Why electric cars will take over sooner than you think

[Rigby5]

You mean like we STILL DO with oil companies.

I would add many of those oil companies don't pay a penny in federal income taxes.

You should absolutely LOVE oil companies, since they are providing the fuel to generate electricity for EVs. Evs aren't going anywhere without the oil companies.

Fossil fuels don't generate electricity in my state.

We use water, wind, solar and a small nuclear facility.

We started shutting down our last coal fired plant in 2005. I'm sure it's closed by now.

We started building one of the nation's largest wind farms in the 90s.

The result?

We generate more electricity than we use so we sell the excess to other states for a profit. If you live in one of those states, you're welcome for the cheap and clean energy.

We also have the second lowest electric rates in the country.

So my state doesn't need or want fossil fuels to generate electricity.

Untrue anywhere in the US.
Coal is the #1 electricity producer in ALL US states and most of the world.
Many states just do not know how their electricity is produced because it is part of an out of state grid.
It is never going to be possible to use only renewable resources any place in the world except on ocean shores, near high thermal sources, or where one does not mind killing fish.

So, if renewable sources can't supply all our needs, then we will use coal, or gas, or dried cow dung if we have to. We will maintain a reliable energy source of one kind or another. It will just be better for us if we can do that with renewable sources sooner. Nobody wants or expects a complete conversion to renewables before that is possible. Quit whining.

Going to electricity before electricity is renewable, only makes emissions much worse.
Nor does electricity allow for any reasonable totally renewable result eventually either, while bio fuel does.
So there is no point in going electrical.
It is inefficient.
Can you imagine trying to do ships, planes, or even EV trucks?
The would have no capacity to carry anything.
Batteries are way too heavy.

We already have diesel/electric ships and trucks, Electric power has already been proven to be more efficient than direct power by internal combustion. Why are you so afraid of progress? Do you think we will completely convert to battery powered electric before we have technology to match or better internal combustion? That's just silly.

Because what you just claimed isn't true. Electric power is more efficient in very limited circumstances. Over short distances electric powered vehicles are superior. There is no doubt of that. However, once you get beyond a mile the advantage swings to the internal combustion engine. Currently a Formula One race car can travel 190 miles, at full performance, on a single tank of regular gasoline. Formula E, can only manage 55 miles. And, they have to use TWO cars to do it.

So, calculate out the energy density involved, and get back to us with your claim of EV superiority.

If you want to discuss energy density, you should consider diesel electric freight trains. Those require serious energy density. Only a fool would think our currnt battery technology is as far as we will go with electric vehicles, and only an idiot would think we will switch to a new technology before it is able to meet the demand. Relax. Quit whining. It will be all right. We won't lose our means of transportation like you seem to fear.

Only a fool would think they can defy the laws of physics. Battery technology, and range, is not significantly greater than it was 100 years ago. Gasoline is the most energy dense fuel that normal people can acquire. A thimble full will propel a 3,000 pound car about 2 miles. No battery in the world can even come close.

You should tell GM, Ford, and all those other car manufacturers. I'm sure they would appreciate you letting them know all their engineers don't know what they are talking about. They will probably give you free cars for life for saving them all that money.

The government is TELLING them to do it. If EV'S were so great, the government wouldn't need to force you to use them

Like seat belts and airbags.

I hate airbags.
They are explosive, dangerous, and expensive.
If you wear glasses, they easily can cause blindness.
Permanent passive restraints make a lot more sense, like close dash or steering wheel padding.

glasses are plastic, and your full of it

So plastic shoved into your eyeball won't cause blindness?

{... During a collision, older-model auto airbags can deploy with such force that they can cause serious injuries to the eyes or even, in rare cases, blindness, say eye trauma specialists interviewed by WebMD. ...}

What Causes Eye Problems?

Get information on common eye and vision problems, such as conjunctivitis, retinal detachment, dry eyes, cataracts, and glaucoma.

www.webmd.com

{...

Rethinking airbag safety: airbag injury causing bilateral blindness​

...

Abstract​

A healthy 40-year-old man, restrained in the front passenger seat, suffered visually disabling blunt ocular trauma following spontaneous release of the passenger side air-bag module, during vehicular deceleration, without an automobile crash. Though the driver-side airbag was also released, the driver was unharmed. The passenger suffered bilateral hyphema, bilateral vitreous hemorrhage and suspected posterior scleral rupture in the left eye and also had an eyebrow laceration, from impact with the dashboard panel covering the air-bag module, which was detached by the force of airbag deployment. This is the first reported case from West Africa and the first case in which part of the airbag module detached to cause additional trauma. This report adds to the growing burden of evidence world-wide, for a review of the safety aspects of the automobile airbag. This case clearly illustrates that although airbags reduce mortality, they carry a high risk of ocular morbidity, even with seat belt restraint. ...}

Rethinking airbag safety: airbag injury causing bilateral blindness - PubMed

A healthy 40-year-old man, restrained in the front passenger seat, suffered visually disabling blunt ocular trauma following spontaneous release of the passenger side air-bag module, during vehicular deceleration, without an automobile crash. Though the driver-side airbag was also released, the...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[HappyJoy]

You mean like we STILL DO with oil companies.

I would add many of those oil companies don't pay a penny in federal income taxes.

You should absolutely LOVE oil companies, since they are providing the fuel to generate electricity for EVs. Evs aren't going anywhere without the oil companies.

Fossil fuels don't generate electricity in my state.

We use water, wind, solar and a small nuclear facility.

We started shutting down our last coal fired plant in 2005. I'm sure it's closed by now.

We started building one of the nation's largest wind farms in the 90s.

The result?

We generate more electricity than we use so we sell the excess to other states for a profit. If you live in one of those states, you're welcome for the cheap and clean energy.

We also have the second lowest electric rates in the country.

So my state doesn't need or want fossil fuels to generate electricity.

Untrue anywhere in the US.
Coal is the #1 electricity producer in ALL US states and most of the world.
Many states just do not know how their electricity is produced because it is part of an out of state grid.
It is never going to be possible to use only renewable resources any place in the world except on ocean shores, near high thermal sources, or where one does not mind killing fish.

So, if renewable sources can't supply all our needs, then we will use coal, or gas, or dried cow dung if we have to. We will maintain a reliable energy source of one kind or another. It will just be better for us if we can do that with renewable sources sooner. Nobody wants or expects a complete conversion to renewables before that is possible. Quit whining.

Going to electricity before electricity is renewable, only makes emissions much worse.
Nor does electricity allow for any reasonable totally renewable result eventually either, while bio fuel does.
So there is no point in going electrical.
It is inefficient.
Can you imagine trying to do ships, planes, or even EV trucks?
The would have no capacity to carry anything.
Batteries are way too heavy.

We already have diesel/electric ships and trucks, Electric power has already been proven to be more efficient than direct power by internal combustion. Why are you so afraid of progress? Do you think we will completely convert to battery powered electric before we have technology to match or better internal combustion? That's just silly.

Because what you just claimed isn't true. Electric power is more efficient in very limited circumstances. Over short distances electric powered vehicles are superior. There is no doubt of that. However, once you get beyond a mile the advantage swings to the internal combustion engine. Currently a Formula One race car can travel 190 miles, at full performance, on a single tank of regular gasoline. Formula E, can only manage 55 miles. And, they have to use TWO cars to do it.

So, calculate out the energy density involved, and get back to us with your claim of EV superiority.

If you want to discuss energy density, you should consider diesel electric freight trains. Those require serious energy density. Only a fool would think our currnt battery technology is as far as we will go with electric vehicles, and only an idiot would think we will switch to a new technology before it is able to meet the demand. Relax. Quit whining. It will be all right. We won't lose our means of transportation like you seem to fear.

Only a fool would think they can defy the laws of physics. Battery technology, and range, is not significantly greater than it was 100 years ago. Gasoline is the most energy dense fuel that normal people can acquire. A thimble full will propel a 3,000 pound car about 2 miles. No battery in the world can even come close.

You should tell GM, Ford, and all those other car manufacturers. I'm sure they would appreciate you letting them know all their engineers don't know what they are talking about. They will probably give you free cars for life for saving them all that money.

The government is TELLING them to do it. If EV'S were so great, the government wouldn't need to force you to use them

Like seat belts and airbags.

I hate airbags.
They are explosive, dangerous, and expensive.
If you wear glasses, they easily can cause blindness.
Permanent passive restraints make a lot more sense, like close dash or steering wheel padding.

glasses are plastic, and your full of it

So plastic shoved into your eyeball won't cause blindness?

{... During a collision, older-model auto airbags can deploy with such force that they can cause serious injuries to the eyes or even, in rare cases, blindness, say eye trauma specialists interviewed by WebMD. ...}

What Causes Eye Problems?

Get information on common eye and vision problems, such as conjunctivitis, retinal detachment, dry eyes, cataracts, and glaucoma.

www.webmd.com

{...

Rethinking airbag safety: airbag injury causing bilateral blindness​

...

Abstract​

A healthy 40-year-old man, restrained in the front passenger seat, suffered visually disabling blunt ocular trauma following spontaneous release of the passenger side air-bag module, during vehicular deceleration, without an automobile crash. Though the driver-side airbag was also released, the driver was unharmed. The passenger suffered bilateral hyphema, bilateral vitreous hemorrhage and suspected posterior scleral rupture in the left eye and also had an eyebrow laceration, from impact with the dashboard panel covering the air-bag module, which was detached by the force of airbag deployment. This is the first reported case from West Africa and the first case in which part of the airbag module detached to cause additional trauma. This report adds to the growing burden of evidence world-wide, for a review of the safety aspects of the automobile airbag. This case clearly illustrates that although airbags reduce mortality, they carry a high risk of ocular morbidity, even with seat belt restraint. ...}

Rethinking airbag safety: airbag injury causing bilateral blindness - PubMed

A healthy 40-year-old man, restrained in the front passenger seat, suffered visually disabling blunt ocular trauma following spontaneous release of the passenger side air-bag module, during vehicular deceleration, without an automobile crash. Though the driver-side airbag was also released, the...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Airbags have saved over 50,000 lives. I doubt your "physics degree" has accomplished as much.

Airbags

Information from IIHS-HLDI on airbags

www.iihs.org

 

[Wyatt earp]

You mean like we STILL DO with oil companies.

I would add many of those oil companies don't pay a penny in federal income taxes.

You should absolutely LOVE oil companies, since they are providing the fuel to generate electricity for EVs. Evs aren't going anywhere without the oil companies.

Fossil fuels don't generate electricity in my state.

We use water, wind, solar and a small nuclear facility.

We started shutting down our last coal fired plant in 2005. I'm sure it's closed by now.

We started building one of the nation's largest wind farms in the 90s.

The result?

We generate more electricity than we use so we sell the excess to other states for a profit. If you live in one of those states, you're welcome for the cheap and clean energy.

We also have the second lowest electric rates in the country.

So my state doesn't need or want fossil fuels to generate electricity.

Untrue anywhere in the US.
Coal is the #1 electricity producer in ALL US states and most of the world.
Many states just do not know how their electricity is produced because it is part of an out of state grid.
It is never going to be possible to use only renewable resources any place in the world except on ocean shores, near high thermal sources, or where one does not mind killing fish.

So, if renewable sources can't supply all our needs, then we will use coal, or gas, or dried cow dung if we have to. We will maintain a reliable energy source of one kind or another. It will just be better for us if we can do that with renewable sources sooner. Nobody wants or expects a complete conversion to renewables before that is possible. Quit whining.

Going to electricity before electricity is renewable, only makes emissions much worse.
Nor does electricity allow for any reasonable totally renewable result eventually either, while bio fuel does.
So there is no point in going electrical.
It is inefficient.
Can you imagine trying to do ships, planes, or even EV trucks?
The would have no capacity to carry anything.
Batteries are way too heavy.

We already have diesel/electric ships and trucks, Electric power has already been proven to be more efficient than direct power by internal combustion. Why are you so afraid of progress? Do you think we will completely convert to battery powered electric before we have technology to match or better internal combustion? That's just silly.

Because what you just claimed isn't true. Electric power is more efficient in very limited circumstances. Over short distances electric powered vehicles are superior. There is no doubt of that. However, once you get beyond a mile the advantage swings to the internal combustion engine. Currently a Formula One race car can travel 190 miles, at full performance, on a single tank of regular gasoline. Formula E, can only manage 55 miles. And, they have to use TWO cars to do it.

So, calculate out the energy density involved, and get back to us with your claim of EV superiority.

