.

Should we bailout auto makers?

2010-09-03T11:28:00.001-07:00

Originally posted 14 Nov 2008:

Hi,
How much profit did car companies make on each SUV? Where did that money go?

The success of the economy is based on the success of the middle class. Other people’s success helps the rest of us. The same cannot be said for company profits — unless they continue to innovate.

The wages at the non-union auto plants are just about the same as the union ones, I think. The biggest differences come from health care expenses, and from continuous innovation.

How many models does Toyota/Scion/Lexus have? About 16 or 17?
How many models does Honda/Acura have? About 10 or 12?
Someone listed 127 GM models…

All companies should use the year that a vehicle is sold as the model year. This takes the pressure off of making change for changes sake. It also (hopefully) will reduce the prevalence of planned obsolescence; and increase the durability and the recycle-ability of the materials used. All these things would greatly lower costs over the long run.

All design changes should be based on functional improvements. Imagine it: higher and higher reliability, better and better efficiency, continuous safety improvements, more and more recycled materials, design changes based on owner’s needs — what a concept!

More ways for auto makers to build more efficient vehicles - Updated 29 June 2010!

2010-09-03T11:27:00.000-07:00

Originally posted 6 Nov 2008:

EcoDriving & Other Vehicle Efficiency Improvements
I want to try to list steps that car makers, and drivers could/should take to improve the fuel efficiency, in approximate order of cost:

EcoDriving involves moderation: top speed should be reduced, use only as much throttle as needed (try to not need to use the brakes!), thinking ahead so you can take full advantage of downhills, minimize the use of air conditioning, trip planning to reduce cold startups – and walking to everything that is a mile or less.

The most obvious improvement to cars, would be to mold the plastic on the front of the vehicle to be smooth and round, with grill openings that are sized (and placed) only as required to cool the engine. Some new plastic bumper covers and grill pieces could be snapped onto cars. Flush covers should be used on all lights. Fairing pieces could be added to side mirrors. Hood gap gaskets, and streamlined wheel covers are easy, too.

All these improvements (above) can add at least 10% and as much as 25% to the fuel economy. Here's more:

Sealing all the seams and joints (with gaskets or backing flanges) in the high pressure areas of the vehicle.

Smooth floor pans with no sharp protrusions -- this is part of the drag just as much as the parts of the car that can be easily seen. Smoothing the underside with covers (like the EV-1).

Transmission ratios should be optimized for efficiency at normal driving speeds. Higher gearing with 6-7 speeds would be optimal (smaller engines need more gears to work efficiently); or CVT transmissions.

Narrower and lighter, LRR (low rolling resistance) tires should be used.

Average & "instant" MPG displays, that are on all the time. The new Honda Insight, the 3rd gen Prius, and some Ford models, have excellent displays that help the driver be more efficient.

Throttle control (rather than cruise/speed control!) that maintains even throttle in a user-set speed range, with minimal throttle increases to maintain the speed in that range.

Use GPS and elevation data to "learn" more efficient throttle control, that could be used on the highway (for cruise control) and/or it could be integrated into a "throttle-by-wire" control.

Tire pressure monitor, that warns the driver when the tires get below the recommended pressure (which could be adjusted upwards if the driver wants to run a pressure up to the tire sidewall maximum). Or better yet: fill tires with foam, so they would never deflate, and minimize rolling resistance.

Efficient and effective fresh air flow through the vehicle, with intakes on a high pressure area, and exhaust vent(s) out the back of the vehicle into the low pressure wake zone, to reduce drag as much as possible.

Coat all the window glass to exclude as much heat as possible.

On defrost mode, the A/C should only come on automatically at maximum defrost(if at all), and it should always be toggled on/off by the driver. I would prefer to make A/C on the defrost setting optional.

Efficient lights such as LED's and HID, that use a little power as possible while functioning as well (or better) than incandescent lights.

Lower consumption electronics, such as A/C, fans and audio systems.

Active grill, that opens when more cooling air is needed, but remains closed – and is more aerodynamic most of the time. Or, a passive design that allows air through at low(er) speeds and then forces air to flow over the top at high(er) speeds.

Use very low friction wheel bearings, such as ceramic bearings; along with low viscosity lubrication, to reduce rolling resistance. The VW 1L car uses these.

Fully ducted engine cooling system, with the intake down low on the front, and the exhaust flows into a low pressure zone; minimizing the size of the radiator and the reducing the "internal" drag as much as possible.

