The Future Of Electric Cars?

[WarpSpeed]

I've thought about this before as a more evolved hybrid and surprised it hasn't already been developed prior. Works on the same principle of locomotive trains which get hundreds of miles per gallon while pulling immense loads since the engines being used are actually electric run by diesel generators.. This guy managed to downsize it and make it applicable to electric cars with an added twist with an air assist feature whose purpose is not clearly specified in the article. http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/patented-gage200-electric-car-could-162639324.html

Edited April 1, 2013 by WarpSpeed

[Jitar]

The patent referenced in the article is difficult to understand, but the air assist system seems to be more novel than using an internal combustion engine with a generator to drive a traction motor. The generator - motor combination is really just a variable ratio transmission like a CVT with relatively poor efficiency. It can be done on smaller vehicles but it's really only worthwhile on large equipment where the power and torque involved are too much for mechanical transmissions, like large locomotives and Mining trucks. Even for the mining trucks, Caterpillar has introduced larger mechanical drive trucks to the market over the last 20 years to compete with largest diesel electric drive models from Komatsu Haulpak and Liebherr etc.

For smaller vehicles, mechanical transmissions are still more efficient, so hybrid cars end up with the complicated combination of mechanical and electric drive. The simplicity of a full electric drive hybrid is nice but an electric generator - motor drive with comparable efficiency to a mechanical transmission would need to be developed.

[WarpSpeed]

Yes but still relevant and since he has a patent that's the first step as usually the big boys squelch any attempts before they can even gain any traction. Now someone has to pay him for the rights and as you say it may need development but that's where the big boys come in and who will be the one to take the lead on this, it's certain some one has to so as not to be left behind one would think?.

[Kwasaki]

I always get looked at strangely with mentioning my idea of a small compact nuclear driven unit that gets changed when the car is serviced.

And back in the 50's http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/alternative-fuels/nuclear-powered-car.htm

All possible in time I guess just as the world was found not to be flat and man could never fly.

[BSJ]

"Works on the same principle of locomotive trains which get hundreds of miles per gallon while pulling immense loads since the engines being used are actually electric run by diesel generators."

Not true. The diesel prime mover that supplies power to the alternator that powers the traction motors uses gallons per mile....in a sense. Railroads usually measure fuel burn rates in amount per hour. Take for example the EMD SD70 Ace loco. Fairly modern design, it's burn rate is 188 gallons per hour with a full load on level track. That would be equal to a bit over 3 US gallons per mile if it was travelling at 60mph. Unfortunately trains have to slow down at times so the distance travelled will be less for the same fuel burn. Ok, the engineer maybe off the throttle slowing down and using the dynamic brake, but after the 3rd notch the diesel starts to rev again to increase the amount of retarding power to the traction motors. With full load the dynamic and the train brake will, more often than not, be used together. Get into hilly country and your looking at multi unit running to shift the same load, so more fuel will be burnt!

But in comparison, if you have lots of the same thing, moving it by rail is still more fuel efficient than moving it by road.

[WarpSpeed]

It is true, it's just not true across the board but generally speaking a modern locomotive gets hundreds of miles per gallon but like any such measure depends on the engine and the age, just like any other car on the road for example.

[IMHO]

The GM Volt/Ampere uses a constant speed gasoline engine for battery charging/drive only:

As does the Jaguar C-X75 concept car: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_C-X75 - except that one borrows a little from oil rigs, using multi-fuel turbines for electricity generation.

As for the air pressure thing - it sounds to me that if it was actually able to capture enough pressure to be useful, we wouldn't need turbos, and we could make self-inflating tires

Edited April 1, 2013 by IMHO

[WarpSpeed]

Funnily enough I just saw a Top Gear episode today where they made their own electric car and James May used a generator to power the electric motor.

[aussiebebe]

I read the OP's link to the GAGE200 - I wouldn't personally bet on that being the future but I do see future cars being electric. I think it will be a variety of factors that help meet this goal, not one 'magic-bullet' solution. For example, with the UK building the National Graphene Institute, just graphene alone may provide multiple solutions. There may be lower cost solar cells, lighter-weight steel, lithium-ion batteries that recharge fast or even ultracapacitors that charge in minutes and can efficiently capture electricity from regenerative braking. Any one of these may be a solution on it's own; for example even if batteries stayed the same (which they won't) a Nissan Leaf made from in part from lighter graphene-based material would have a longer range.

