What is Digg?127 Comments
- Flankk, on 10/12/2007, -6/+86In other news, 87% of the air you breathe is wasted. You inefficient bastard.
- sam10685, on 10/12/2007, -1/+37just what i need... more depressing news for today.
- tuna1, on 10/12/2007, -10/+43Our government ought to be doing A LOT of things. But, they're to busy worrying about boys kissing, flag burning, and giving themselves salary increases.
- illt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+34here's some more depressing history for you:
http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/ - chatwithaninja, on 10/12/2007, -10/+30Uh, I hate to say it, but a big part of the reason our cars are so inefficient are the emissions laws - which were put there by the government...
When you choke the power off with emissions equipment, the cars have to make more power to be able to go, which causes consumption to go up.
The model-T got over 20 to the gallon... - HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18Speaking of SUVs...
I laughed my ass off at the end of the movie "Cars" when that big hip-hop Hummer had to go off-road in Sarge's boot camp.
"But, I've never been off-road!"
"Oh man, I got sand in my rims..."
If that wasn't a jab at the people who buy SUVs and never take them off the asphalt I don't know what is :) - jrhelgeson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17What is amazing to me is that one gallon of gas has enough energy in it to propel a 4000 pound object over 30 miles, and that is even done at a 15% efficiency.
- elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21This is in no way the government's fault. It's just only a 15% efficient engine.
- ConceptJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -10/+23@KryptoniteKid:
Don't you know? The government can solve anything! It can make engines more efficient, cure your baldness and make you attractive to the opposite sex (or in Massachusetts, the same sex). - wicked9, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16we only use 10% of our hearts
- Winckle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12And if manufacturers won't make electronic cars, then consumers can't purchase them in the first place, can they?
- sakabako, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12and over 90% of that 15% goes to moving the car, and not the person inside it, giving us about 1% efficiency.
- zanthrax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Internal combustion engines not being effecient isn't news...
And lightbulbs are even worse, they're basicly ovens and the light they produce is just a side effect that uses 10% off a bulbs' energy consumption. - strcmp, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14I don't know about the air statistic, but we only use about 30% of the energy from the food that we eat.
- HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14@Xiol
Yeah, but how many girls can you catch with that Fiesta?
I used to own a Geo Metro (50+mpg) but my wife made me sell it. She didn't want it in our driveway, said it lowered our property value... - KryptoniteKid, on 10/12/2007, -9/+19How sad that you think that government needs to step in and do something here. Dependency on oil will go down when oil prices go up/other technologies become more viable.
- kazem, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12I agree. I mean, the most efficient any heat-based engine can be is defined by the Carnot Cycle: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/carnot.html
Anyways, this isn't news at all, and if it's news to you, then how can you call yourself a techie and be reading digg? - Xiol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I drive my other car if I'm trying to pick up girls. ;)
Besides, driving around in a 7MPG SUV ain't gonna get you any girls either. At least not over here in the UK. - osbjmg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8That's where the Japanese auto manufacturers initially pulled away from the American car makers - demand-based marketing and design. The American's initially just made what they thought people wanted, the Japanese asked what the consumer wanted.
- syberghost, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11You can make your car more fuel-efficient right now. Just do the following:
1) Remove the catalytic converter.
2) Make your own gasoline from crude oil, without any of the state and federally-required additives to reduce emissions.
You might want to consider the consequences first, though. - willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8hehe, why do you need the government to make you buy a more efficient car?
I understand your fustration but, I for one really think having more government involment is not going to help anything.
In our current state of affairs, its very difficult and expensive to start an autmobile company in this country. In the 40's there were literally dozens of American car companies. If you had a milling machine and lathe, you could pretty much start one up. Now, there has been so much legislation that you'll need to spend millions before you make your first part.
I really don't think we are going to get any real changes until we start to remove government involvment. The market can and will dictate the outcome. - giantrobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Take a thermo class. Engines are inefficient. This headline is phrased to be controversial -- it all but implies that there must be engines that are 100% efficient. Not true. We can get higher efficiency in engines, but even something like 50% efficiency would be out of the question with current or even future technology.
Go to wikipedia and look up a "Carnot Engine" to see what I am talking about. - ChrisGranger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Yeah, someone (I think it was Jim Kenzie) on Motoring 2006 recently said that the price difference between a hybrid-version car and the same vehicle's regular gasoline-version car would be better spent on home improvements such as insulating your house's attic, if your goal is "most environmental friendliness per dollar"... I love the idea of hybrid and electric cars, but the price needs to come down some before they're a smart buy.