Video cameras and screens in place of side mirrors. This would help a lot with aerodynamics. An example of this starts with Post #167: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/scion-xa-aero-mods-2969-17.html I also have another entry in this blog on this: http://neilblanchard.vox.com/library/post/eyes-forward-video-mirrors-on-my-xa.html

Automatic engine shut off and start up; at least with CVT (or automatic) transmissions -- and possibly with standard shifts, based on having both the clutch and the brake applied?

Lean burn in low vacuum conditions. Use variable valve timing to gain efficiencies.

Store hot coolant in a vacuum insulated tank, to speed up warm-up time; a-la what the 2nd generation Prius does. Or, do what the 3rd generation Prius does: heat the coolant quickly using the exhaust heat. Preheating intake air would also help fully vaporize the fuel; making it higher efficiency.

Tighten up wheel openings, and always use aerodynamically designed wheels/covers, with rear wheel skirts (at least optional).

Make roof racks removable. Years ago, I saw a "papoose" add-on storage system that locked onto the back of the car, with a single caster wheel to support the weight -- it tucked completely into the air flow behind the car; and it would be a great way to add storage space when needed; that did not affect how you drove very much. It could actually greatly improve the overall aerodynamic drag of the vehicle.

An item that has indirect benefits: instead of thick foam and spring seats, they should be mesh or fabric stretched onto frames that provide the right ergonomic shape and provide good support without weighing so much, and taking up a lot of space. This allows a smaller and lighter vehicle because the size of car can be smaller and/or just have more room. Mesh seats would be much cooler in hot weather, and reduce/eliminate the need for A/C.

Use hydraulic motors instead of brakes, so that the energy can be stored in a small accumulator, and then used to generate electricity to charge the battery (pack). This could be used in conjunction with the regenerative shock absorbers:

Regenerative shock absorbers: MIT has a method of using hydraulics to drive a generator, eliminating the need for a mechanically driven alternator; or, to charge the electric drive batteries. These can also be used to lift and level the vehicle, to improve aerodynamics under different loads. Another enhancement would be to provide all the springing with the shock absorber; so maybe a pneumatic or electromagnetic unit would be better for this. There is now a company that makes regenerative hydraulic shock absorbers (each one has a little turbine that spins a generator!): Levãnt Power

Use a composite wheel/tire that has low weight, very low rolling resistance (by being strong enough to stay round), and low aerodynamic drag, no worries about inflation -- and re-tune the suspension to work with said wheel/tire. (see item above) This could gain even more energy, since very little would be damped by the tires.

For new 4-cylinder internal combustion engine designs, the crankshaft could be split with a hydraulic coupling that can automatically disengage two cylinders completely; saving all the pumping and friction losses, for situations when 2 cylinders are enough to provide the required torque to move the vehicle. There are also cam-driven designs that about double the efficiency of the ICE.

Nissan is (supposedly) going to reduce their cars weight by an average of 15%. I think all cars could be reduced by 20-30% with smarter steel fabrications, smarter use of materials. Here's a site that shows a steel chassis that is 25% lighter and nearly twice as stiff/strong as a conventional steel chassis:

http://www.bluescopesteel.com.au/go/news/ultra-light-steel-auto-body-ulsab-project Multiple car door latches could be used to increase strength & safety of the chassis -- helps to further reduce weight, increase strength & rigidity, without requiring an unusual entry method.

Use an EV drive train, combining batteries and a supercapacitor, and a "smart" controller, that makes use of GPS and elevation data, to use the supercap for the high current regenerative charging and short(er) duration acceleration, and/or to then charge the battery at a rate that does not stress them. In other words, using the supercap as an I/O energy cache, to reduce the requirements on the battery. This can either reduce the cost of the battery, and/or increase the battery lifespan and probably increase range; especially in high traffic urban driving or in hilly conditions. Driving on flat terrain at (more or less) constant speed probably will be more dependent on the battery, and less on the supercapacitor.

Make every vehicle with a plug-in electric w/ serial hybrid ICE drive train, with regenerative braking. Use a cam driven engine that spins the armature and the stator in both (counter-rotating) directions, to charge traction batteries. The engine could have rotary valves to reduce parasitic losses. It would run at it's ideal RPM to drive the torque load of the alternator.