If you want to discuss energy density, you should consider diesel electric freight trains. Those require serious energy density. Only a fool would think our currnt battery technology is as far as we will go with electric vehicles, and only an idiot would think we will switch to a new technology before it is able to meet the demand. Relax. Quit whining. It will be all right. We won't lose our means of transportation like you seem to fear.

Only a fool would think they can defy the laws of physics. Battery technology, and range, is not significantly greater than it was 100 years ago. Gasoline is the most energy dense fuel that normal people can acquire. A thimble full will propel a 3,000 pound car about 2 miles. No battery in the world can even come close.

You should tell GM, Ford, and all those other car manufacturers. I'm sure they would appreciate you letting them know all their engineers don't know what they are talking about. They will probably give you free cars for life for saving them all that money.

The government is TELLING them to do it. If EV'S were so great, the government wouldn't need to force you to use them

Like seat belts and airbags.

I hate airbags.
They are explosive, dangerous, and expensive.
If you wear glasses, they easily can cause blindness.
Permanent passive restraints make a lot more sense, like close dash or steering wheel padding.

glasses are plastic, and your full of it

So plastic shoved into your eyeball won't cause blindness?

{... During a collision, older-model auto airbags can deploy with such force that they can cause serious injuries to the eyes or even, in rare cases, blindness, say eye trauma specialists interviewed by WebMD. ...}

What Causes Eye Problems?

Get information on common eye and vision problems, such as conjunctivitis, retinal detachment, dry eyes, cataracts, and glaucoma.

www.webmd.com

{...

Rethinking airbag safety: airbag injury causing bilateral blindness​

...

Abstract​

A healthy 40-year-old man, restrained in the front passenger seat, suffered visually disabling blunt ocular trauma following spontaneous release of the passenger side air-bag module, during vehicular deceleration, without an automobile crash. Though the driver-side airbag was also released, the driver was unharmed. The passenger suffered bilateral hyphema, bilateral vitreous hemorrhage and suspected posterior scleral rupture in the left eye and also had an eyebrow laceration, from impact with the dashboard panel covering the air-bag module, which was detached by the force of airbag deployment. This is the first reported case from West Africa and the first case in which part of the airbag module detached to cause additional trauma. This report adds to the growing burden of evidence world-wide, for a review of the safety aspects of the automobile airbag. This case clearly illustrates that although airbags reduce mortality, they carry a high risk of ocular morbidity, even with seat belt restraint. ...}

Rethinking airbag safety: airbag injury causing bilateral blindness - PubMed

A healthy 40-year-old man, restrained in the front passenger seat, suffered visually disabling blunt ocular trauma following spontaneous release of the passenger side air-bag module, during vehicular deceleration, without an automobile crash. Though the driver-side airbag was also released, the...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Airbags have saved over 50,000 lives. I doubt your "physics degree" has accomplished as much.

Airbags

Information from IIHS-HLDI on airbags

www.iihs.org

Wow so those 50,000 will never die?

 

[HappyJoy]

You mean like we STILL DO with oil companies.

I would add many of those oil companies don't pay a penny in federal income taxes.

You should absolutely LOVE oil companies, since they are providing the fuel to generate electricity for EVs. Evs aren't going anywhere without the oil companies.

Fossil fuels don't generate electricity in my state.

We use water, wind, solar and a small nuclear facility.

We started shutting down our last coal fired plant in 2005. I'm sure it's closed by now.

We started building one of the nation's largest wind farms in the 90s.

The result?

We generate more electricity than we use so we sell the excess to other states for a profit. If you live in one of those states, you're welcome for the cheap and clean energy.

We also have the second lowest electric rates in the country.

So my state doesn't need or want fossil fuels to generate electricity.

Untrue anywhere in the US.
Coal is the #1 electricity producer in ALL US states and most of the world.
Many states just do not know how their electricity is produced because it is part of an out of state grid.
It is never going to be possible to use only renewable resources any place in the world except on ocean shores, near high thermal sources, or where one does not mind killing fish.

So, if renewable sources can't supply all our needs, then we will use coal, or gas, or dried cow dung if we have to. We will maintain a reliable energy source of one kind or another. It will just be better for us if we can do that with renewable sources sooner. Nobody wants or expects a complete conversion to renewables before that is possible. Quit whining.

Going to electricity before electricity is renewable, only makes emissions much worse.
Nor does electricity allow for any reasonable totally renewable result eventually either, while bio fuel does.
So there is no point in going electrical.
It is inefficient.
Can you imagine trying to do ships, planes, or even EV trucks?
The would have no capacity to carry anything.
Batteries are way too heavy.

We already have diesel/electric ships and trucks, Electric power has already been proven to be more efficient than direct power by internal combustion. Why are you so afraid of progress? Do you think we will completely convert to battery powered electric before we have technology to match or better internal combustion? That's just silly.

Because what you just claimed isn't true. Electric power is more efficient in very limited circumstances. Over short distances electric powered vehicles are superior. There is no doubt of that. However, once you get beyond a mile the advantage swings to the internal combustion engine. Currently a Formula One race car can travel 190 miles, at full performance, on a single tank of regular gasoline. Formula E, can only manage 55 miles. And, they have to use TWO cars to do it.

So, calculate out the energy density involved, and get back to us with your claim of EV superiority.

If you want to discuss energy density, you should consider diesel electric freight trains. Those require serious energy density. Only a fool would think our currnt battery technology is as far as we will go with electric vehicles, and only an idiot would think we will switch to a new technology before it is able to meet the demand. Relax. Quit whining. It will be all right. We won't lose our means of transportation like you seem to fear.

Only a fool would think they can defy the laws of physics. Battery technology, and range, is not significantly greater than it was 100 years ago. Gasoline is the most energy dense fuel that normal people can acquire. A thimble full will propel a 3,000 pound car about 2 miles. No battery in the world can even come close.

You should tell GM, Ford, and all those other car manufacturers. I'm sure they would appreciate you letting them know all their engineers don't know what they are talking about. They will probably give you free cars for life for saving them all that money.

The government is TELLING them to do it. If EV'S were so great, the government wouldn't need to force you to use them

Like seat belts and airbags.

I hate airbags.
They are explosive, dangerous, and expensive.
If you wear glasses, they easily can cause blindness.
Permanent passive restraints make a lot more sense, like close dash or steering wheel padding.

glasses are plastic, and your full of it

Rigby "the physicist" thinks glasses are still made with glass? Yep, he's either full of it or just arrived in his time machine invention.

 

[Rigby5]

Yeah, what can 1 then then 3 degrees difference in temperature make? Certaunly not drought and severe weather patterns or iceless poles. Nothing to worry about. Im sure west of the Mississippi they will find water somewhere.

Except that EVs speed up global warming.
Batteries are lithium and that is very dirty and expensive to mine.
Not to mention heavy and hard to recharge.

They dont. Or at least not as much as ICEs. Taking into account the lifespan of the average car, while EVs start out at a deficit they make up for the materials used in batteries. Ive already posted a link to this.

EV batteries last less than 10 years and cost close to $10,000.
EVs have nothing on ICE.
There are ICE engines getting 70 mpg, and you can run ICE on bio fuel that removes more carbon from the air than it creates.

Name a car that is not a hybrid and therefore doesn't contains some of those evil batteries that is mass produced that gets 70mpg.

The VW Polo for one.
But Asians are doing it as well.

{...

Volkswagen's Clean-Diesel, 70-mpg Polo May Head Stateside: Test Drive​

BY BEN HEWITT
JUL 31, 2007

Last week I flew to the U.S. Environment and Engineering headquarters of Volkswagen in Auburn Hills, Mich. My mission? To drive diesel cars that are confirmed for the U.S. market (the Jetta, in 2008) and, perhaps with more intrigue, those that are sold only in Europe—for now.
PM has previously reported on the 2008 clean-diesel Jetta (click here for video), so I won't linger on it except to say that it's a wonderful car—quick and quiet and really fun, even as it gets Prius-baiting fuel mileage in the 45-mpg range.
It's also not the car that most impressed me. Nope, that honor goes to the Euro-only Polo, a Rabbit-like hatchback—only smaller—with plenty of room for four adults, a modest hatch that could swallow a weekend's worth of gear, and a 1.4-liter, turbocharged diesel under the hood. Oh yeah, and a five-speed manual transmission.
Here's the kicker: The Polo gets 60 to 70-plus mpg. And it's really fun to drive. It's got a good bit of turbo lag, so you need to keep the revs up for serious power, but once the turbo kicks in, acceleration is frisky. And the lag makes the car feel faster than it actually is. I didn't wring it out, but over the course of a short cruise through the suburbs, it felt like a car I could gladly live with day in, day out. Fun to drive, just enough room for a family, and frugal as all get out. In Europe, the Polo sells for less than $20,000
VW isn't promising to bring these cars to the U.S. market, but the ones I drove are in this country for a reason, and that reason has much to do with seeing how they fare in the arduous environmental and safety testing demanded by the feds. And the rumor mill is already churning out stories of a 2010 U.S. Polo. That, I believe.
What about the VW Lupo? Not yet. Too small, too compromised. I can't gush about the Lupo, because it's really, really small. Sure, it adds about 20 mpg to the Polo's already impressive numbers, but it feels like a compromise. If I were single? Maybe. But with a wife and two kids? No way. At least not until gas is a whole lot more expensive than it already is. As it sits, a clean-diesel Lupo would be a great choice for the committed environmentalist who's willing to forgo just about everything for the ultimate in efficiency. ...}

Volkswagen's Clean-Diesel, 70-mpg Polo May Head Stateside: Test Drive

Heres the kicker: Polo gets 60 to 70-plus mpg. And its really fun to drive. And costs less than $20,000. VW isnt promising to bring it to the U.S. market, but the one we drove is in this country for a reason. Here's hoping those rumors o

www.popularmechanics.com

{...

70 mpg, without a Hybrid​

A new Mazda model debuting in Japan gets its high fuel economy from an improved gas engine and a lightweight design.
by

• Kevin Bullisarchive page

October 25, 2010
Next year, Mazda will sell a car in Japan that gets 70.5 miles per gallon (mpg), or 30 kilometers per liter. The fuel economy rating won’t be nearly this good in the United States because of differing requirements, but even so, the car will likely use about as little fuel as a hybrid such as the Toyota Prius–without that car’s added costs for its electric motor and batteries.

Efficient engine:A rendering of Mazda’s new engine. Compared to its predecessor, it has 15 percent better fuel economy and 15 percent more torque, improving vehicle acceleration. The extra-long, curved exhaust pipes on the front (in black) help the engine draw more energy from a gallon of gas.
The Mazda, a subcompact called the Demio in Japan and the Mazda 2 elsewhere, will include a package of changes that improves fuel economy by about 30 percent over the current model. These include a more efficient engine and transmission, and a lighter body and suspension. The Mazda 2, and a range of new cars from other automakers that have been engineered to meet more stringent fuel economy standards, demonstrate what some experts have been saying for some time–internal combustion-powered cars are far from outdated. Indeed, improvements to gas-powered cars can reduce worldwide fuel consumption more quickly than introducing hybrids or electric vehicles, because variations on traditional engines tend to be less expensive and can be quickly implemented on more cars.
“We’ve been making engines for 100 years, and we keep figuring out how to make improvements in them. We will continue to figure out further improvements,” says Greg Johnson, the manager of Ford’s North American powerpacks. “For another 50 years, if not more, the internal combustion engine will be the primary driver.” This week, Ford announced changes to its Focus model that improve its fuel economy by about 17 percent, to an estimated 40 mpg.
Mazda says the biggest source of improvement for the Mazda 2 is a new engine that compresses the fuel-air mixture in the engine far more than conventional gasoline engines do. Ordinarily, gas engines have about a 10-to-1 compression ratio. Mazda increased this to 14 to 1, a level typically seen only in diesel engines. Increasing compression has long been known to increase efficiency, but compressing the fuel-air mixture too much causes it to ignite prematurely–before the spark sets it off–a phenomenon called knocking. That decreases performance and can damage the engine. Mazda has introduced innovations to avoid knocking.
As a number of automakers, including Ford, are doing, Mazda has introduced direct injection–which involves spraying fuel directly into the engine’s combustion chamber rather than into an adjacent port. Doing this cools the chamber, which helps prevent premature ignition. Mazda also modified the exhaust system–increasing the length and shape of the exhaust pipes to allow more exhaust gas to escape after combustion. Removing these hot gases also keeps the temperature down, but it has the drawback of interfering with emissions controls. That required other changes in the engine, including modifying ignition timing and the shape of the pistons.
...}

70 mpg, without a Hybrid

A new Mazda model debuting in Japan gets its high fuel economy from an improved gas engine and a lightweight design.

www.technologyreview.com

 

[HappyJoy]

You mean like we STILL DO with oil companies.