- klang, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9There are more efficient alternatives out there ..
http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/Engines/
The Gun Engine suggests a 8% loss..The idea is; if an engine wastes 85% of it's energy, it must be a design problem and thus easy to improve upon..
(http://www.digg.com/science/Gun_Engine_Explodes_Fuel_Efficiency) - mrtrick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Are "alternative fueled vehicles" still more expensive than their gas powered counterparts? I haven't been in the market for a new vehichle for a while, but I remember this being an issue a few years ago when I was looking for a vehicle.
- syberghost, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Big Oil are the ones spending most of the money to develop the new tech. They know it will happen, and unless they patent it, they'll be left in the cold. So it's in their economic best interest to make this stuff happen themselves, not waste money trying to keep it from happening.
- Momoru, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Exactly, there is a reason your car's engine is warm after you park it...that's all lost energy. I love how half the comments here blame big oil or the government, when really the loss of efficiency isn't uncommon for any type of engine.
- satori3000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5A friend of mine works in Vancouver at one of the 3 big companies working on Hydrogen technology. All 3 companies are funded by oil companies or car Companies. The point being that they each want to fluff the hydrogen conversion on to the other industry. Oil companies want the conversion in the car, and the car companies want the conversion at the pump... hence the heavy investment to see who wins the argument.
- deleteYourslf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5We can't rely on our government to solve our fuel problems - we need to support companies that provide new viable technologies by purchasing their products. Stop commercial-driven ignorance by reconsidering that V8 Super Duty truck with the chrome rims you certainly don't need. Wasting energy and running smaller vehicles off the road is not cool.
- philarcand, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I agree this isn't news. Building a perfect Carnot cycle engine is impossible, that's why we have Otto engines. A diesel engine is a little more efficient, 5% or so (more efficient) if I remember correctly.
- redcard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4All right! A story about Fuel Economy and Efficiency. That means, of course, we get to read all about those people who "killed the project that allowed a car to get 9000MPg" and about that inventor that everyone seems to know personally "who designed a snap on car part that upped the gas mileage to 100+MPg and could fit on any car." It's funny how all these people all know the same person/persons, but don't know each other from adam, isn't it? It's also funny how nobody can seem to track down any of these "inventors", yet they are all very certain that the big oil companies somehow shut them down.
It's a nice story of the big fish eating / killing the little fish, but it works a lot better if there was any evidence at all. - satori3000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It's not so bad. This is already being addressed. It's why Hybrid cars were built, and it's exactly the kinds of things that they are looking to power the battery cells in hybrid cars.
Engine loses... I'd love to see that broken down more clearly though. - SpaceDreamer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4engine energy waste can be broken down to 2 things:
1. heat engines will NEVER have a decent efficiency, for physical reasons.
2. the driver is often in the wrong gear. This can be improved with continuously variable transmissions. (the Prius has one)
See this article:
http://cvt.com.sapo.pt/control/control.htm
the "engine performance map" shows how energy is wasted by not being at the optimal torque and rpm. - jballa, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Quite true, but also remember that these hybrids are expensive. Hey i'm down to save the planet, but not for 3 grand extra because the car is a hybrid. It's proven that 3 grand is a ton of gas, and those MPG epa estimates are garbage. Hell even the first batch of hybrids had battery problems because when the cars got in accidents it made the damn car a death trap. Always pleasant having enough volts to fry you going through all the metal in the car trapping you in eh?
- domokunt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7If people dont buy fuel efficient cars, manufacturers wont make them
- HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5My brother's cousin invented a car that was made out of wood and went real fast (in scale miles). Only problem was it only worked going downhill and it didn't scale up very well...
- willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4HMTKSteve, there are several technologies. The effectiveness varies.
Heat to electricity - thermocouple (or combined into a thermopile) this uses the Seebeck effect
Heat to mechanical - Steam engines and Stirling cycle engines are the best known
A spookier way of doing it could use Magnetohydrodynamics.
Maybe you could combine things. Use the BMW steam engine to convert excess engine heat to power, let the exhaust power a stirling motor, and excess waste heat could be recovered using thermopiles everywhere.
This should only quadruple the price of a small car. - bluemech, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4What next? The actual gasoline isn't used but the vapor! THIS NEWS IS CRAZY!!!