Serial hybrids should use some of the energy near the end of the battery charge to run a block heater to warm up the ICE. Use the ICE coolant system to cool the electric motor, the electric controller, and/or the battery pack -- it would preheat the engine for start up & help to heat the cab reducing the need for electric heating.

Rework the overall shape of the vehicle to reduce drag. Cd of 0.10-0.25 are achievable!

Here's an American company that is going to produce an extremely efficient vehicle: Aptera
And another innovative company: Edison2 Very Light Car
And a very promising Canadian company: FVT eVaro

I'd be thrilled if any (or all) of these ideas get used to make cars more efficient -- but I would ask that all the ideas remain "open source" -- and that any developments and refinements that you come up with be shared with any and all other interested parties. Good ideas need to be shared, and profits can still be made by production!

Here's Part 2 of this blog post.

Hydrogen production using aluminum, gallium, & water!

2010-09-03T11:24:00.001-07:00

Originally posted 26 June 2007:

Greetings,

This method of producing hydrogen could well be THE big breakthrough for "green" energy:

New process generates hydrogen from aluminum alloy to run engines, fuel cells

I am a little concerned, though, that they have applied for a patent -- something this important should become "open source information", in my opinion. Anybody who uses it, is obligated to pass anything that they learn about producing hydrogen.

Sincerely, Neil Blanchard

Hybrid Mini Cooper

2010-09-03T11:22:00.000-07:00

Originally posted 2 Jan 2007:

Greetings,

Here's a very kewl prototype, that seems like it could actually be built.

TreeHugger link

and here:

Leftlane link

This hybrid Mini Cooper has about a 200-250 mile all-electric range, about 930 mile total range, and operates at about 80mpg in the hybrid mode.

Oh, and it has about 640 horsepower -- each wheel has it's own 160HP motor(!!!), and does 0-60 in about 4 seconds. It has four wheel drive (natch), with traction control, and has all the normal interior space.
That's all.

I think they are sorta' showing off, and trying to change people's image of what an electric car is. Imagine how efficient it would be with ~40HP electric motors in each wheel hub; instead of the 160HP models they used? It would still be very fast, I'm sure, and the range and mileage would improve from their already impressive levels... They could also use a small diesel motor and gain even more efficiency (does this remind you of a train?).

Sincerely, Neil

How can you conserve energy?

2010-09-03T11:20:00.000-07:00

Originally posted 2 Nov 2006:

Hello again,

I would hope that someone will want to comment on any of my posts, because I'm hoping to raise this subject in people's priorities. Please discuss the ideas I've raised, and/or raise other ideas, and let's discuss the pros and cons of all of them!

Some simple things that you can do to save energy:

Properly inflate your vehicles tires, and keep them that way. Look at the recommended range of inflation, and in general it is best to use a pressure near the top of this range. If all people did this, we could save up to 3% of all the petroleum we use.

Use compact fluorescent light bulbs where ever possible. This will save at least 75% of the electricity you use for lighting. If the fixture has a dimmer on it, you'll need to locate bulbs that work on dimmers -- they do exist. If you try to use a regular fluorescent bulb in a dimmable circuit, it is likely to flicker even if you have the dimmer up to full, unfortunately.

[Edit: Here's one place to buy dimmable compact fluorescent bulbs. To find others, you can Google for "dimmable fluorescent bulbs". Also, there are LED bulbs available that screw into our standard "Edison" fixtures:here. I have not tried these, but they certainly will come on immediately at full brightness.]

Replace your older refrigerator with one that is as efficient as you can find. Ask for the most efficient models, and call around to all the appliance sellers in your area -- this needs to be a top priority, and this should help them get the message.

Here's one that is a little more obscure, but very important none the less: compost all of the autumn leaves [and lawn clippings, weeds, vegetable parings, etc.], rather than throwing them out like garbage! If you use your lawn mower, or rent a leaf shreader, they will be a lot more compact, they won't blow around, and they will turn into wonderful, rich soil by the next year. This method can actually be faster, since the much smaller volume of the leaves makes them easier to move. Use the bag on the mower to collect the chopped leaves, and empty it onto a small tarp, and then drag the tarp by it's corner.

Then use this soil to fertilize your lawn and plants -- instead of using chemical fertilizers made from oil and natural gas! This is essentially free, since all it takes is a spot where you can put the leaves to let the natural process happen. If it doesn't rain on the pile soon after you make it, it also helps to use a little water from the hose to dampen things down -- the worms and the natural decomposition can get started faster.