I would add many of those oil companies don't pay a penny in federal income taxes.

You should absolutely LOVE oil companies, since they are providing the fuel to generate electricity for EVs. Evs aren't going anywhere without the oil companies.

Fossil fuels don't generate electricity in my state.

We use water, wind, solar and a small nuclear facility.

We started shutting down our last coal fired plant in 2005. I'm sure it's closed by now.

We started building one of the nation's largest wind farms in the 90s.

The result?

We generate more electricity than we use so we sell the excess to other states for a profit. If you live in one of those states, you're welcome for the cheap and clean energy.

We also have the second lowest electric rates in the country.

So my state doesn't need or want fossil fuels to generate electricity.

Untrue anywhere in the US.
Coal is the #1 electricity producer in ALL US states and most of the world.
Many states just do not know how their electricity is produced because it is part of an out of state grid.
It is never going to be possible to use only renewable resources any place in the world except on ocean shores, near high thermal sources, or where one does not mind killing fish.

So, if renewable sources can't supply all our needs, then we will use coal, or gas, or dried cow dung if we have to. We will maintain a reliable energy source of one kind or another. It will just be better for us if we can do that with renewable sources sooner. Nobody wants or expects a complete conversion to renewables before that is possible. Quit whining.

Going to electricity before electricity is renewable, only makes emissions much worse.
Nor does electricity allow for any reasonable totally renewable result eventually either, while bio fuel does.
So there is no point in going electrical.
It is inefficient.
Can you imagine trying to do ships, planes, or even EV trucks?
The would have no capacity to carry anything.
Batteries are way too heavy.

We already have diesel/electric ships and trucks, Electric power has already been proven to be more efficient than direct power by internal combustion. Why are you so afraid of progress? Do you think we will completely convert to battery powered electric before we have technology to match or better internal combustion? That's just silly.

Because what you just claimed isn't true. Electric power is more efficient in very limited circumstances. Over short distances electric powered vehicles are superior. There is no doubt of that. However, once you get beyond a mile the advantage swings to the internal combustion engine. Currently a Formula One race car can travel 190 miles, at full performance, on a single tank of regular gasoline. Formula E, can only manage 55 miles. And, they have to use TWO cars to do it.

So, calculate out the energy density involved, and get back to us with your claim of EV superiority.

If you want to discuss energy density, you should consider diesel electric freight trains. Those require serious energy density. Only a fool would think our currnt battery technology is as far as we will go with electric vehicles, and only an idiot would think we will switch to a new technology before it is able to meet the demand. Relax. Quit whining. It will be all right. We won't lose our means of transportation like you seem to fear.

Only a fool would think they can defy the laws of physics. Battery technology, and range, is not significantly greater than it was 100 years ago. Gasoline is the most energy dense fuel that normal people can acquire. A thimble full will propel a 3,000 pound car about 2 miles. No battery in the world can even come close.

You should tell GM, Ford, and all those other car manufacturers. I'm sure they would appreciate you letting them know all their engineers don't know what they are talking about. They will probably give you free cars for life for saving them all that money.

The government is TELLING them to do it. If EV'S were so great, the government wouldn't need to force you to use them

Like seat belts and airbags.

I hate airbags.
They are explosive, dangerous, and expensive.
If you wear glasses, they easily can cause blindness.
Permanent passive restraints make a lot more sense, like close dash or steering wheel padding.

glasses are plastic, and your full of it

So plastic shoved into your eyeball won't cause blindness?

{... During a collision, older-model auto airbags can deploy with such force that they can cause serious injuries to the eyes or even, in rare cases, blindness, say eye trauma specialists interviewed by WebMD. ...}

What Causes Eye Problems?

Get information on common eye and vision problems, such as conjunctivitis, retinal detachment, dry eyes, cataracts, and glaucoma.

www.webmd.com

{...

Rethinking airbag safety: airbag injury causing bilateral blindness​

...

Abstract​

A healthy 40-year-old man, restrained in the front passenger seat, suffered visually disabling blunt ocular trauma following spontaneous release of the passenger side air-bag module, during vehicular deceleration, without an automobile crash. Though the driver-side airbag was also released, the driver was unharmed. The passenger suffered bilateral hyphema, bilateral vitreous hemorrhage and suspected posterior scleral rupture in the left eye and also had an eyebrow laceration, from impact with the dashboard panel covering the air-bag module, which was detached by the force of airbag deployment. This is the first reported case from West Africa and the first case in which part of the airbag module detached to cause additional trauma. This report adds to the growing burden of evidence world-wide, for a review of the safety aspects of the automobile airbag. This case clearly illustrates that although airbags reduce mortality, they carry a high risk of ocular morbidity, even with seat belt restraint. ...}

Rethinking airbag safety: airbag injury causing bilateral blindness - PubMed

A healthy 40-year-old man, restrained in the front passenger seat, suffered visually disabling blunt ocular trauma following spontaneous release of the passenger side air-bag module, during vehicular deceleration, without an automobile crash. Though the driver-side airbag was also released, the...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Airbags have saved over 50,000 lives. I doubt your "physics degree" has accomplished as much.

Airbags

Information from IIHS-HLDI on airbags

www.iihs.org

Wow so those 50,000 will never die?

Uh-oh, checkmate.

 

[toobfreak]

Yep, when you only get 250 miles on a good day from an electric fill up, that took 1 hour, sure, the electric car is the way to go. But if you have to go from Florida to Arizona, and it takes you 10 fill ups and it is cold outside and the days are short, you have to fill up a few more times and longer because battteries dont do well in cold weather.

The inception of the idea about a battery charged-electric vehicle is indeed ... compact, light and far more efficient nickel/metal (NiMH) accumulators. ... A brave new world is upon us, with many pioneers leading the way of developments. ...​

Hey, get your jollies off on electric cars all you want, but a few facts are in order:

1. GM isn't phasing out gas cars until 15 years from now, so they say today.
2. A great many people rely on the USED market buying used gasoline cars up to ten years old. That means there will still be a steady demand for used gas cars at least until 2045.
3. In a bad economy, a $4,000 used gas car will be easier to sell than a $60,000 new electric car.
4. As time goes on and more people see the liabilities of an electric car, they will be sticking with or going back to gasoline.
5. As gas cars become scarcer on the market, their value will soar.
6. The electric car is a CONSUMER item and will never replace all forms of transportation.
7. The environmental/climatic benefits of electric cars is being greatly overstated.
8. The minute they develop a practical hydrogen fuel cell, they will drop electric battery cars like hot cakes making them valueless.
9. Electric cars will be chock full of computer restrictions and government regulations limiting the driver and telling on him; as people realize that, they will flock back to gasoline.
10. The electric car will never fully supplant the gas car until they literally outlaw gas cars, close all gas stations and FORCE everyone to electric.

8. There are many more infrastructure hurdles for hydrogen than there are for electric.

9. You seem to think today's gas powered cars aren't chock full of computers already, and any imagined restrictions you fear could be easily implemented with the technology we currently have.

Hydrogen certainly will be very different to refuel and will require very different fueling stations.

But as for computers and restrictions, I think he is referring to things like keeping a log of all the traffic infractions like speeding, what strip club you went to, etc.

If he thinks that is all computers do in cars, he has no idea of what their main purpose is. They regulate all the aspects of combustion to get more power and less harmful exhaust. It used to be hard to find a factory V8 with 300 horsepower. Now it's common to get that from a four cylinder. Computers made that possible.

Not really.
Computers just made it cheaper.
The main way you increase power is by increasing compression ratio, like with a turbo charger, and then the problem becomes avoiding the deadly pre-ignition.
Pre-ignition can easily be prevented by mechanical fuel injection directly into the cylinders, like diesels used to have, and the only problem with that is it is expensive.

But some people are under the false impression computers can actually see and recognize things in real time speeds, and that is false.
Computers are about 100 million times slower at recognizing images than humans.

One small fact worth adding to the equation is that all these methods of increasing the (volumetric) efficiency of the engine also tends to shorten their lives by increasing operational stress. Forcing 300 HP out of a 4 cylinder will roughly cut the life expectancy of that engine down to about maybe a quarter that of a 8 cylinder.

Older engines were worn out at 100,000 miles just a few years ago. Now it's not unusual to go two or three times that range. Your "don't last as long" claim doesn't match reality.

That is not true.
I have had 1960s era Mercedes, Volvos, etc., with over half a million miles.
That is also true of 1970s VW even, once water cooled.
I see lots more new cars in the junk yard now because the electronic are too delicate and too expensive to begin to diagnose.
I even had over half a million miles on my old 69 International pickup before I sold it, and it is still running strong for the buyer.

Bingo.

But the previous estimate of a 4 cylinder getting a forth of the life of a V8 is also an exaggeration. It is more like 30% less at most.

Only by violating the basic laws of physics. Given the SAME materials, technology and expenditure, you are asking about 4X the work/heat per cubic millimeter out of a 4 cylinder than you are a V8. The only way to beat that mainstream curve is to interject better materials and higher technology (read: complexity) at a higher cost.

 

[Rigby5]

If the power was near the same, the gear ratios would be near the same. Your numbers are an exaggerated lie. Of course, you could identify the brand and engine sizes so the actual numbers could be checked, and prove me wrong. I'll bet a dollar you won't.

>If the power was near the same, the gear ratios would be near the same. Your numbers are an exaggerated lie. Of course, you could identify the brand and engine sizes so the actual numbers could be checked, and prove me wrong. I'll bet a dollar you won't.

My bad.

I was assuming that each time a cylinder fires, it will propel you so far. A V6 will propel you 50% further than a four-cylinder for every revolution, all else being equal.

Gear and transmission ratios, as well as tire size matter more, and my number is exaggerated and not really based upon modern tech.

I own both four- and six-cyclinder vehicles, and the RPM is certainly higher in the fours for a given speed.

Again, well of course. This is basic mechanical engineering. A smaller 4 cyl. engine has smaller displacement, so how else can it produce the same amount work without either resulting in higher RPMs to make up for the smaller bore and moment of inertia, or in fantastically overworking a high tech uber expensive engine to death. A happy medium can only be to try to do a little balancing of both: increase RPMs somewhat, maybe 10% as needed while building the highest tech engine possible using premium, expensive materials and technology at a higher cost.

If you turbo charge, use dual over head cam, large valves, large intake, large exhaust, larger pistons, larger cylinders, etc., you can effectively or actually increase the displacement of a 4 cylinder engine.
For example, there are many large trucks running huge 4 cylinder engines.

Here is a powerful 4 that is not even really big.
{...
This engine, dubbed "Thor", is a 4.0L four pot that's capable of making roughly 375 hp per liter, eclipsing 1,500 hp in some applications. It's built by Elmer Racing in Finland for top motorsport applications and will soon be on sale for the price of €120,000 ($140,490).

The engine, built specifically for hillclimb and time attack applications, is a rev-punching sweetheart that makes power all over the place. Lightweight billet materials are used to construct 'Thor' and turn it into a resilient piece of kit that can stand the constant abuse of motorsports while keeping competitiveness as the top priority. Beautiful components make up this power-crazed engine, promising that it will be strong enough to withstand the crazy internal force.

When asked by The Drive what advantages this high displacement four cylinder yields over a similarly powerful V8 unit, Elmer Racing explained, "A V8 engine designed for racing can have a very high torsional rigidity. And lots of race classes have minimum weight limits, which create a necessity for very high powered (expensive) engines, with less importance on weight. Racing v8 engines suit these kinds of classes well.

"However, for unlimited class racing the weight penalty of a v8 is unacceptable."

As a result, the team opted for "Thor". Compact packaging and extreme weight reduction makes it a more viable option for these cars that run in pro and unlimited classes, allowing them to hit their targets for performance without sacrificing agility or cornering.
...}

'Thor' is a 4.0-Liter Four Cylinder That Can Make More Than 1,500 HP

More than 375 horsepower per liter sounds like a recipe for success.

www.thedrive.com

 

[HappyJoy]

Yeah, what can 1 then then 3 degrees difference in temperature make? Certaunly not drought and severe weather patterns or iceless poles. Nothing to worry about. Im sure west of the Mississippi they will find water somewhere.