[Ace of Pop]

Imagine the Fun. No Exhaust Roar. Gentlemen Start You Hair Driers.

[VocalNeal]

As i read it. The car is a conventional engine drives generator drives electric motor except it also has a conpressor and a fan driven compressor that uses airflow to drive the compressor which stores energy so the engine can run on air stored.

And my sentence makes as much sense as the other one!

[WarpSpeed]

^Yeah basically that's it, makes little sense...BUT he got a patent!!

I agree somewhat with aussie in that it is going to be a wide range of alternatives unlike anything we've had in the past, but many of those options suggested make more nasty waste in their production and future replacement then the benefit they now produce, not to mention cost and added lost efficiency in weight..

[BSJ]

It is true, it's just not true across the board but generally speaking a modern locomotive gets hundreds of miles per gallon but like any such measure depends on the engine and the age, just like any other car on the road for example.

I don't know where you are getting your figures from but your wrong. Even a brand new mainline diesel electric locomotive uses large quantities of fuel per hour, In my previous post I gave you an example of one popular locomotive in use on the UP and BNSF in America and on one of the iron ore railroads in Australia..

This little 600hp yard switcher can't go 3 miles on a gallon of fuel when it's working.

[BSJ]

There are lots of people working on many different concepts around the world. But you may never see any of them. Inventors are often reluctant to seek help or show others what they have, so hundreds or thousands of good ideas never come to be. I know of one group working on a perpetual motion machine. Yes I rolled my eyes and thought what are these dickheads up too. After watching the video and inspecting the model I thought just maybe they had a chance at cracking it. I can't give any details, as I signed a confidentiality agreement, but I can say the theory behind the concept was quite convincing. The only problems they had was with the software to run it.

And the uses are almost limitless. If they can micro size it to run laptop computers....we would never need a power cable again.....if it works!

[mogandave]

Burning fossil fuel to generate rotational force to generate electricity to power a motor to generate rotational force?

[IMHO]

There are lots of people working on many different concepts around the world. But you may never see any of them. Inventors are often reluctant to seek help or show others what they have, so hundreds or thousands of good ideas never come to be. I know of one group working on a perpetual motion machine. Yes I rolled my eyes and thought what are these dickheads up too. After watching the video and inspecting the model I thought just maybe they had a chance at cracking it. I can't give any details, as I signed a confidentiality agreement, but I can say the theory behind the concept was quite convincing. The only problems they had was with the software to run it.

And the uses are almost limitless. If they can micro size it to run laptop computers....we would never need a power cable again.....if it works!

I've also seen protoypes of "incredibly efficient almost perpetual" machines, but unless the laws of physics change it's never going to happen

[WarpSpeed]

It is true, it's just not true across the board but generally speaking a modern locomotive gets hundreds of miles per gallon but like any such measure depends on the engine and the age, just like any other car on the road for example.

I don't know where you are getting your figures from but your wrong. Even a brand new mainline diesel electric locomotive uses large quantities of fuel per hour, In my previous post I gave you an example of one popular locomotive in use on the UP and BNSF in America and on one of the iron ore railroads in Australia..

CropperCapture2.jpg

This little 600hp yard switcher can't go 3 miles on a gallon of fuel when it's working.

Here ya go and this refers to nearly 500 miles per 1 gallon of fuel far above anything I posted in specific numbers.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/05/how-efficient-is-a-freight-train

Again, many factors come into play, electric motors actually being powered by diesel generators instead of direct drive diesel engines, flat tracks for long distances, lack of friction with metal wheels on metal tracks and inertia once the load is at speed it actually helps mileage immensely as it's only maintaining momentum which in turn is also being aided by the inertia of the load, at some of these times the diesel generator can actually shut down or go into hibernation mode and not draw any fuel or idle and draw very little, less coefficient of drag due to the cars drafting one another all combine to long distances on veeeery low amounts of fuel being consumed.. Once on the open track trains don't stop and go they only slow a bit at times.. You're also using a "fuel per hour" and not "miles per gallon" comparison to make your claims..