Of course, by not using chemical fertilizers, you are saving all sorts of other bad effects downstream: the phosphorus and nitrogen runoff from these has literally killed just about all ponds and streams in all the suburbs I have seen. And the effects of these chemicals has huge affects all the way out to the ocean.

[I recently bought a Scott "Classic" reel lawn mower, and I find it no harder to push than the gasoline powered mower! And I can finish the mowing in less time, too. No fumes, and no oil changes...]

What else can you think of?
Sincerely, Neil

What would an ideal car look like?

2010-09-03T11:18:00.000-07:00

Originally posted 31 Oct 2006:

Greetings,

I've been ruminating on what a (much) more efficient automobile would look like, and here are some random thoughts:

We need to use a smaller motor, while still getting enough power out of it, so maybe 1.0-1.3L four cylinder (or maybe even smaller?), with a small turbo? It would also have variable valves, to maximize the low RPM torque (fewer valves with shorter duration, IIANM), and then more valves for longer duration, etc. at higher RPM's. This same mechanism could be used to shut down two of the four cylinders at idle, and in low-demand situations, and then all four cylinders could seamlessly be brought back into operation as more power is demanded. It would not be too hard to have the entire engine be shut off when sitting still.

The transmission would have 6 to 8 speeds; again to help utilize the available power. I would want a manual transmission, but the clutch would be used only in first (or second) gear for getting rolling. Thereafter, gearshifts should be handled like they are in an Formula 1 car: shift paddles under the steering wheel to shift up or down, with the ignition computer "blipping" the engine momentarily while the transmission shifts. In Formula 1 cars, this happens at a mere 19,000RPM, with a 7 speed transmission -- so I can't see why it couldn't be done at 2,000-6,000RPM?

This scheme would allow a direct drive situation with virtually no slippage once the car is rolling. Also, the throwout bearing in the clutch should be well lubricated for coasting. I think that a manual transmission has much better control, for driving in typical New England winter conditions, for example.

All the aerodynamics should be improved to a point where the drag is reasonably close to ideal, without becoming impractical. The underside should be included in this, and also low rolling resistance tires are also key. A while back, I remember seeing tweaks like partially recessed side mirrors, that reduced the aero drag -- this seems like a reasonable thing to do, too.

Here' are newer blog entries that I have written on this subject:
Cars to emulate and study
Aerodynamic modifications to save gasoline
More ways for auto makers to build more efficient vehicles
"Eyes forward" video mirrors on my Scion xA

Solid Hydrogen Storage

2010-09-03T11:16:00.000-07:00

Originally posted 13 Oct 2006:

Greetings,

A follow up on Stan Ovshinsky's method of storing hydrogen in solid metal -- it is metal in a powder form, and it is completely inert; which is obviously a good thing! The challenge is, that when the hydrogen is "charging" the metal, it generated a lot of heat, and currently they use a water jacket to cool it.

Here's what I suggested to them in an email: why not charge up some of the (nickel metal hydride?) metal powder in a machine where you can recover the heat and use it -- and then use a pneumatic vacuum system to evacuate the spent powder out of the car's tank, and then use the same system to fill it again with charged powder?

This would also avoid the greatest hazard of having to have the "user" working with the hydrogen gas, and you could gain efficiency by recovering the heat.

A little background: Stan Ovshinsky has retrofitted a Toyota Prius with a hydrogen tank, that because it uses the (NiMH?) metal powder to hold the hydrogen, like a sponge holds water -- the tank holds twice as much hydrogen as it could in the same volume under high pressure! The engine is converted to burn the hydrogen, and the exhaust is water!

The other piece of this idea is to produce the hydrogen right in the fueling station. Using electricity from the grid, at least; or better yet use PV, and/or wind generators, and/or a hydro-generator, and/or geothermal, etc. to generate electricity on the spot (to avoid all transmission losses!) and store the hydrogen in the solid metal; where it is safe and stable.

Sounds like a good business plan for a franchise, huh?