Except that EVs speed up global warming.
Batteries are lithium and that is very dirty and expensive to mine.
Not to mention heavy and hard to recharge.

They dont. Or at least not as much as ICEs. Taking into account the lifespan of the average car, while EVs start out at a deficit they make up for the materials used in batteries. Ive already posted a link to this.

EV batteries last less than 10 years and cost close to $10,000.
EVs have nothing on ICE.
There are ICE engines getting 70 mpg, and you can run ICE on bio fuel that removes more carbon from the air than it creates.

Name a car that is not a hybrid and therefore doesn't contains some of those evil batteries that is mass produced that gets 70mpg.

The VW Polo for one.
But Asians are doing it as well.

{...

Volkswagen's Clean-Diesel, 70-mpg Polo May Head Stateside: Test Drive​

BY BEN HEWITT
JUL 31, 2007

Last week I flew to the U.S. Environment and Engineering headquarters of Volkswagen in Auburn Hills, Mich. My mission? To drive diesel cars that are confirmed for the U.S. market (the Jetta, in 2008) and, perhaps with more intrigue, those that are sold only in Europe—for now.
PM has previously reported on the 2008 clean-diesel Jetta (click here for video), so I won't linger on it except to say that it's a wonderful car—quick and quiet and really fun, even as it gets Prius-baiting fuel mileage in the 45-mpg range.
It's also not the car that most impressed me. Nope, that honor goes to the Euro-only Polo, a Rabbit-like hatchback—only smaller—with plenty of room for four adults, a modest hatch that could swallow a weekend's worth of gear, and a 1.4-liter, turbocharged diesel under the hood. Oh yeah, and a five-speed manual transmission.
Here's the kicker: The Polo gets 60 to 70-plus mpg. And it's really fun to drive. It's got a good bit of turbo lag, so you need to keep the revs up for serious power, but once the turbo kicks in, acceleration is frisky. And the lag makes the car feel faster than it actually is. I didn't wring it out, but over the course of a short cruise through the suburbs, it felt like a car I could gladly live with day in, day out. Fun to drive, just enough room for a family, and frugal as all get out. In Europe, the Polo sells for less than $20,000
VW isn't promising to bring these cars to the U.S. market, but the ones I drove are in this country for a reason, and that reason has much to do with seeing how they fare in the arduous environmental and safety testing demanded by the feds. And the rumor mill is already churning out stories of a 2010 U.S. Polo. That, I believe.
What about the VW Lupo? Not yet. Too small, too compromised. I can't gush about the Lupo, because it's really, really small. Sure, it adds about 20 mpg to the Polo's already impressive numbers, but it feels like a compromise. If I were single? Maybe. But with a wife and two kids? No way. At least not until gas is a whole lot more expensive than it already is. As it sits, a clean-diesel Lupo would be a great choice for the committed environmentalist who's willing to forgo just about everything for the ultimate in efficiency. ...}

Volkswagen's Clean-Diesel, 70-mpg Polo May Head Stateside: Test Drive

Heres the kicker: Polo gets 60 to 70-plus mpg. And its really fun to drive. And costs less than $20,000. VW isnt promising to bring it to the U.S. market, but the one we drove is in this country for a reason. Here's hoping those rumors o

www.popularmechanics.com

{...

70 mpg, without a Hybrid​

A new Mazda model debuting in Japan gets its high fuel economy from an improved gas engine and a lightweight design.
by

• Kevin Bullisarchive page

October 25, 2010
Next year, Mazda will sell a car in Japan that gets 70.5 miles per gallon (mpg), or 30 kilometers per liter. The fuel economy rating won’t be nearly this good in the United States because of differing requirements, but even so, the car will likely use about as little fuel as a hybrid such as the Toyota Prius–without that car’s added costs for its electric motor and batteries.

Efficient engine:A rendering of Mazda’s new engine. Compared to its predecessor, it has 15 percent better fuel economy and 15 percent more torque, improving vehicle acceleration. The extra-long, curved exhaust pipes on the front (in black) help the engine draw more energy from a gallon of gas.
The Mazda, a subcompact called the Demio in Japan and the Mazda 2 elsewhere, will include a package of changes that improves fuel economy by about 30 percent over the current model. These include a more efficient engine and transmission, and a lighter body and suspension. The Mazda 2, and a range of new cars from other automakers that have been engineered to meet more stringent fuel economy standards, demonstrate what some experts have been saying for some time–internal combustion-powered cars are far from outdated. Indeed, improvements to gas-powered cars can reduce worldwide fuel consumption more quickly than introducing hybrids or electric vehicles, because variations on traditional engines tend to be less expensive and can be quickly implemented on more cars.
“We’ve been making engines for 100 years, and we keep figuring out how to make improvements in them. We will continue to figure out further improvements,” says Greg Johnson, the manager of Ford’s North American powerpacks. “For another 50 years, if not more, the internal combustion engine will be the primary driver.” This week, Ford announced changes to its Focus model that improve its fuel economy by about 17 percent, to an estimated 40 mpg.
Mazda says the biggest source of improvement for the Mazda 2 is a new engine that compresses the fuel-air mixture in the engine far more than conventional gasoline engines do. Ordinarily, gas engines have about a 10-to-1 compression ratio. Mazda increased this to 14 to 1, a level typically seen only in diesel engines. Increasing compression has long been known to increase efficiency, but compressing the fuel-air mixture too much causes it to ignite prematurely–before the spark sets it off–a phenomenon called knocking. That decreases performance and can damage the engine. Mazda has introduced innovations to avoid knocking.
As a number of automakers, including Ford, are doing, Mazda has introduced direct injection–which involves spraying fuel directly into the engine’s combustion chamber rather than into an adjacent port. Doing this cools the chamber, which helps prevent premature ignition. Mazda also modified the exhaust system–increasing the length and shape of the exhaust pipes to allow more exhaust gas to escape after combustion. Removing these hot gases also keeps the temperature down, but it has the drawback of interfering with emissions controls. That required other changes in the engine, including modifying ignition timing and the shape of the pistons.
...}

70 mpg, without a Hybrid

A new Mazda model debuting in Japan gets its high fuel economy from an improved gas engine and a lightweight design.

www.technologyreview.com

None of them sold here? They're too slow for our freeways. Nice try though.

Cars that people actually drive in this country.

The Most Fuel-Efficient Cars (That Aren't Hybrids)

The most fuel-efficient car on the list gets 39 mpg combined.

www.caranddriver.com

 

[Rigby5]

You mean like we STILL DO with oil companies.

I would add many of those oil companies don't pay a penny in federal income taxes.

You should absolutely LOVE oil companies, since they are providing the fuel to generate electricity for EVs. Evs aren't going anywhere without the oil companies.

Fossil fuels don't generate electricity in my state.

We use water, wind, solar and a small nuclear facility.

We started shutting down our last coal fired plant in 2005. I'm sure it's closed by now.

We started building one of the nation's largest wind farms in the 90s.

The result?

We generate more electricity than we use so we sell the excess to other states for a profit. If you live in one of those states, you're welcome for the cheap and clean energy.

We also have the second lowest electric rates in the country.

So my state doesn't need or want fossil fuels to generate electricity.

Untrue anywhere in the US.
Coal is the #1 electricity producer in ALL US states and most of the world.
Many states just do not know how their electricity is produced because it is part of an out of state grid.
It is never going to be possible to use only renewable resources any place in the world except on ocean shores, near high thermal sources, or where one does not mind killing fish.

So, if renewable sources can't supply all our needs, then we will use coal, or gas, or dried cow dung if we have to. We will maintain a reliable energy source of one kind or another. It will just be better for us if we can do that with renewable sources sooner. Nobody wants or expects a complete conversion to renewables before that is possible. Quit whining.

Going to electricity before electricity is renewable, only makes emissions much worse.
Nor does electricity allow for any reasonable totally renewable result eventually either, while bio fuel does.
So there is no point in going electrical.
It is inefficient.
Can you imagine trying to do ships, planes, or even EV trucks?
The would have no capacity to carry anything.
Batteries are way too heavy.

We already have diesel/electric ships and trucks, Electric power has already been proven to be more efficient than direct power by internal combustion. Why are you so afraid of progress? Do you think we will completely convert to battery powered electric before we have technology to match or better internal combustion? That's just silly.

Because what you just claimed isn't true. Electric power is more efficient in very limited circumstances. Over short distances electric powered vehicles are superior. There is no doubt of that. However, once you get beyond a mile the advantage swings to the internal combustion engine. Currently a Formula One race car can travel 190 miles, at full performance, on a single tank of regular gasoline. Formula E, can only manage 55 miles. And, they have to use TWO cars to do it.

So, calculate out the energy density involved, and get back to us with your claim of EV superiority.

If you want to discuss energy density, you should consider diesel electric freight trains. Those require serious energy density. Only a fool would think our currnt battery technology is as far as we will go with electric vehicles, and only an idiot would think we will switch to a new technology before it is able to meet the demand. Relax. Quit whining. It will be all right. We won't lose our means of transportation like you seem to fear.

Only a fool would think they can defy the laws of physics. Battery technology, and range, is not significantly greater than it was 100 years ago. Gasoline is the most energy dense fuel that normal people can acquire. A thimble full will propel a 3,000 pound car about 2 miles. No battery in the world can even come close.

You should tell GM, Ford, and all those other car manufacturers. I'm sure they would appreciate you letting them know all their engineers don't know what they are talking about. They will probably give you free cars for life for saving them all that money.

The government is TELLING them to do it. If EV'S were so great, the government wouldn't need to force you to use them

Like seat belts and airbags.

I hate airbags.
They are explosive, dangerous, and expensive.
If you wear glasses, they easily can cause blindness.
Permanent passive restraints make a lot more sense, like close dash or steering wheel padding.

glasses are plastic, and your full of it

So plastic shoved into your eyeball won't cause blindness?

{... During a collision, older-model auto airbags can deploy with such force that they can cause serious injuries to the eyes or even, in rare cases, blindness, say eye trauma specialists interviewed by WebMD. ...}

What Causes Eye Problems?

Get information on common eye and vision problems, such as conjunctivitis, retinal detachment, dry eyes, cataracts, and glaucoma.

www.webmd.com

{...

Rethinking airbag safety: airbag injury causing bilateral blindness​

...

Abstract​

A healthy 40-year-old man, restrained in the front passenger seat, suffered visually disabling blunt ocular trauma following spontaneous release of the passenger side air-bag module, during vehicular deceleration, without an automobile crash. Though the driver-side airbag was also released, the driver was unharmed. The passenger suffered bilateral hyphema, bilateral vitreous hemorrhage and suspected posterior scleral rupture in the left eye and also had an eyebrow laceration, from impact with the dashboard panel covering the air-bag module, which was detached by the force of airbag deployment. This is the first reported case from West Africa and the first case in which part of the airbag module detached to cause additional trauma. This report adds to the growing burden of evidence world-wide, for a review of the safety aspects of the automobile airbag. This case clearly illustrates that although airbags reduce mortality, they carry a high risk of ocular morbidity, even with seat belt restraint. ...}

Rethinking airbag safety: airbag injury causing bilateral blindness - PubMed

A healthy 40-year-old man, restrained in the front passenger seat, suffered visually disabling blunt ocular trauma following spontaneous release of the passenger side air-bag module, during vehicular deceleration, without an automobile crash. Though the driver-side airbag was also released, the...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Airbags have saved over 50,000 lives. I doubt your "physics degree" has accomplished as much.

Airbags

Information from IIHS-HLDI on airbags

www.iihs.org

Wow so those 50,000 will never die?

Wrong.
What I said is that permanent padding works better.
For example, when the airbag explodes, it not only throws your hands off the wheel, but can break thumbs and fingers.
This can lead to a small rail accident that inflated the airbag, that totally makes you out of control and the car goes off a cliff.
If they just put additional padding closer to the person, they could give the better protection all the time, without the explosive charge in your face.

 

[HappyJoy]

I would add many of those oil companies don't pay a penny in federal income taxes.

You should absolutely LOVE oil companies, since they are providing the fuel to generate electricity for EVs. Evs aren't going anywhere without the oil companies.

Fossil fuels don't generate electricity in my state.

We use water, wind, solar and a small nuclear facility.

We started shutting down our last coal fired plant in 2005. I'm sure it's closed by now.

We started building one of the nation's largest wind farms in the 90s.

The result?

We generate more electricity than we use so we sell the excess to other states for a profit. If you live in one of those states, you're welcome for the cheap and clean energy.