Search CSX fuel mileage..

I've given you my link now where's yours? One that actually takes all of these factors into account and not just some across the board averaging? Of course throw in inclines and such and the mileage will vary, but overall the facts are still the facts all things being equal.

Edited April 4, 2013 by WarpSpeed

[WarpSpeed]

There are lots of people working on many different concepts around the world. But you may never see any of them. Inventors are often reluctant to seek help or show others what they have, so hundreds or thousands of good ideas never come to be. I know of one group working on a perpetual motion machine. Yes I rolled my eyes and thought what are these dickheads up too. After watching the video and inspecting the model I thought just maybe they had a chance at cracking it. I can't give any details, as I signed a confidentiality agreement, but I can say the theory behind the concept was quite convincing. The only problems they had was with the software to run it.

And the uses are almost limitless. If they can micro size it to run laptop computers....we would never need a power cable again.....if it works!

Yeah there is supposedly a low RPM generator that also operates similarly once it's been started..

[WarpSpeed]

Burning fossil fuel to generate rotational force to generate electricity to power a motor to generate rotational force?

Takes a lot less fuel to produce electric then to move a car and then a torque' electric motor or motors do the work from there..

[WarpSpeed]

There are lots of people working on many different concepts around the world. But you may never see any of them. Inventors are often reluctant to seek help or show others what they have, so hundreds or thousands of good ideas never come to be. I know of one group working on a perpetual motion machine. Yes I rolled my eyes and thought what are these dickheads up too. After watching the video and inspecting the model I thought just maybe they had a chance at cracking it. I can't give any details, as I signed a confidentiality agreement, but I can say the theory behind the concept was quite convincing. The only problems they had was with the software to run it.

And the uses are almost limitless. If they can micro size it to run laptop computers....we would never need a power cable again.....if it works!

I've also seen protoypes of "incredibly efficient almost perpetual" machines, but unless the laws of physics change it's never going to happen

Hmm,,,, What about the earths rotation? I'd venture that more like we haven't discovered it yet, kind of like thinking that the speed of light was the fastest we could achieve but now that's in question innit? At one point even the speed of sound was thought impossible to achieve and now we have cars that can achieve it let alone jets or rockets some of which can double it..The world was once thought to be flat, need I go on? How about the 20th century head of the US patent office that said "everything that can be invented has been already" paraphrasing of course..

Edited April 4, 2013 by WarpSpeed

[Jitar]

It is true, it's just not true across the board but generally speaking a modern locomotive gets hundreds of miles per gallon but like any such measure depends on the engine and the age, just like any other car on the road for example.

I don't know where you are getting your figures from but your wrong. Even a brand new mainline diesel electric locomotive uses large quantities of fuel per hour, In my previous post I gave you an example of one popular locomotive in use on the UP and BNSF in America and on one of the iron ore railroads in Australia..

CropperCapture2.jpg

This little 600hp yard switcher can't go 3 miles on a gallon of fuel when it's working.

Here ya go and this refers to nearly 500 miles per 1 gallon of fuel far above anything I posted in specific numbers.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/05/how-efficient-is-a-freight-train

Again, many factors come into play, electric motors actually being powered by diesel generators instead of direct drive diesel engines, flat tracks for long distances, lack of friction with metal wheels on metal tracks and inertia once the load is at speed it actually helps mileage immensely as it's only maintaining momentum which in turn is also being aided by the inertia of the load, at some of these times the diesel generator can actually shut down or go into hibernation mode and not draw any fuel or idle and draw very little, less coefficient of drag due to the cars drafting one another all combine to long distances on veeeery low amounts of fuel being consumed.. Once on the open track trains don't stop and go they only slow a bit at times.. You're also using a "fuel per hour" and not "miles per gallon" comparison to make your claims..

Search CSX fuel mileage..

I've given you my link now where's yours? One that actually takes all of these factors into account and not just some across the board averaging? Of course throw in inclines and such and the mileage will vary, but overall the facts are still the facts all things being equal.