- rjnerd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Unfortunately mixing steam and IC has real problems. (It was tried in marine diesels in the 1920's). There are two problems, one difficult, one more difficult. The difficult problem is lubrication. Steam and motor oil result in a substance resembling beige mayonaise, that doesn't pump or lubricate very well. There are special lubricants for steam engines. Unfortunately they can't handle the tempratures you find in a combustion engine. Typical operating temprature for steam is under 500 degrees F. Contrast that with the 1200F that is typical exhaust temprature. (not to mention that they typically have the consistency of honey)
The harder problem is the speed of operation. To get decent power, IC engines want to turn very fast, with current engines maxing out at 5-6000 rpm. Steam piston engines have much lower limits (based on the flow speed of the steam), with 1000 rpm well into specialized high speed teritory. - phonepimpbill, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I'm only sleeping with one woman out of the entire population. That's probably the worst efficiency out there, less than .00001% utilized. Must improve.
- sakabako, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3What's the battery made of? Is it as bad for the environment as gas?
- willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3syberghost, they better hope the oil runs out before the patents expire.
Seriously, patents are public documents. If the oil companies are patenting new technology or buying patents then you should be able to find all of this great new technology at:
http://www.uspto.gov - fyngyrz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"The break-even point in starting the engine gasoline usage vs idling is about 10 seconds."
Ummm. I don't know, that seems very unlikely. When you start the car, you use a great deal of energy from the battery, which the engine has to put back. I think maybe you should try idling your car for ten seconds, kill it, then restart it, and see how long you can keep that up before your battery goes dead.
There are more factors than wear on the starter. There is wear on the engine itself, wear on the gearing from the starter to the engine, wear on the battery, wear on any mechanical parts of the starting mechanism (e.g., your key and keyswitch), re-pressurization of systems like brakes, steering, cooling... I just don't know about that 10 second estimate. Seems to me someone didn't do a very thorough analysis. Be interesting to see one, though. - osbjmg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3http://www.gizmag.com/go/4936/ - cool article about BMW harvesting exhaust heat to drive a steam turbine system to regain 15% efficiency.
I also recently read something about someone coming up with a 6-stroke engine that uses water vapor to help reburn some of the unburnt fuel in a previous cycle, sorry but I can't find it right now though. It requires you to fill up a managable amount of water (1/2 gallon?) in a water tank when you fill up with gas. - rjnerd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3One of the most efficient ways to move (kw per kg/km) is a human on a bicycle. And I could buy a pretty nice bike for what it costs to insure my car for a year.
All that is before you add in the health benefits of regular exercise. - aptget, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Get a mountain bike. They're cheaper!
- Manhigh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3And then you look at the carnot efficiency and realize thats not half bad.
- DWatch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@HMTKSteve
That argument is only valid of the source of electricity is fossil fuel. 20% of American electricity is derived from nuclear, and hydro is also prevalent in my area (5 dams within a radius of 50 miles from me). Renewable sources from wind and solar in the southwest are on the rise. We won't be stuck forever with coal and oil fired power plants, its only a matter of time, it might take a few decades, but I can't imagine continued use of a hundred year old technology to continue to power our cars and power plants. - LiterateWolf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If auto companies won't make them, how can we buy them? Oh, yeah, we can get them from the Japanese. How is the free trade effecting Ford's and GM's stocks?
- rjnerd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Try a recumbent. You sit on something wider than you are, your back is supported, your arms are relaxed at your side, and you don't have to crane your neck to see where you are going. Should something go wrong, you hit with your feet, not your head. I switched originally because of RSI (overuse tendinitis from typing), but if they fixed my arms today, I wouldn't go back. And to counter the default argument, they aren't too low to see. After all we expect motorists to see a layer of paint a few thousandths of an inch high. They have nice horizontal lines, and corners at the same height as automobile bumpers and fenders. This is the height that motorists are looking - after all another fender represents a "threat". In general I find that motorists give me more space than when on an upright.
Bicycles take up less space on the roads (and our cities don't have room to make the roads any wider, something a change of fuel won't fix), if you are really concerned about stability, there are 3 wheeled machines http://www.greenspeed.com.au that are like riding a go cart. Some are even available with full enclosures to keep the weather off.
As to safety, cycling has been measured to be safer than driving a car (your peak speeds are lower) but more dangerous than public transportation, and scheduled air travel. And that cycling as poorly practiced in the US. (with lots of wrong way riding, using separated facilities, rare use of lights, etc, correct technique makes a 5X difference in collision rates)
Distance: the median automobile trip in the US is under 2 miles. That's no big deal to pedal. When I last had a regular commute, it was 10km, and since it was somewhat urban (Cambridge, MA) the difference between riding and driving was only a few minutes. If you factored in the time to park, and the walk from the lot and the office, compared to riding right up to the door, it was almost a wash. I am not a speed demon, I average about 15mph pedaling. I didn't have to waste time going to the gym, and the morning exercise had me arriving at the office a lot more awake. -
Show 51 - 100 of 128 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is