We also have the second lowest electric rates in the country.

So my state doesn't need or want fossil fuels to generate electricity.

Untrue anywhere in the US.
Coal is the #1 electricity producer in ALL US states and most of the world.
Many states just do not know how their electricity is produced because it is part of an out of state grid.
It is never going to be possible to use only renewable resources any place in the world except on ocean shores, near high thermal sources, or where one does not mind killing fish.

So, if renewable sources can't supply all our needs, then we will use coal, or gas, or dried cow dung if we have to. We will maintain a reliable energy source of one kind or another. It will just be better for us if we can do that with renewable sources sooner. Nobody wants or expects a complete conversion to renewables before that is possible. Quit whining.

Going to electricity before electricity is renewable, only makes emissions much worse.
Nor does electricity allow for any reasonable totally renewable result eventually either, while bio fuel does.
So there is no point in going electrical.
It is inefficient.
Can you imagine trying to do ships, planes, or even EV trucks?
The would have no capacity to carry anything.
Batteries are way too heavy.

We already have diesel/electric ships and trucks, Electric power has already been proven to be more efficient than direct power by internal combustion. Why are you so afraid of progress? Do you think we will completely convert to battery powered electric before we have technology to match or better internal combustion? That's just silly.

Because what you just claimed isn't true. Electric power is more efficient in very limited circumstances. Over short distances electric powered vehicles are superior. There is no doubt of that. However, once you get beyond a mile the advantage swings to the internal combustion engine. Currently a Formula One race car can travel 190 miles, at full performance, on a single tank of regular gasoline. Formula E, can only manage 55 miles. And, they have to use TWO cars to do it.

So, calculate out the energy density involved, and get back to us with your claim of EV superiority.

If you want to discuss energy density, you should consider diesel electric freight trains. Those require serious energy density. Only a fool would think our currnt battery technology is as far as we will go with electric vehicles, and only an idiot would think we will switch to a new technology before it is able to meet the demand. Relax. Quit whining. It will be all right. We won't lose our means of transportation like you seem to fear.

Only a fool would think they can defy the laws of physics. Battery technology, and range, is not significantly greater than it was 100 years ago. Gasoline is the most energy dense fuel that normal people can acquire. A thimble full will propel a 3,000 pound car about 2 miles. No battery in the world can even come close.

You should tell GM, Ford, and all those other car manufacturers. I'm sure they would appreciate you letting them know all their engineers don't know what they are talking about. They will probably give you free cars for life for saving them all that money.

The government is TELLING them to do it. If EV'S were so great, the government wouldn't need to force you to use them

Like seat belts and airbags.

I hate airbags.
They are explosive, dangerous, and expensive.
If you wear glasses, they easily can cause blindness.
Permanent passive restraints make a lot more sense, like close dash or steering wheel padding.

glasses are plastic, and your full of it

So plastic shoved into your eyeball won't cause blindness?

{... During a collision, older-model auto airbags can deploy with such force that they can cause serious injuries to the eyes or even, in rare cases, blindness, say eye trauma specialists interviewed by WebMD. ...}

What Causes Eye Problems?

Get information on common eye and vision problems, such as conjunctivitis, retinal detachment, dry eyes, cataracts, and glaucoma.

www.webmd.com

{...

Rethinking airbag safety: airbag injury causing bilateral blindness​

...

Abstract​

A healthy 40-year-old man, restrained in the front passenger seat, suffered visually disabling blunt ocular trauma following spontaneous release of the passenger side air-bag module, during vehicular deceleration, without an automobile crash. Though the driver-side airbag was also released, the driver was unharmed. The passenger suffered bilateral hyphema, bilateral vitreous hemorrhage and suspected posterior scleral rupture in the left eye and also had an eyebrow laceration, from impact with the dashboard panel covering the air-bag module, which was detached by the force of airbag deployment. This is the first reported case from West Africa and the first case in which part of the airbag module detached to cause additional trauma. This report adds to the growing burden of evidence world-wide, for a review of the safety aspects of the automobile airbag. This case clearly illustrates that although airbags reduce mortality, they carry a high risk of ocular morbidity, even with seat belt restraint. ...}

Rethinking airbag safety: airbag injury causing bilateral blindness - PubMed

A healthy 40-year-old man, restrained in the front passenger seat, suffered visually disabling blunt ocular trauma following spontaneous release of the passenger side air-bag module, during vehicular deceleration, without an automobile crash. Though the driver-side airbag was also released, the...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Airbags have saved over 50,000 lives. I doubt your "physics degree" has accomplished as much.

Airbags

Information from IIHS-HLDI on airbags

www.iihs.org

Wow so those 50,000 will never die?

Wrong.
What I said is that permanent padding works better.
For example, when the airbag explodes, it not only throws your hands off the wheel, but can break thumbs and fingers.
This can lead to a small rail accident that inflated the airbag, that totally makes you out of control and the car goes off a cliff.
If they just put additional padding closer to the person, they could give the better protection all the time, without the explosive charge in your face.

Saved over 50k lives, what have you done?

 

[Rigby5]

Yeah, what can 1 then then 3 degrees difference in temperature make? Certaunly not drought and severe weather patterns or iceless poles. Nothing to worry about. Im sure west of the Mississippi they will find water somewhere.

Except that EVs speed up global warming.
Batteries are lithium and that is very dirty and expensive to mine.
Not to mention heavy and hard to recharge.

They dont. Or at least not as much as ICEs. Taking into account the lifespan of the average car, while EVs start out at a deficit they make up for the materials used in batteries. Ive already posted a link to this.

EV batteries last less than 10 years and cost close to $10,000.
EVs have nothing on ICE.
There are ICE engines getting 70 mpg, and you can run ICE on bio fuel that removes more carbon from the air than it creates.

Name a car that is not a hybrid and therefore doesn't contains some of those evil batteries that is mass produced that gets 70mpg.

The VW Polo for one.
But Asians are doing it as well.

{...

Volkswagen's Clean-Diesel, 70-mpg Polo May Head Stateside: Test Drive​

BY BEN HEWITT
JUL 31, 2007

Last week I flew to the U.S. Environment and Engineering headquarters of Volkswagen in Auburn Hills, Mich. My mission? To drive diesel cars that are confirmed for the U.S. market (the Jetta, in 2008) and, perhaps with more intrigue, those that are sold only in Europe—for now.
PM has previously reported on the 2008 clean-diesel Jetta (click here for video), so I won't linger on it except to say that it's a wonderful car—quick and quiet and really fun, even as it gets Prius-baiting fuel mileage in the 45-mpg range.
It's also not the car that most impressed me. Nope, that honor goes to the Euro-only Polo, a Rabbit-like hatchback—only smaller—with plenty of room for four adults, a modest hatch that could swallow a weekend's worth of gear, and a 1.4-liter, turbocharged diesel under the hood. Oh yeah, and a five-speed manual transmission.
Here's the kicker: The Polo gets 60 to 70-plus mpg. And it's really fun to drive. It's got a good bit of turbo lag, so you need to keep the revs up for serious power, but once the turbo kicks in, acceleration is frisky. And the lag makes the car feel faster than it actually is. I didn't wring it out, but over the course of a short cruise through the suburbs, it felt like a car I could gladly live with day in, day out. Fun to drive, just enough room for a family, and frugal as all get out. In Europe, the Polo sells for less than $20,000
VW isn't promising to bring these cars to the U.S. market, but the ones I drove are in this country for a reason, and that reason has much to do with seeing how they fare in the arduous environmental and safety testing demanded by the feds. And the rumor mill is already churning out stories of a 2010 U.S. Polo. That, I believe.
What about the VW Lupo? Not yet. Too small, too compromised. I can't gush about the Lupo, because it's really, really small. Sure, it adds about 20 mpg to the Polo's already impressive numbers, but it feels like a compromise. If I were single? Maybe. But with a wife and two kids? No way. At least not until gas is a whole lot more expensive than it already is. As it sits, a clean-diesel Lupo would be a great choice for the committed environmentalist who's willing to forgo just about everything for the ultimate in efficiency. ...}

Volkswagen's Clean-Diesel, 70-mpg Polo May Head Stateside: Test Drive

Heres the kicker: Polo gets 60 to 70-plus mpg. And its really fun to drive. And costs less than $20,000. VW isnt promising to bring it to the U.S. market, but the one we drove is in this country for a reason. Here's hoping those rumors o

www.popularmechanics.com

{...

70 mpg, without a Hybrid​

A new Mazda model debuting in Japan gets its high fuel economy from an improved gas engine and a lightweight design.
by

• Kevin Bullisarchive page

October 25, 2010
Next year, Mazda will sell a car in Japan that gets 70.5 miles per gallon (mpg), or 30 kilometers per liter. The fuel economy rating won’t be nearly this good in the United States because of differing requirements, but even so, the car will likely use about as little fuel as a hybrid such as the Toyota Prius–without that car’s added costs for its electric motor and batteries.

Efficient engine:A rendering of Mazda’s new engine. Compared to its predecessor, it has 15 percent better fuel economy and 15 percent more torque, improving vehicle acceleration. The extra-long, curved exhaust pipes on the front (in black) help the engine draw more energy from a gallon of gas.
The Mazda, a subcompact called the Demio in Japan and the Mazda 2 elsewhere, will include a package of changes that improves fuel economy by about 30 percent over the current model. These include a more efficient engine and transmission, and a lighter body and suspension. The Mazda 2, and a range of new cars from other automakers that have been engineered to meet more stringent fuel economy standards, demonstrate what some experts have been saying for some time–internal combustion-powered cars are far from outdated. Indeed, improvements to gas-powered cars can reduce worldwide fuel consumption more quickly than introducing hybrids or electric vehicles, because variations on traditional engines tend to be less expensive and can be quickly implemented on more cars.
“We’ve been making engines for 100 years, and we keep figuring out how to make improvements in them. We will continue to figure out further improvements,” says Greg Johnson, the manager of Ford’s North American powerpacks. “For another 50 years, if not more, the internal combustion engine will be the primary driver.” This week, Ford announced changes to its Focus model that improve its fuel economy by about 17 percent, to an estimated 40 mpg.
Mazda says the biggest source of improvement for the Mazda 2 is a new engine that compresses the fuel-air mixture in the engine far more than conventional gasoline engines do. Ordinarily, gas engines have about a 10-to-1 compression ratio. Mazda increased this to 14 to 1, a level typically seen only in diesel engines. Increasing compression has long been known to increase efficiency, but compressing the fuel-air mixture too much causes it to ignite prematurely–before the spark sets it off–a phenomenon called knocking. That decreases performance and can damage the engine. Mazda has introduced innovations to avoid knocking.
As a number of automakers, including Ford, are doing, Mazda has introduced direct injection–which involves spraying fuel directly into the engine’s combustion chamber rather than into an adjacent port. Doing this cools the chamber, which helps prevent premature ignition. Mazda also modified the exhaust system–increasing the length and shape of the exhaust pipes to allow more exhaust gas to escape after combustion. Removing these hot gases also keeps the temperature down, but it has the drawback of interfering with emissions controls. That required other changes in the engine, including modifying ignition timing and the shape of the pistons.
...}

70 mpg, without a Hybrid

A new Mazda model debuting in Japan gets its high fuel economy from an improved gas engine and a lightweight design.

www.technologyreview.com

None of them sold here? They're too slow for our freeways. Nice try though.

Cars that people actually drive in this country.

The Most Fuel-Efficient Cars (That Aren't Hybrids)

The most fuel-efficient car on the list gets 39 mpg combined.

www.caranddriver.com

That is the fault of the EPA being controlled by US car makers, who don't want good cars allowed here.
The point was not to show there are better cars for sale here, but that there are much better engineers in the rest of the world than our marketing companies use here.

 

[HappyJoy]

Yeah, what can 1 then then 3 degrees difference in temperature make? Certaunly not drought and severe weather patterns or iceless poles. Nothing to worry about. Im sure west of the Mississippi they will find water somewhere.

Except that EVs speed up global warming.
Batteries are lithium and that is very dirty and expensive to mine.
Not to mention heavy and hard to recharge.

They dont. Or at least not as much as ICEs. Taking into account the lifespan of the average car, while EVs start out at a deficit they make up for the materials used in batteries. Ive already posted a link to this.

EV batteries last less than 10 years and cost close to $10,000.
EVs have nothing on ICE.
There are ICE engines getting 70 mpg, and you can run ICE on bio fuel that removes more carbon from the air than it creates.