Warpspeed originally talked about "locomotive trains which get hundreds of miles per gallon while pulling immense loads".

BSJ quoted examples using fuel per hour and miles per gallon.

Warpseeds link refers to miles per gallon per ton.

Locomotives use big power to pull a lots of tons so a lot of fuel is used per hour or per mile. However fuel use per ton is good mostly because there is less energy loss (compared to cars and trucks). Steel wheels on rails have low rolling resistance, long distance freight trains avoid wasting energy starting and stopping in traffic and minmise frontal area and air resistance (per ton).

The Diesel Electric drive is not the critical factor for railroad fuel efficiency but it's a good solution for rail locomotives considering issues like power required and space available.

Edited April 4, 2013 by Jitar

[canman]

There are lots of people working on many different concepts around the world. But you may never see any of them. Inventors are often reluctant to seek help or show others what they have, so hundreds or thousands of good ideas never come to be. I know of one group working on a perpetual motion machine. Yes I rolled my eyes and thought what are these dickheads up too. After watching the video and inspecting the model I thought just maybe they had a chance at cracking it. I can't give any details, as I signed a confidentiality agreement, but I can say the theory behind the concept was quite convincing. The only problems they had was with the software to run it.

And the uses are almost limitless. If they can micro size it to run laptop computers....we would never need a power cable again.....if it works!

perpetual motion machine??? Never going to happen. How can you create energy from nothing? This is what would be required for a perpetual motion machine to work. You would need to reverse the laws of entropy and invalidate the second law of thermodynamics, it aint going to happen.

[WarpSpeed]

There are lots of people working on many different concepts around the world. But you may never see any of them. Inventors are often reluctant to seek help or show others what they have, so hundreds or thousands of good ideas never come to be. I know of one group working on a perpetual motion machine. Yes I rolled my eyes and thought what are these dickheads up too. After watching the video and inspecting the model I thought just maybe they had a chance at cracking it. I can't give any details, as I signed a confidentiality agreement, but I can say the theory behind the concept was quite convincing. The only problems they had was with the software to run it.

And the uses are almost limitless. If they can micro size it to run laptop computers....we would never need a power cable again.....if it works!

perpetual motion machine??? Never going to happen. How can you create energy from nothing? This is what would be required for a perpetual motion machine to work. You would need to reverse the laws of entropy and invalidate the second law of thermodynamics, it aint going to happen.

Hmm,,,, What about the earths rotation? I'd venture that more like we haven't discovered it yet, kind of like thinking that the speed of light was the fastest we could achieve but now that's in question innit? At one point even the speed of sound was thought impossible to achieve and now we have cars that can achieve it let alone jets or rockets some of which can double it..The world was once thought to be flat, need I go on? How about the 20th century head of the US patent office that said "everything that can be invented has been already" paraphrasing of course.

This.....One big nuclear powered perpetual motion machine powered by inertial momentum and heat.. Granted eventually it will slow to a stop but probably not in the life span of humans and in the mean time it fills a lot of needs so a perpetual motion machine is relative it may not be eternally a perpetual motion machine but maybe enough time to run one lifetime or more and isn't that a lot of potential energy savings while it lasts? And may it not be perpetual for a given persons lifetime making it just as valid?

It begs the question of relativity... What is the time frame of perpetual motion in terms of any given purpose? A day, a week, a life time, 2 life times, eternity? Versus the energy saved?

Edited April 4, 2013 by WarpSpeed

[IMHO]

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/perpetual

Almost perpetual is achievable IMHO, perpetual is not.

[Jitar]

As IMHO's definition shows, perpetual just means lasting forever. A system with a lot of momentum and no resistance (friction etc) would qualify. The planets in orbit are very close to this.

Perpetual motion is overrated because it does not necessarily mean useful work or energy can be extracted. As soon as some load is applied, energy is transferred which has to come from somewhere, making the motion not perpetual any more. A giant flywheel would be a perpetual motion machine if it had no air or bearing resistance. Might be interesting but no good as an energy supply. What we really need is free energy, but sadly that is even more tricky than perpetual motion.

