Author Topic: Forget the 50 mpg carb; this guy has a 80 mpg Mustang  (Read 4185 times)

Offline Megalodon

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2272
Re: Forget the 50 mpg carb; this guy has a 80 mpg Mustang
« Reply #45 on: July 08, 2008, 01:31:25 PM »

Right now though it's not ready for prime time IMO.

http://world.honda.com/news/2008/4080702FCX-Clarity/

I bet we see a few running around soon.  :aok plus Arnie is fixing it so they can run up and down the state

edit: http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/drive-fcx-clarity.aspx
« Last Edit: July 08, 2008, 01:48:21 PM by Megalodon »
Okay..Add 2 Country's at once, Australia and France next plane update Add ...CAC Boomerang and the Dewoitine D.520

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16333
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: Forget the 50 mpg carb; this guy has a 80 mpg Mustang
« Reply #46 on: July 08, 2008, 01:36:41 PM »
That VW 230MPG model.. Tiny machine (and only two seats) but the article says it's crash-safe as a GT car.
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
Re: Forget the 50 mpg carb; this guy has a 80 mpg Mustang
« Reply #47 on: July 08, 2008, 02:06:36 PM »
Quote
I bet we see a few running around soon.  Thumbs UP! plus Arnie is fixing it so they can run up and down the state

You might see a few if you live in California. Honda is only building 100 - 200 over the next 3 years, and has admitted the cost of each car is close to $1 million. Nobody can buy one, they are all being leased by Honda, and only to a select few.

Quote
you people really need to get up to speed, honda is puting hydrogen cars on the street in Cal. and they are building solor powered hydrogen refueling stations to refuel them.

They aren't looking to make money, though. They are doing it for research and PR, nothing more.

The facts about hydrolysis are simple. The most efficient industrial scale units need 50 kw/h to produce 1 kg of hydrogen. A theoretically perfect system, which can never be built in practice, needs about 35 kw/h, iirc. Typical systems in use now use about 60 kw/h.

Electricity has been in mass use for well over 100 years. Huge amounts of money have been spent researching cheaper ways of producing electricity. Renewables like solar and wind cost more than coal. I don't think the price of electricity is going to fall massively soon.

Quote
Eventually though tech advances may make it work out long term.

I'm not so sure. For hydrogen to work we need 3 major advances. A cheaper way to produce it, a better way of storing it, and better fuel cells to use it.

The most efficient way of powering a car is by electricity. For that we only need one major advance, a better battery.

The head of the European Fuel Cell Forum laid out why Fuel Cells aren't the answer for transport:

Quote
Hydrogen is an artificial, synthetic fuel. It has to be made from other energy. If you look at renewable energy, most of it is harvested as electricity, some as biomass and some as solar heat, but basically most of the renewable energy is harvested as electricity. Hydrogen has to be made artificially by splitting water by electrolysis. This requires more energy than you will ever recover from the hydrogen. However, hydrogen has to be compressed or liquefied for handling, it has to be distributed, and then reconverted back to, guess what, electricity. That means electricity derived from hydrogen has to compete with its original energy source, electricity. If you go through a hydrogen chain, you find that after the fuel cell only 25% of the original electricity is available for use by consumers. A hydrogen economy is a gigantic energy waste. We cannot afford this in the future. Therefore, three of four renewable energy power plants are needed to balance the losses within a hydrogen economy luxury.

Quote
With the same amount of electricity, original electricity, be it from wind solar energy, with the same amount of electricity you can drive an electric car three times farther than a hydrogen car. On 100 kWh of electricity you can drive an electric car 120 kilometers while a hydrogen fuel cell car of similar size can do only about 40 km. If we want to have mobility and a sustainable future, we have to go for electric cars and not for hydrogen cars because we electric cars are less costly to operate. It is not the vehicle technology, but a question of energy cost of the fuel. Hydrogen must always be much more expensive than electricity needed to split water by electrolysis etc.

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Re: Forget the 50 mpg carb; this guy has a 80 mpg Mustang
« Reply #48 on: July 08, 2008, 02:42:09 PM »
I rarely agree with nashwan on anything but on this..  I think he has a pretty good handle on it on this one.. at least the way things are right now..

who knows what breakthroughs will happen but.. right now?   He probly has it right.

lazs

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16333
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: Forget the 50 mpg carb; this guy has a 80 mpg Mustang
« Reply #49 on: July 08, 2008, 02:44:16 PM »
Nashwan, have you heard anything about eestor's batteries?
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Re: Forget the 50 mpg carb; this guy has a 80 mpg Mustang
« Reply #50 on: July 08, 2008, 02:55:21 PM »
EEstor is pretty tight lipped. I haven't really found much on them or Zenn.

I did find this, dated 6/26:

Quote
Sometime over the next several weeks, a privately held and ultra-secretive company named EEStor Inc., based in Cedar Park, Texas, is expected to release the results of independent third-party testing of its electrical-energy storage unit, which aims to replace the electrochemical batteries we now use in everything from hybrid cars to laptop computers. EEStor says its system, combining battery and ultra-capacitor technology and based on modified barium titanate ceramic powder, could power a car for 400 kilometres with regular performance. It claims the unit would charge in a few minutes and weigh less than 10 per cent of current lead-acid batteries for the same cost.