Name a car that is not a hybrid and therefore doesn't contains some of those evil batteries that is mass produced that gets 70mpg.

The VW Polo for one.
But Asians are doing it as well.

{...

Volkswagen's Clean-Diesel, 70-mpg Polo May Head Stateside: Test Drive​

BY BEN HEWITT
JUL 31, 2007

Last week I flew to the U.S. Environment and Engineering headquarters of Volkswagen in Auburn Hills, Mich. My mission? To drive diesel cars that are confirmed for the U.S. market (the Jetta, in 2008) and, perhaps with more intrigue, those that are sold only in Europe—for now.
PM has previously reported on the 2008 clean-diesel Jetta (click here for video), so I won't linger on it except to say that it's a wonderful car—quick and quiet and really fun, even as it gets Prius-baiting fuel mileage in the 45-mpg range.
It's also not the car that most impressed me. Nope, that honor goes to the Euro-only Polo, a Rabbit-like hatchback—only smaller—with plenty of room for four adults, a modest hatch that could swallow a weekend's worth of gear, and a 1.4-liter, turbocharged diesel under the hood. Oh yeah, and a five-speed manual transmission.
Here's the kicker: The Polo gets 60 to 70-plus mpg. And it's really fun to drive. It's got a good bit of turbo lag, so you need to keep the revs up for serious power, but once the turbo kicks in, acceleration is frisky. And the lag makes the car feel faster than it actually is. I didn't wring it out, but over the course of a short cruise through the suburbs, it felt like a car I could gladly live with day in, day out. Fun to drive, just enough room for a family, and frugal as all get out. In Europe, the Polo sells for less than $20,000
VW isn't promising to bring these cars to the U.S. market, but the ones I drove are in this country for a reason, and that reason has much to do with seeing how they fare in the arduous environmental and safety testing demanded by the feds. And the rumor mill is already churning out stories of a 2010 U.S. Polo. That, I believe.
What about the VW Lupo? Not yet. Too small, too compromised. I can't gush about the Lupo, because it's really, really small. Sure, it adds about 20 mpg to the Polo's already impressive numbers, but it feels like a compromise. If I were single? Maybe. But with a wife and two kids? No way. At least not until gas is a whole lot more expensive than it already is. As it sits, a clean-diesel Lupo would be a great choice for the committed environmentalist who's willing to forgo just about everything for the ultimate in efficiency. ...}

Volkswagen's Clean-Diesel, 70-mpg Polo May Head Stateside: Test Drive

Heres the kicker: Polo gets 60 to 70-plus mpg. And its really fun to drive. And costs less than $20,000. VW isnt promising to bring it to the U.S. market, but the one we drove is in this country for a reason. Here's hoping those rumors o

www.popularmechanics.com

{...

70 mpg, without a Hybrid​

A new Mazda model debuting in Japan gets its high fuel economy from an improved gas engine and a lightweight design.
by

• Kevin Bullisarchive page

October 25, 2010
Next year, Mazda will sell a car in Japan that gets 70.5 miles per gallon (mpg), or 30 kilometers per liter. The fuel economy rating won’t be nearly this good in the United States because of differing requirements, but even so, the car will likely use about as little fuel as a hybrid such as the Toyota Prius–without that car’s added costs for its electric motor and batteries.

Efficient engine:A rendering of Mazda’s new engine. Compared to its predecessor, it has 15 percent better fuel economy and 15 percent more torque, improving vehicle acceleration. The extra-long, curved exhaust pipes on the front (in black) help the engine draw more energy from a gallon of gas.
The Mazda, a subcompact called the Demio in Japan and the Mazda 2 elsewhere, will include a package of changes that improves fuel economy by about 30 percent over the current model. These include a more efficient engine and transmission, and a lighter body and suspension. The Mazda 2, and a range of new cars from other automakers that have been engineered to meet more stringent fuel economy standards, demonstrate what some experts have been saying for some time–internal combustion-powered cars are far from outdated. Indeed, improvements to gas-powered cars can reduce worldwide fuel consumption more quickly than introducing hybrids or electric vehicles, because variations on traditional engines tend to be less expensive and can be quickly implemented on more cars.
“We’ve been making engines for 100 years, and we keep figuring out how to make improvements in them. We will continue to figure out further improvements,” says Greg Johnson, the manager of Ford’s North American powerpacks. “For another 50 years, if not more, the internal combustion engine will be the primary driver.” This week, Ford announced changes to its Focus model that improve its fuel economy by about 17 percent, to an estimated 40 mpg.
Mazda says the biggest source of improvement for the Mazda 2 is a new engine that compresses the fuel-air mixture in the engine far more than conventional gasoline engines do. Ordinarily, gas engines have about a 10-to-1 compression ratio. Mazda increased this to 14 to 1, a level typically seen only in diesel engines. Increasing compression has long been known to increase efficiency, but compressing the fuel-air mixture too much causes it to ignite prematurely–before the spark sets it off–a phenomenon called knocking. That decreases performance and can damage the engine. Mazda has introduced innovations to avoid knocking.
As a number of automakers, including Ford, are doing, Mazda has introduced direct injection–which involves spraying fuel directly into the engine’s combustion chamber rather than into an adjacent port. Doing this cools the chamber, which helps prevent premature ignition. Mazda also modified the exhaust system–increasing the length and shape of the exhaust pipes to allow more exhaust gas to escape after combustion. Removing these hot gases also keeps the temperature down, but it has the drawback of interfering with emissions controls. That required other changes in the engine, including modifying ignition timing and the shape of the pistons.
...}

70 mpg, without a Hybrid

A new Mazda model debuting in Japan gets its high fuel economy from an improved gas engine and a lightweight design.

www.technologyreview.com

None of them sold here? They're too slow for our freeways. Nice try though.

Cars that people actually drive in this country.

The Most Fuel-Efficient Cars (That Aren't Hybrids)

The most fuel-efficient car on the list gets 39 mpg combined.

www.caranddriver.com

That is the fault of the EPA being controlled by US car makers, who don't want good cars allowed here.
The point was not to show there are better cars for sale here, but that there are much better engineers in the rest of the world than our marketing companies use here.

The EPA is stopping Volkswagen from selling the Polo in the States? That's pretty dumb.

 

[Rigby5]

You mean like we STILL DO with oil companies.

I would add many of those oil companies don't pay a penny in federal income taxes.

You should absolutely LOVE oil companies, since they are providing the fuel to generate electricity for EVs. Evs aren't going anywhere without the oil companies.

Fossil fuels don't generate electricity in my state.

We use water, wind, solar and a small nuclear facility.

We started shutting down our last coal fired plant in 2005. I'm sure it's closed by now.

We started building one of the nation's largest wind farms in the 90s.

The result?

We generate more electricity than we use so we sell the excess to other states for a profit. If you live in one of those states, you're welcome for the cheap and clean energy.

We also have the second lowest electric rates in the country.

So my state doesn't need or want fossil fuels to generate electricity.

Untrue anywhere in the US.
Coal is the #1 electricity producer in ALL US states and most of the world.
Many states just do not know how their electricity is produced because it is part of an out of state grid.
It is never going to be possible to use only renewable resources any place in the world except on ocean shores, near high thermal sources, or where one does not mind killing fish.

So, if renewable sources can't supply all our needs, then we will use coal, or gas, or dried cow dung if we have to. We will maintain a reliable energy source of one kind or another. It will just be better for us if we can do that with renewable sources sooner. Nobody wants or expects a complete conversion to renewables before that is possible. Quit whining.

Going to electricity before electricity is renewable, only makes emissions much worse.
Nor does electricity allow for any reasonable totally renewable result eventually either, while bio fuel does.
So there is no point in going electrical.
It is inefficient.
Can you imagine trying to do ships, planes, or even EV trucks?
The would have no capacity to carry anything.
Batteries are way too heavy.

We already have diesel/electric ships and trucks, Electric power has already been proven to be more efficient than direct power by internal combustion. Why are you so afraid of progress? Do you think we will completely convert to battery powered electric before we have technology to match or better internal combustion? That's just silly.

Because what you just claimed isn't true. Electric power is more efficient in very limited circumstances. Over short distances electric powered vehicles are superior. There is no doubt of that. However, once you get beyond a mile the advantage swings to the internal combustion engine. Currently a Formula One race car can travel 190 miles, at full performance, on a single tank of regular gasoline. Formula E, can only manage 55 miles. And, they have to use TWO cars to do it.

So, calculate out the energy density involved, and get back to us with your claim of EV superiority.

If you want to discuss energy density, you should consider diesel electric freight trains. Those require serious energy density. Only a fool would think our currnt battery technology is as far as we will go with electric vehicles, and only an idiot would think we will switch to a new technology before it is able to meet the demand. Relax. Quit whining. It will be all right. We won't lose our means of transportation like you seem to fear.

Only a fool would think they can defy the laws of physics. Battery technology, and range, is not significantly greater than it was 100 years ago. Gasoline is the most energy dense fuel that normal people can acquire. A thimble full will propel a 3,000 pound car about 2 miles. No battery in the world can even come close.

You should tell GM, Ford, and all those other car manufacturers. I'm sure they would appreciate you letting them know all their engineers don't know what they are talking about. They will probably give you free cars for life for saving them all that money.

The government is TELLING them to do it. If EV'S were so great, the government wouldn't need to force you to use them

Like seat belts and airbags.

I hate airbags.
They are explosive, dangerous, and expensive.
If you wear glasses, they easily can cause blindness.
Permanent passive restraints make a lot more sense, like close dash or steering wheel padding.

glasses are plastic, and your full of it

Rigby "the physicist" thinks glasses are still made with glass? Yep, he's either full of it or just arrived in his time machine invention.

Wrong.
Did the articles about airbags causing blindness say it required glass lenses?

 

[HappyJoy]

You mean like we STILL DO with oil companies.

I would add many of those oil companies don't pay a penny in federal income taxes.

You should absolutely LOVE oil companies, since they are providing the fuel to generate electricity for EVs. Evs aren't going anywhere without the oil companies.

Fossil fuels don't generate electricity in my state.

We use water, wind, solar and a small nuclear facility.

We started shutting down our last coal fired plant in 2005. I'm sure it's closed by now.

We started building one of the nation's largest wind farms in the 90s.

The result?

We generate more electricity than we use so we sell the excess to other states for a profit. If you live in one of those states, you're welcome for the cheap and clean energy.

We also have the second lowest electric rates in the country.

So my state doesn't need or want fossil fuels to generate electricity.

Untrue anywhere in the US.
Coal is the #1 electricity producer in ALL US states and most of the world.
Many states just do not know how their electricity is produced because it is part of an out of state grid.
It is never going to be possible to use only renewable resources any place in the world except on ocean shores, near high thermal sources, or where one does not mind killing fish.

So, if renewable sources can't supply all our needs, then we will use coal, or gas, or dried cow dung if we have to. We will maintain a reliable energy source of one kind or another. It will just be better for us if we can do that with renewable sources sooner. Nobody wants or expects a complete conversion to renewables before that is possible. Quit whining.

Going to electricity before electricity is renewable, only makes emissions much worse.
Nor does electricity allow for any reasonable totally renewable result eventually either, while bio fuel does.
So there is no point in going electrical.
It is inefficient.
Can you imagine trying to do ships, planes, or even EV trucks?
The would have no capacity to carry anything.
Batteries are way too heavy.

We already have diesel/electric ships and trucks, Electric power has already been proven to be more efficient than direct power by internal combustion. Why are you so afraid of progress? Do you think we will completely convert to battery powered electric before we have technology to match or better internal combustion? That's just silly.

Because what you just claimed isn't true. Electric power is more efficient in very limited circumstances. Over short distances electric powered vehicles are superior. There is no doubt of that. However, once you get beyond a mile the advantage swings to the internal combustion engine. Currently a Formula One race car can travel 190 miles, at full performance, on a single tank of regular gasoline. Formula E, can only manage 55 miles. And, they have to use TWO cars to do it.

So, calculate out the energy density involved, and get back to us with your claim of EV superiority.

If you want to discuss energy density, you should consider diesel electric freight trains. Those require serious energy density. Only a fool would think our currnt battery technology is as far as we will go with electric vehicles, and only an idiot would think we will switch to a new technology before it is able to meet the demand. Relax. Quit whining. It will be all right. We won't lose our means of transportation like you seem to fear.