Sincerely, Neil

Fuel Efficiency Improvements

2010-09-03T11:15:00.000-07:00

Originally posted 18 Sept 2006:

Greetings,
There are (at least) five or six things that automobile makers could do to improve the effiency of all cars/vehicles:

Using the variable valve technology that is already in many engines, to not only improve the power band (less air flow at low RPM's for more torque, and more air flow at higher RPM's for more horsepower) -- but to also use it to shut off cylinders, when they are not needed. A few V8 engines already do this, and transform themselves in to 4 cylinder engines, when the extra power is not needed. So, why not turn a V6 into a 3-cylinder, or a 4-cylinder into a 2-cylinder? Seems to make a lot of sense to me!

The Toyota Prius (2nd gen?) uses a vacuum-insulated tank (like a Thermos) to hold hot engine coolant overnight, to be pumped into the engine block to allow it to come up to a good operating temperature much more quickly. This could/should be done on all vehicles, and it would greatly reduce emissions and fuel use at the start of every trip.

Preheat the fuel right before injecting it into the cylinders -- this will vaporize the fuel (as opposed to simply making it into droplets). This will help increase the power and efficiency of any engine dramatically!

Use a CVT (continuously variable transmission) instead of a automatic transmission with a torque converter. A CVT transmission provides nearly zero slippage, and it helps the engine operate at the RPM that is best for the situation, and the ratios are infinitely variable, and there is no lag time while you shift.

Using a CVT transmission makes it possible to do something that the Honda Civic Hybrid (and others) does, and that is shut off the engine when the vehicle is stopped. The instant the driver removes their foot from the brake, the engine is started and it goes on it way, without you even being aware that it was not running.

Work on reducing both rolling resistant, and aerodynamic drag -- both the underpan of the vehicle and the body, too. Tandem with this, there should be an alarm for when the tire pressure drops below optimum.

Can you think of other improvements?

Photovoltaic resources

2010-09-03T11:13:00.000-07:00

Originally posted 11 Sept 2006:

Greetings,

Here's some web pages that you should bookmark!

http://www.uni-solar.com/index.asp
http://www.uni-solar.com/interior.asp?id=111
http://www.uni-solar.com/interior.asp?id=102

They make durable, flexible, photovoltaic roofing products that make electricity from dawn to dusk, rain, clouds, or shine -- and they're making them now!

You folks in California should look into this ASAP, because you can actually buy these at the moment. The rest of us will have to wait (at least) a few months until they can make enough.

The person behind this is Stan Ovshinsky, who has also invented the material used in CD-RW's, nickel metal hydride rechargeable batteries, and a similar metal that acts as a *sponge* for hydrogen; storing it "inside" solid metal. There are several Scientific American Frontiers TV shows that include Mr. Ovshinsky's inventions.

Little did I know that there is a company right "next door" in Marlborough, MA called Evergreen Solar, that makes another innovative photovoltaic panel!

http://www.evergreensolar.com/index.html

Their system uses liquid (molten) silicon and forms ribbons, that use about half as much silicon as the wafer-based systems. My brother, Nathan has had them to his house for a consultation, and his little ranch house could have a 3.9KW system fit on the roof. With a little bit of conservation, that could meet the needs of the house. I'm waiting to get more details...

Let me throw something out there: it would be a great use of these photovoltaic roofs to at least power the building's A/C system! Think of it! The sun that is warming the building, could also cool it. Cool, wicked cool!

[see my comments in an older post about reducing transmission losses]

My concerns with PV are that they do not last very long, apparently. The material simply gets used up, and they are fairly high tech, and require a fair bit of energy to make, and there may be chemical waste products that are not desirable.

Concentrated Solar does seem to be better on these two counts -- making parabolic mirrors and using oils to collect and store the heat is probably safer and easier than producing PV panels.

Green Energy (con't.)

2010-09-03T11:11:00.000-07:00

Originally posted 11 Sept 2006:

If you consider ALL the costs of nuclear, then it is actually very expensive. Mining uranium is dangerous. Refining uranium is expensive and very high tech (this is why the energy companies like it, maybe -- so they can still be the ones in control?), and the waste products are difficult to transport safely, and the storage of the spent fuel rods and plutonium is an "expense" that we can hardly begin to imagine!
Not only are we put at risk of terrorists getting hold of the radioactive material, but the stuff is extremely poisonous, and very radioactive -- and it will remain so for a period of time that is at least 5X the time of recorded human history!!

Gimme a break -- it is anything BUT cheap. Besides, do you know what a nuclear power plant is? It is simply a big tea kettle! That's right -- we boil water with the heat produced and then we generate electricity with the steam...sheesh.