[canman]

There are lots of people working on many different concepts around the world. But you may never see any of them. Inventors are often reluctant to seek help or show others what they have, so hundreds or thousands of good ideas never come to be. I know of one group working on a perpetual motion machine. Yes I rolled my eyes and thought what are these dickheads up too. After watching the video and inspecting the model I thought just maybe they had a chance at cracking it. I can't give any details, as I signed a confidentiality agreement, but I can say the theory behind the concept was quite convincing. The only problems they had was with the software to run it.

And the uses are almost limitless. If they can micro size it to run laptop computers....we would never need a power cable again.....if it works!

perpetual motion machine??? Never going to happen. How can you create energy from nothing? This is what would be required for a perpetual motion machine to work. You would need to reverse the laws of entropy and invalidate the second law of thermodynamics, it aint going to happen.

>>Hmm,,,, What about the earths rotation? I'd venture that more like we haven't discovered it yet, kind of like thinking that the speed of light was the fastest we could achieve but now that's in question innit? At one point even the speed of sound was thought impossible to achieve and now we have cars that can achieve it let alone jets or rockets some of which can double it..The world was once thought to be flat, need I go on? How about the 20th century head of the US patent office that said "everything that can be invented has been already" paraphrasing of course.

This.....One big nuclear powered perpetual motion machine powered by inertial momentum and heat.. Granted eventually it will slow to a stop but probably not in the life span of humans and in the mean time it fills a lot of needs so a perpetual motion machine is relative it may not be eternally a perpetual motion machine but maybe enough time to run one lifetime or more and isn't that a lot of potential energy savings while it lasts? And may it not be perpetual for a given persons lifetime making it just as valid?

It begs the question of relativity... What is the time frame of perpetual motion in terms of any given purpose? A day, a week, a life time, 2 life times, eternity? Versus the energy saved?

A perpetual motion machine is one which does 'work' and continues to do so with absolutely no external input of mass or energy. I doubt there has been a machine built which could satisfy this criteria for so much as an hour let alone operate perpetually. What about the earths rotation? It is constantly slowing down and will eventually stop. Would a spinning top be defined as a perpetual motion machine? It's the same thing but on a larger scale.

it's an interesting topic to contemplate however the more that you do think about it the more you realise that it is a pipe dream. Yes similar things have been said about many things in the past but for now I think I am fairly safe in saying that I will never see one in my life time. Consider a hypothetical case where you do manage to construct a perpetual motion machine of sorts, you set it in motion and away it goes. Now you want to extract energy from it to do some external work. How is this extracted energy going to be replenished within your perpetual motion machine?

Edited April 4, 2013 by canman

[WarpSpeed]

perpetual motion machine??? Never going to happen. How can you create energy from nothing? This is what would be required for a perpetual motion machine to work. You would need to reverse the laws of entropy and invalidate the second law of thermodynamics, it aint going to happen.

There are lots of people working on many different concepts around the world. But you may never see any of them. Inventors are often reluctant to seek help or show others what they have, so hundreds or thousands of good ideas never come to be. I know of one group working on a perpetual motion machine. Yes I rolled my eyes and thought what are these dickheads up too. After watching the video and inspecting the model I thought just maybe they had a chance at cracking it. I can't give any details, as I signed a confidentiality agreement, but I can say the theory behind the concept was quite convincing. The only problems they had was with the software to run it.

And the uses are almost limitless. If they can micro size it to run laptop computers....we would never need a power cable again.....if it works!

>>Hmm,,,, What about the earths rotation? I'd venture that more like we haven't discovered it yet, kind of like thinking that the speed of light was the fastest we could achieve but now that's in question innit? At one point even the speed of sound was thought impossible to achieve and now we have cars that can achieve it let alone jets or rockets some of which can double it..The world was once thought to be flat, need I go on? How about the 20th century head of the US patent office that said "everything that can be invented has been already" paraphrasing of course.<

/span>

This.....One big nuclear powered perpetual motion machine powered by inertial momentum and heat.. Granted eventually it will slow to a stop but probably not in the life span of humans and in the mean time it fills a lot of needs so a perpetual motion machine is relative it may not be eternally a perpetual motion machine but maybe enough time to run one lifetime or more and isn't that a lot of potential energy savings while it lasts? And may it not be perpetual for a given persons lifetime making it just as valid?