If they really have 3rd party proof we're halfway to the "next several weeks" release date. We'll see.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16333
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: Forget the 50 mpg carb; this guy has a 80 mpg Mustang
« Reply #51 on: July 08, 2008, 03:21:53 PM »
LM had signed some partnership with them pretty early, so it made the radio silence pretty ominous, given their claims :)  I did read that the few-minutes recharge time is not possible with regular home eqpt, but that the battery does guarantee overnight charging being more than enough. 
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline Holden McGroin

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8591
Re: Forget the 50 mpg carb; this guy has a 80 mpg Mustang
« Reply #52 on: July 08, 2008, 03:48:44 PM »
Assuming 100% thermal and mechanical efficiency,

400 hp => 400 * 2525 btu = 1,018,000 btu/hr

Gasoline = 18,400 btu / lb +> 84,000 btu / gallon

400 hp = 12.11 gallons / hr at 100% efficiency

80 mpg at 50 mph = 1.60 gallons per hour.

If you want 80 mpg at 50 mph, you can only have about a 40 hp engine.... and unattainable efficiency.
Holden McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!

Offline Baitman

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 678
      • Strike Manufacturing Inc.
Re: Forget the 50 mpg carb; this guy has a 80 mpg Mustang
« Reply #53 on: July 08, 2008, 04:10:11 PM »
Assuming 100% thermal and mechanical efficiency,

400 hp => 400 * 2525 btu = 1,018,000 btu/hr

Gasoline = 18,400 btu / lb +> 84,000 btu / gallon

400 hp = 12.11 gallons / hr at 100% efficiency

80 mpg at 50 mph = 1.60 gallons per hour.

If you want 80 mpg at 50 mph, you can only have about a 40 hp engine.... and unattainable efficiency.

That is what I was looking for. :salute :salute :salute
"Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition"
You can be one but NOT both...

Fully Fledged Practising Atheist Bishop

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12797
Re: Forget the 50 mpg carb; this guy has a 80 mpg Mustang
« Reply #54 on: July 08, 2008, 04:14:57 PM »
I don't think the guy is claiming 80mpg while the engine is producing 400hp. Just that the car is capable of 80mpg and 400hp, not necessarily simultaneously.
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline Baitman

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 678
      • Strike Manufacturing Inc.
Re: Forget the 50 mpg carb; this guy has a 80 mpg Mustang
« Reply #55 on: July 08, 2008, 04:21:21 PM »
Jetta or Golf VW diesel will get close on the highway 60+- but not 400hp and it is burning fuel with more BTU per gallon :aok
"Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition"
You can be one but NOT both...

Fully Fledged Practising Atheist Bishop

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16333
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: Forget the 50 mpg carb; this guy has a 80 mpg Mustang
« Reply #56 on: July 08, 2008, 05:45:32 PM »
I don't think the guy is claiming 80mpg while the engine is producing 400hp. Just that the car is capable of 80mpg and 400hp, not necessarily simultaneously.
Yeah, the only way it makes sense is if the journalist made a mistake. You need more than 40hp to push that car safely on public roads.  And it'd be pretty stupid to get on the xprize roster with such an easily debunked scam.  If he's really that stupid, it's tough to believe he'd have gotten that other Ohio company to join in.  Where's he profiting?  He couldn't have done all this without something to gain out of it..

I must have screwed up the math.. I get that he needs an ~8,000HP engine for 80MPG@50MPH, if the engine is 38% efficient..
« Last Edit: July 08, 2008, 05:59:09 PM by moot »
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline soda72

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5201
Re: Forget the 50 mpg carb; this guy has a 80 mpg Mustang
« Reply #57 on: July 09, 2008, 11:26:23 AM »

Well if anyone can make an electric car work it would be these guys they seem to have the right idea:
Tesla Electric Car
The unveiling of the Tesla Motors Electric Car
Tesla Electric Car Segment - BBC World



However it might meet the same fate as GM's EV1..
Who Killed the Electric Car?


Offline ghi

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2669
Re: Forget the 50 mpg carb; this guy has a 80 mpg Mustang
« Reply #58 on: July 09, 2008, 11:33:39 AM »
I don't know what to believe about this movie about Free Energy - No Fuel Magnetic Motor, seems presented by a serious news agency , and are more on same page with bikes and cars already built on same idea, Maybe fake hoax, but i don't think we learned everything about the electricity and magnetism in less than 200 years .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvB3PiPBozU

Offline Maverick

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13922
Re: Forget the 50 mpg carb; this guy has a 80 mpg Mustang
« Reply #59 on: July 09, 2008, 12:24:49 PM »
Assuming 100% thermal and mechanical efficiency,

400 hp => 400 * 2525 btu = 1,018,000 btu/hr

Gasoline = 18,400 btu / lb +> 84,000 btu / gallon

400 hp = 12.11 gallons / hr at 100% efficiency

80 mpg at 50 mph = 1.60 gallons per hour.

If you want 80 mpg at 50 mph, you can only have about a 40 hp engine.... and unattainable efficiency.

Just out of curiosity, how does that calculation work with the new "wonder" fuel, hydrogen and oxygen, made at about 1 to 2 liters per hour in the vehicle?
DEFINITION OF A VETERAN
A Veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a check made payable to "The United States of America", for an amount of "up to and including my life."
Author Unknown