Only a fool would think they can defy the laws of physics. Battery technology, and range, is not significantly greater than it was 100 years ago. Gasoline is the most energy dense fuel that normal people can acquire. A thimble full will propel a 3,000 pound car about 2 miles. No battery in the world can even come close.

You should tell GM, Ford, and all those other car manufacturers. I'm sure they would appreciate you letting them know all their engineers don't know what they are talking about. They will probably give you free cars for life for saving them all that money.

The government is TELLING them to do it. If EV'S were so great, the government wouldn't need to force you to use them

Like seat belts and airbags.

I hate airbags.
They are explosive, dangerous, and expensive.
If you wear glasses, they easily can cause blindness.
Permanent passive restraints make a lot more sense, like close dash or steering wheel padding.

glasses are plastic, and your full of it

Rigby "the physicist" thinks glasses are still made with glass? Yep, he's either full of it or just arrived in his time machine invention.

Wrong.
Did the articles about airbags causing blindness say it required glass lenses?

Your article references older airbags.

 

[Rigby5]

Yep, when you only get 250 miles on a good day from an electric fill up, that took 1 hour, sure, the electric car is the way to go. But if you have to go from Florida to Arizona, and it takes you 10 fill ups and it is cold outside and the days are short, you have to fill up a few more times and longer because battteries dont do well in cold weather.

The inception of the idea about a battery charged-electric vehicle is indeed ... compact, light and far more efficient nickel/metal (NiMH) accumulators. ... A brave new world is upon us, with many pioneers leading the way of developments. ...​

Hey, get your jollies off on electric cars all you want, but a few facts are in order:

1. GM isn't phasing out gas cars until 15 years from now, so they say today.
2. A great many people rely on the USED market buying used gasoline cars up to ten years old. That means there will still be a steady demand for used gas cars at least until 2045.
3. In a bad economy, a $4,000 used gas car will be easier to sell than a $60,000 new electric car.
4. As time goes on and more people see the liabilities of an electric car, they will be sticking with or going back to gasoline.
5. As gas cars become scarcer on the market, their value will soar.
6. The electric car is a CONSUMER item and will never replace all forms of transportation.
7. The environmental/climatic benefits of electric cars is being greatly overstated.
8. The minute they develop a practical hydrogen fuel cell, they will drop electric battery cars like hot cakes making them valueless.
9. Electric cars will be chock full of computer restrictions and government regulations limiting the driver and telling on him; as people realize that, they will flock back to gasoline.
10. The electric car will never fully supplant the gas car until they literally outlaw gas cars, close all gas stations and FORCE everyone to electric.

8. There are many more infrastructure hurdles for hydrogen than there are for electric.

9. You seem to think today's gas powered cars aren't chock full of computers already, and any imagined restrictions you fear could be easily implemented with the technology we currently have.

Hydrogen certainly will be very different to refuel and will require very different fueling stations.

But as for computers and restrictions, I think he is referring to things like keeping a log of all the traffic infractions like speeding, what strip club you went to, etc.

If he thinks that is all computers do in cars, he has no idea of what their main purpose is. They regulate all the aspects of combustion to get more power and less harmful exhaust. It used to be hard to find a factory V8 with 300 horsepower. Now it's common to get that from a four cylinder. Computers made that possible.

Not really.
Computers just made it cheaper.
The main way you increase power is by increasing compression ratio, like with a turbo charger, and then the problem becomes avoiding the deadly pre-ignition.
Pre-ignition can easily be prevented by mechanical fuel injection directly into the cylinders, like diesels used to have, and the only problem with that is it is expensive.

But some people are under the false impression computers can actually see and recognize things in real time speeds, and that is false.
Computers are about 100 million times slower at recognizing images than humans.

One small fact worth adding to the equation is that all these methods of increasing the (volumetric) efficiency of the engine also tends to shorten their lives by increasing operational stress. Forcing 300 HP out of a 4 cylinder will roughly cut the life expectancy of that engine down to about maybe a quarter that of a 8 cylinder.

Older engines were worn out at 100,000 miles just a few years ago. Now it's not unusual to go two or three times that range. Your "don't last as long" claim doesn't match reality.

That is not true.
I have had 1960s era Mercedes, Volvos, etc., with over half a million miles.
That is also true of 1970s VW even, once water cooled.
I see lots more new cars in the junk yard now because the electronic are too delicate and too expensive to begin to diagnose.
I even had over half a million miles on my old 69 International pickup before I sold it, and it is still running strong for the buyer.

Bingo.

But the previous estimate of a 4 cylinder getting a forth of the life of a V8 is also an exaggeration. It is more like 30% less at most.

Only by violating the basic laws of physics. Given the SAME materials, technology and expenditure, you are asking about 4X the work/heat per cubic millimeter out of a 4 cylinder than you are a V8. The only way to beat that mainstream curve is to interject better materials and higher technology (read: complexity) at a higher cost.

Nah, just off the top of my head, smaller engines are lighter so can feel pretty peppy.
Depend on the load ratio.
But no one would buy engines that only lasted a forth the time.
And when I say 30% less lifetime, that is simply experiential.

 

[toobfreak]

If the power was near the same, the gear ratios would be near the same. Your numbers are an exaggerated lie. Of course, you could identify the brand and engine sizes so the actual numbers could be checked, and prove me wrong. I'll bet a dollar you won't.

>If the power was near the same, the gear ratios would be near the same. Your numbers are an exaggerated lie. Of course, you could identify the brand and engine sizes so the actual numbers could be checked, and prove me wrong. I'll bet a dollar you won't.

My bad.

I was assuming that each time a cylinder fires, it will propel you so far. A V6 will propel you 50% further than a four-cylinder for every revolution, all else being equal.

Gear and transmission ratios, as well as tire size matter more, and my number is exaggerated and not really based upon modern tech.

I own both four- and six-cyclinder vehicles, and the RPM is certainly higher in the fours for a given speed.

Hyundai Santa Fe 2013 came in both four- and six-cylinder versions.

https://www.cars.com/research/hyundai-santa_fe-2013/specs/355026/

https://www.cars.com/research/hyundai-santa_fe-2013/specs/358172/

Final drive ratio is 3.648 for the four, and 3.393 for the six. Both have 0.772 6th gear ratios, so that's only about 7.5% different.

The four has 17" wheels, but they are 235/65 whereas the six has 18 wheels with 235 60 tires, so they have diameters of 29.0 and 29.1" respectively.

So overall revs are only about 8% higher in the four at 60 mph.

I stand corrected. Thanks. To whom should I donate your dollar?

PS: There is a difference between being wrong and lying. Not sure why you went there. I was certain I heard this tale from the experts at Car Talk. I did....

"Larger engines will generate more torque. That allows the use of a transmission that lets the engine run slower for the same given car speed. So while a four-cylinder engine might turn at 2,500 rpm at 65 mph, an eight-cylinder engine might turn at 1,800. That could contribute to longer life."

Do More Cylinders Mean Longer Engine Life?

Ray discusses cylinders, longevity, and dodo birds.

www.cartalk.com

The car talk quote is accurate. It doesn't apply to the example you gave because the two engines you mentioned produced similar power levels. With the same gear ratio, a car will travel the same distance per revolution, no matter how many cylindars it has.

If you are trying to understand why much larger engines do not last vastly longer, it is because the man weight any engine has to pull is it own weight. So when you put in a much larger engine, then the engine has to automatically haul all that much more weight from the engine. That is why the trend is to smaller 4 cylinder engines with a turbo charger.

If that were true, professional race cars and competition machines would all use 4 cylinder. The drive toward the modern small compact (sport) car with a high tech 4 cylinder is driven by one main overriding factor: MEETING GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS such as miles per gallon and crash ratings efficiencies. The old, big engines didn't use any of the higher tech expensive technologies now seen in these modern cars, and big engines generally require bigger cars with greater stopping distance and fewer miles per gallon.

Given the willingness to use the same technology at whatever higher cost as to produce a V8 engine of similar design as a hi-perf. 4 cylinder, cars would be riding around with 800 H.P. able to do wheelie stands.

 

[toobfreak]

Yep, when you only get 250 miles on a good day from an electric fill up, that took 1 hour, sure, the electric car is the way to go. But if you have to go from Florida to Arizona, and it takes you 10 fill ups and it is cold outside and the days are short, you have to fill up a few more times and longer because battteries dont do well in cold weather.

The inception of the idea about a battery charged-electric vehicle is indeed ... compact, light and far more efficient nickel/metal (NiMH) accumulators. ... A brave new world is upon us, with many pioneers leading the way of developments. ...​

Hey, get your jollies off on electric cars all you want, but a few facts are in order:

1. GM isn't phasing out gas cars until 15 years from now, so they say today.
2. A great many people rely on the USED market buying used gasoline cars up to ten years old. That means there will still be a steady demand for used gas cars at least until 2045.
3. In a bad economy, a $4,000 used gas car will be easier to sell than a $60,000 new electric car.
4. As time goes on and more people see the liabilities of an electric car, they will be sticking with or going back to gasoline.
5. As gas cars become scarcer on the market, their value will soar.
6. The electric car is a CONSUMER item and will never replace all forms of transportation.
7. The environmental/climatic benefits of electric cars is being greatly overstated.
8. The minute they develop a practical hydrogen fuel cell, they will drop electric battery cars like hot cakes making them valueless.
9. Electric cars will be chock full of computer restrictions and government regulations limiting the driver and telling on him; as people realize that, they will flock back to gasoline.
10. The electric car will never fully supplant the gas car until they literally outlaw gas cars, close all gas stations and FORCE everyone to electric.

8. There are many more infrastructure hurdles for hydrogen than there are for electric.

9. You seem to think today's gas powered cars aren't chock full of computers already, and any imagined restrictions you fear could be easily implemented with the technology we currently have.

Hydrogen certainly will be very different to refuel and will require very different fueling stations.

But as for computers and restrictions, I think he is referring to things like keeping a log of all the traffic infractions like speeding, what strip club you went to, etc.

If he thinks that is all computers do in cars, he has no idea of what their main purpose is. They regulate all the aspects of combustion to get more power and less harmful exhaust. It used to be hard to find a factory V8 with 300 horsepower. Now it's common to get that from a four cylinder. Computers made that possible.

Not really.
Computers just made it cheaper.
The main way you increase power is by increasing compression ratio, like with a turbo charger, and then the problem becomes avoiding the deadly pre-ignition.
Pre-ignition can easily be prevented by mechanical fuel injection directly into the cylinders, like diesels used to have, and the only problem with that is it is expensive.

But some people are under the false impression computers can actually see and recognize things in real time speeds, and that is false.
Computers are about 100 million times slower at recognizing images than humans.

One small fact worth adding to the equation is that all these methods of increasing the (volumetric) efficiency of the engine also tends to shorten their lives by increasing operational stress. Forcing 300 HP out of a 4 cylinder will roughly cut the life expectancy of that engine down to about maybe a quarter that of a 8 cylinder.

Older engines were worn out at 100,000 miles just a few years ago. Now it's not unusual to go two or three times that range. Your "don't last as long" claim doesn't match reality.

That is not true.
I have had 1960s era Mercedes, Volvos, etc., with over half a million miles.
That is also true of 1970s VW even, once water cooled.
I see lots more new cars in the junk yard now because the electronic are too delicate and too expensive to begin to diagnose.
I even had over half a million miles on my old 69 International pickup before I sold it, and it is still running strong for the buyer.

Bingo.

But the previous estimate of a 4 cylinder getting a forth of the life of a V8 is also an exaggeration. It is more like 30% less at most.

Only by violating the basic laws of physics. Given the SAME materials, technology and expenditure, you are asking about 4X the work/heat per cubic millimeter out of a 4 cylinder than you are a V8. The only way to beat that mainstream curve is to interject better materials and higher technology (read: complexity) at a higher cost.

But no one would buy engines that only lasted a forth the time.

I never said anyone did. I said that was the mechanics of purely reducing engine displacement, all else remaining equal. Manufacturers beat the 1/4th life factor by going very high tech at far higher cost because the consumer is willing to pay.

 

[toobfreak]

If the power was near the same, the gear ratios would be near the same. Your numbers are an exaggerated lie. Of course, you could identify the brand and engine sizes so the actual numbers could be checked, and prove me wrong. I'll bet a dollar you won't.

>If the power was near the same, the gear ratios would be near the same. Your numbers are an exaggerated lie. Of course, you could identify the brand and engine sizes so the actual numbers could be checked, and prove me wrong. I'll bet a dollar you won't.

My bad.