It begs the question of relativity... What is the time frame of perpetual motion in terms of any given purpose? A day, a week, a life time, 2 life times, eternity? Versus the energy saved?

A perpetual motion machine is one which does 'work' and continues to do so with absolutely no external input of mass or energy. I doubt there has been a machine built which could satisfy this criteria for so much as an hour let alone operate perpetually. What about the earths rotation? It is constantly slowing down and will eventually stop. Would a spinning top be defined as a perpetual motion machine? It's the same thing but on a larger scale.

it's an interesting topic to contemplate however the more that you do think about it the more you realise that it is a pipe dream. Yes similar things have been said about many things in the past but for now I think I am fairly safe in saying that I will never see one in my life time. Consider a hypothetical case where you do manage to construct a perpetual motion machine of sorts, you set it in motion and away it goes. Now you want to extract energy from it to do some external work. How is this extracted energy going to be replenished within your perpetual motion machine?

Basically you just echoed everything I already said but didn't really answer anything. I know the common definition of perpetual but as I said it's relative and relative to it's application and life time..Another words by what measure? Your lifetime? The planets lifetime? The universes lifetime? It's a chicken and egg question, just because WE, in our child like state of understanding as a race of living beings don't currently have an answer or understanding doesn't mean the possibility doesn't exist..

[VocalNeal]

Just a thought; I seems to be de riguer at present to apply for and be granted patents for all kinds of whimsical things, even lines of code. Maybe with the hope that one day someone will discover something that can be vaguely traced back to or could be interpreted as part of a previous patent and "Bob's ya bank manager".

Compressed air cars exist today and the idea of turning engines by compressed air exists in large marine engines. So even the concept of storing energy as compressed air to be used latter is hardly new. The advantage if there is one would be to run the engine at it's most economical load/rpm etc..(there is only a narrow band based on cam/ignition timming and store the excess to be used latter. Maybe the amount of energy/volume is better for compressed air than it is for batteries?

I'm still waiting for a smallish car with moderate power that has a very large KERS system that I can use for squirting into gaps on the express way and the like say 60-80hp fossil fuel plus 60-80 hp KERS. Capacitor banks rather than batteries or maybe even William's flywheel system as seen on Audi LMP cars.

[mogandave]

Just have each wheel drive an alternator, and use the power to drive an electric fan mounted on the roof. All you have to do is give it one push to get power flowing to the fan, and jump in!

Instead of petrol stations we would just need guys ("pushers") strategically located to push everyone each time they have to stop in traffic.

[BSJ]

I see where your point of view differs. Based on ton-miles and a train weighing 10 or 12 thousand tonnes, it could theoretically obtain good results as far as fuel burn is concerned. Moving the same freight by road would cost twice as much fuel.

"Here is an add I saw claiming that CSX freight trains can move 1 ton of material 500 miles on 1 gallon of diesel fuel. Wow, that is something I have to look into. Here is the site of CSX with the info I will use. From that site:

• CSX claims that EPA claims that a for every ton-mile, a truck emits about 3 times more nitrogen oxide and particulates than a locomotive does.
  
• CSX can move 1 ton of freight 500 miles with 1 gallon of diesel (on average).
  
• Their locomotives (that seems like an archaic term) uses auxiliary power for idling times so that the diesel engine can be shut down.
  
• Using throttle optimization based on train load and location and stuff.
  

They appear to have other initiatives to be a greener company. All this seems nice. However, I still think the 1 gallon thing is a little far fetched. So, let me do a basic calculation. Let me estimate the frictional force per ton of freight over this 500 mile trip. I will assume a straight track with no hills (this is my spherical cow assumption). Also, it seems like a fair estimate to say that one car can carry about 100 tons of freight. So, here is a diagram for one of those cars."

A quick check of answers.yahoo http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091119203705AA61Ac5 gave me the following:

Note that N (Notch) 8 is full throttle and N1 is idle.

So in N8 it is gulping down the diesel at a fair rate!