Why not use concentrated solar to collect the heat of the sun? I'll bet that we can figure out a way to store the energy (as heat, or as pressure) so we could continue to generate electricity over night and through cloudy days? We humans are quite ingenious, and this seems to be a pretty simple sort of problem.
With a fraction of the effort and cost of making a nuclear bomb, or getting humans to the moon or Mars, or just a week's budget for the fiasco in Iraq, or the pipeline in Alaska, or drilling a 27,000 foot deep oil well, or extracting oil from the shale/sands in Canada -- we could make the solar equivalent of the Hoover dam to get out energy direct from the only safe nuclear fusion reactor I know about: the Sun!

Sincerely, Neil

Where Could Future Green Energy Come From?

2010-09-03T11:09:00.000-07:00

Greetings,

I'm migrating my blog here -- this was written 4 Sept 2006:

I'm going to just dive in, and put something in here -- I'm not sure where this will go.
My main concerns relate to "the direction the world is headed" -- environmentally, politically, etc., and I may just ramble, if that's okay? :-)

I'm participating in a discussion over at Silent PC Review, and it is nudging me to collect my thoughts on this.

There are lots of ways to be more efficient: we lose an inordinately large amount of electrical power to transmission losses. Simply by producing the power close to where it is used, we could save a lot of power.

If we used photovoltaic, or wind, or concentrated solar right at buildings, to power their own AC, this alone would be the single largest savings we could muster!!

Methane digesters in place of sewerage treatment would have two major benefits: the methane gas (which is the simplest hydrocarbon) could be used to generate electricity, and the carbon is "short cycled", which means it is not additional carbon being introduced into the environment. Or, the methane could be used to make plastics, or many other things that we current make from oil.
The second major benefit is the resulting slurry, after all the methane has been produced, is a high quality fertilizer. The nitrogen in it is not water soluable (like it is in most/all chemical fertilizers!), so unlike our current farming practices, this kind of fertilizer will actually IMPROVE the soil.

Another very promising energy, is methanol made from wood/plant fibers. This can be used in fuel cells to produce electricity, or it can be burned in today's internal combustion engines, and it is even better than gasoline. We can just GROW our fuel! The plants are perfect at concentrating solar power, and they add a lot of energy from water and carbon that they take in.

We can do simple and very cheap things: always inflate your vehicle's tires to an optimal pressure: this alone could save something like 3% of our fuel usage, which while small for individuals, the total is millions of barrels of oil.

Methane digesters completely "kill" the bad bugs. Now as to heavy metals, and other things that would survive the digestion process, I dunno. But the main point is, this would replace the oil and natural gas based fertilizers that we use now.

http://www.eco-farm.org/sa/sa_dairy_synopsis_digester.html
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/MethaneDigesters/MDToC.html
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/MethaneDigesters/MD4.html#8using
Google search results for "Methane Digesters"

I should add a point about methanol: I just heard about a study where they used a certain kind of fast growing willow trees, and in eight years the tree produces an optimal amount of ethanol.
Getting ethanol from corn is not smart -- corn itself is a very high energy crop. It requires a lot of fertilizer, and the yeild is not as good as other crops (as I understand it). Apparently, growing "switch grass" is much better: it requires no fertilizer or pesticides, it is a native plant, and it produces more ethanol per acre than corn, I think. I heard a news report that mentions up to 500 gallons per acre? Which is ~$1,500 per acre -- which is way more money than a farmer can earn with just about anything else!

Besides, the local electric company can lease land from the farmer for windmills -- and he can still farm most of the land, too...from what I hear, they can earn a lot by leasing space for windmills.
Composting waste is as "green" as it gets! In the past, the farmers removed the "night soil" -- and it indeed becomes soil. This is the natural process that is the basis of life as we know it.
The fact that we've messed things up by using chemicals that should not have been used, and given the fact that we introduced the heavy metals, drugs, etc., into the food stream is the problem.
Earth to earth...

There is a recent book that talks about the issues of food production, called "An Omnivore's Dilemma" that includes a discussion of the whole farming fiasco we have gotten ourselves into. I like the quote from Wendell Berry:

"Once plants and animals were raised together on the same farm - which therefore neither produced unmanageable surpluses of manure, to be wasted and to pollute the water supply, nor depended on such quantities of commercial fertilizer. The genius of America farm experts is very well demonstrated here: they can take a solution and divide it neatly into two problems."

Sincerely, Neil