I was assuming that each time a cylinder fires, it will propel you so far. A V6 will propel you 50% further than a four-cylinder for every revolution, all else being equal.

Gear and transmission ratios, as well as tire size matter more, and my number is exaggerated and not really based upon modern tech.

I own both four- and six-cyclinder vehicles, and the RPM is certainly higher in the fours for a given speed.

Again, well of course. This is basic mechanical engineering. A smaller 4 cyl. engine has smaller displacement, so how else can it produce the same amount work without either resulting in higher RPMs to make up for the smaller bore and moment of inertia, or in fantastically overworking a high tech uber expensive engine to death. A happy medium can only be to try to do a little balancing of both: increase RPMs somewhat, maybe 10% as needed while building the highest tech engine possible using premium, expensive materials and technology at a higher cost.

If you turbo charge, use dual over head cam, large valves, large intake, large exhaust, larger pistons, larger cylinders, etc., you can effectively or actually increase the displacement of a 4 cylinder engine.
For example, there are many large trucks running huge 4 cylinder engines.

Here is a powerful 4 that is not even really big.
{...
This engine, dubbed "Thor", is a 4.0L four pot that's capable of making roughly 375 hp per liter, eclipsing 1,500 hp in some applications. It's built by Elmer Racing in Finland for top motorsport applications and will soon be on sale for the price of €120,000 ($140,490).

The engine, built specifically for hillclimb and time attack applications, is a rev-punching sweetheart that makes power all over the place. Lightweight billet materials are used to construct 'Thor' and turn it into a resilient piece of kit that can stand the constant abuse of motorsports while keeping competitiveness as the top priority. Beautiful components make up this power-crazed engine, promising that it will be strong enough to withstand the crazy internal force.

When asked by The Drive what advantages this high displacement four cylinder yields over a similarly powerful V8 unit, Elmer Racing explained, "A V8 engine designed for racing can have a very high torsional rigidity. And lots of race classes have minimum weight limits, which create a necessity for very high powered (expensive) engines, with less importance on weight. Racing v8 engines suit these kinds of classes well.

"However, for unlimited class racing the weight penalty of a v8 is unacceptable."

As a result, the team opted for "Thor". Compact packaging and extreme weight reduction makes it a more viable option for these cars that run in pro and unlimited classes, allowing them to hit their targets for performance without sacrificing agility or cornering.
...}

'Thor' is a 4.0-Liter Four Cylinder That Can Make More Than 1,500 HP

More than 375 horsepower per liter sounds like a recipe for success.

www.thedrive.com

Yes, well, whatever. All things are possible when you want to engineer a very high tech $140,000 4 cylinder which happens to have similar displacement to that of a larger (V6/V8) engine. Displacement is displacement. Have you ordered yours yet?

 

[Rigby5]

I would add many of those oil companies don't pay a penny in federal income taxes.

You should absolutely LOVE oil companies, since they are providing the fuel to generate electricity for EVs. Evs aren't going anywhere without the oil companies.

Fossil fuels don't generate electricity in my state.

We use water, wind, solar and a small nuclear facility.

We started shutting down our last coal fired plant in 2005. I'm sure it's closed by now.

We started building one of the nation's largest wind farms in the 90s.

The result?

We generate more electricity than we use so we sell the excess to other states for a profit. If you live in one of those states, you're welcome for the cheap and clean energy.

We also have the second lowest electric rates in the country.

So my state doesn't need or want fossil fuels to generate electricity.

Untrue anywhere in the US.
Coal is the #1 electricity producer in ALL US states and most of the world.
Many states just do not know how their electricity is produced because it is part of an out of state grid.
It is never going to be possible to use only renewable resources any place in the world except on ocean shores, near high thermal sources, or where one does not mind killing fish.

So, if renewable sources can't supply all our needs, then we will use coal, or gas, or dried cow dung if we have to. We will maintain a reliable energy source of one kind or another. It will just be better for us if we can do that with renewable sources sooner. Nobody wants or expects a complete conversion to renewables before that is possible. Quit whining.

Going to electricity before electricity is renewable, only makes emissions much worse.
Nor does electricity allow for any reasonable totally renewable result eventually either, while bio fuel does.
So there is no point in going electrical.
It is inefficient.
Can you imagine trying to do ships, planes, or even EV trucks?
The would have no capacity to carry anything.
Batteries are way too heavy.

We already have diesel/electric ships and trucks, Electric power has already been proven to be more efficient than direct power by internal combustion. Why are you so afraid of progress? Do you think we will completely convert to battery powered electric before we have technology to match or better internal combustion? That's just silly.

Because what you just claimed isn't true. Electric power is more efficient in very limited circumstances. Over short distances electric powered vehicles are superior. There is no doubt of that. However, once you get beyond a mile the advantage swings to the internal combustion engine. Currently a Formula One race car can travel 190 miles, at full performance, on a single tank of regular gasoline. Formula E, can only manage 55 miles. And, they have to use TWO cars to do it.

So, calculate out the energy density involved, and get back to us with your claim of EV superiority.

If you want to discuss energy density, you should consider diesel electric freight trains. Those require serious energy density. Only a fool would think our currnt battery technology is as far as we will go with electric vehicles, and only an idiot would think we will switch to a new technology before it is able to meet the demand. Relax. Quit whining. It will be all right. We won't lose our means of transportation like you seem to fear.

Only a fool would think they can defy the laws of physics. Battery technology, and range, is not significantly greater than it was 100 years ago. Gasoline is the most energy dense fuel that normal people can acquire. A thimble full will propel a 3,000 pound car about 2 miles. No battery in the world can even come close.

You should tell GM, Ford, and all those other car manufacturers. I'm sure they would appreciate you letting them know all their engineers don't know what they are talking about. They will probably give you free cars for life for saving them all that money.

The government is TELLING them to do it. If EV'S were so great, the government wouldn't need to force you to use them

Like seat belts and airbags.

I hate airbags.
They are explosive, dangerous, and expensive.
If you wear glasses, they easily can cause blindness.
Permanent passive restraints make a lot more sense, like close dash or steering wheel padding.

glasses are plastic, and your full of it

So plastic shoved into your eyeball won't cause blindness?

{... During a collision, older-model auto airbags can deploy with such force that they can cause serious injuries to the eyes or even, in rare cases, blindness, say eye trauma specialists interviewed by WebMD. ...}

What Causes Eye Problems?

Get information on common eye and vision problems, such as conjunctivitis, retinal detachment, dry eyes, cataracts, and glaucoma.

www.webmd.com

{...

Rethinking airbag safety: airbag injury causing bilateral blindness​

...

Abstract​

A healthy 40-year-old man, restrained in the front passenger seat, suffered visually disabling blunt ocular trauma following spontaneous release of the passenger side air-bag module, during vehicular deceleration, without an automobile crash. Though the driver-side airbag was also released, the driver was unharmed. The passenger suffered bilateral hyphema, bilateral vitreous hemorrhage and suspected posterior scleral rupture in the left eye and also had an eyebrow laceration, from impact with the dashboard panel covering the air-bag module, which was detached by the force of airbag deployment. This is the first reported case from West Africa and the first case in which part of the airbag module detached to cause additional trauma. This report adds to the growing burden of evidence world-wide, for a review of the safety aspects of the automobile airbag. This case clearly illustrates that although airbags reduce mortality, they carry a high risk of ocular morbidity, even with seat belt restraint. ...}

Rethinking airbag safety: airbag injury causing bilateral blindness - PubMed

A healthy 40-year-old man, restrained in the front passenger seat, suffered visually disabling blunt ocular trauma following spontaneous release of the passenger side air-bag module, during vehicular deceleration, without an automobile crash. Though the driver-side airbag was also released, the...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Airbags have saved over 50,000 lives. I doubt your "physics degree" has accomplished as much.

Airbags

Information from IIHS-HLDI on airbags

www.iihs.org

Wow so those 50,000 will never die?

Wrong.
What I said is that permanent padding works better.
For example, when the airbag explodes, it not only throws your hands off the wheel, but can break thumbs and fingers.
This can lead to a small rail accident that inflated the airbag, that totally makes you out of control and the car goes off a cliff.
If they just put additional padding closer to the person, they could give the better protection all the time, without the explosive charge in your face.

Saved over 50k lives, what have you done?

You mean like we STILL DO with oil companies.

I would add many of those oil companies don't pay a penny in federal income taxes.

You should absolutely LOVE oil companies, since they are providing the fuel to generate electricity for EVs. Evs aren't going anywhere without the oil companies.

Fossil fuels don't generate electricity in my state.

We use water, wind, solar and a small nuclear facility.

We started shutting down our last coal fired plant in 2005. I'm sure it's closed by now.

We started building one of the nation's largest wind farms in the 90s.

The result?

We generate more electricity than we use so we sell the excess to other states for a profit. If you live in one of those states, you're welcome for the cheap and clean energy.

We also have the second lowest electric rates in the country.

So my state doesn't need or want fossil fuels to generate electricity.

Untrue anywhere in the US.
Coal is the #1 electricity producer in ALL US states and most of the world.
Many states just do not know how their electricity is produced because it is part of an out of state grid.
It is never going to be possible to use only renewable resources any place in the world except on ocean shores, near high thermal sources, or where one does not mind killing fish.

So, if renewable sources can't supply all our needs, then we will use coal, or gas, or dried cow dung if we have to. We will maintain a reliable energy source of one kind or another. It will just be better for us if we can do that with renewable sources sooner. Nobody wants or expects a complete conversion to renewables before that is possible. Quit whining.

Going to electricity before electricity is renewable, only makes emissions much worse.
Nor does electricity allow for any reasonable totally renewable result eventually either, while bio fuel does.
So there is no point in going electrical.
It is inefficient.
Can you imagine trying to do ships, planes, or even EV trucks?
The would have no capacity to carry anything.
Batteries are way too heavy.

We already have diesel/electric ships and trucks, Electric power has already been proven to be more efficient than direct power by internal combustion. Why are you so afraid of progress? Do you think we will completely convert to battery powered electric before we have technology to match or better internal combustion? That's just silly.

Because what you just claimed isn't true. Electric power is more efficient in very limited circumstances. Over short distances electric powered vehicles are superior. There is no doubt of that. However, once you get beyond a mile the advantage swings to the internal combustion engine. Currently a Formula One race car can travel 190 miles, at full performance, on a single tank of regular gasoline. Formula E, can only manage 55 miles. And, they have to use TWO cars to do it.

So, calculate out the energy density involved, and get back to us with your claim of EV superiority.

If you want to discuss energy density, you should consider diesel electric freight trains. Those require serious energy density. Only a fool would think our currnt battery technology is as far as we will go with electric vehicles, and only an idiot would think we will switch to a new technology before it is able to meet the demand. Relax. Quit whining. It will be all right. We won't lose our means of transportation like you seem to fear.

Only a fool would think they can defy the laws of physics. Battery technology, and range, is not significantly greater than it was 100 years ago. Gasoline is the most energy dense fuel that normal people can acquire. A thimble full will propel a 3,000 pound car about 2 miles. No battery in the world can even come close.

You should tell GM, Ford, and all those other car manufacturers. I'm sure they would appreciate you letting them know all their engineers don't know what they are talking about. They will probably give you free cars for life for saving them all that money.

The government is TELLING them to do it. If EV'S were so great, the government wouldn't need to force you to use them

Like seat belts and airbags.

I hate airbags.
They are explosive, dangerous, and expensive.
If you wear glasses, they easily can cause blindness.
Permanent passive restraints make a lot more sense, like close dash or steering wheel padding.

glasses are plastic, and your full of it

Rigby "the physicist" thinks glasses are still made with glass? Yep, he's either full of it or just arrived in his time machine invention.

Wrong.
Did the articles about airbags causing blindness say it required glass lenses?

Your article references older airbags.

And you have not been reading about how airbags are killing people?
{...

South Carolina driver killed by exploding air bag inflator​

A driver in South Carolina is the latest person to be killed by an exploding Takata air bag inflator
ByThe Associated Press
April 21, 2021, 7:00 PM
• 3 min read
...
Takata used volatile ammonium nitrate to create a small explosion to inflate air bags in a crash. But the chemical can become more volatile over time when exposed to moisture in the air. The explosion can blow apart a metal canister and hurl shrapnel into the passenger compartment.
...}

South Carolina driver killed by exploding air bag inflator

A driver in South Carolina is the latest person to be killed by an exploding Takata air bag inflator

abcnews.go.com

How could anyone feel safer with an explosive charge in your face, about to go off from even a slight malfunction?