Tow cars and trailers

Bill Daniels wrote:
If you want to look at alternative liguid fuels for the existing fleet
consider Butanol (Butyl alcohol). It has about the same energy content as
gasolene, burns at the same air-fuel mixture and has an octane rating of 94.
It can be made from biomass at better net energy yeld than ethanol. Since
you can mix it with gasolene at any ratio with no changes needed in the
engines, it looks better to me than ethanol.

Butanol sounds like a good idea. I've seen puffs for methanol and
ethanol but no mention of butanol. I wonder why.

I mentioned solar or nuke driven industrial sources for any such fuel
(and quoted ethyl as an example) because I think that biofuel is too
limited by the availability of both arable land and water to replace
oil-based fuels.

Possibly irrelevant, but I remember seeing a Scientific American article
back in the late 60s/early 70s on this topic. I forget what triggered it
(possibly a comment on a back to nature movement) but it pointed out
that even then it would be impossible to replace America's oil-powered
transport systems with horses because there wasn't the farm land in the
USA to feed the horses, let alone produce anything else. OK, horses are
not exactly efficient energy sources. Replace them with something more
efficient (biodiesel powered engines?) and factor in the increased
energy consumption after 40 years of economic growth and I think the
argument still holds.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

Jack wrote:
Asbjorn Hojmark wrote:

Currently, the 300M Americans emits more CO2 and consumes more oil
than the next four countries together, including the 1B+ Chinese and
1B+ Indians. 23% of the total CO2 emission in the world comes the US.


Today is not the problem. Demand increases as population increases and
as international interactions increase.

America does sometimes seem to be trying to breed its way to parity with
one of the highest birth rates of any developed country.

Resentments are not solutions.

Of course.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

Ray Lovinggood wrote:

The first hitch just about tore off the bottom of my
trunk. The hitch bolted to the central rear tie down
loop and also through the 'Oh Too Thin' sheet metal
of the bottom of the trunk.


Never forget the two magic phrases:

"Never let a gorilla near your engine"

and

"Gorillas live in garages"

This sound advice was offered by one Brigadier Prendergast (Ret.), who
wrote one of the best guides to the overland route from London to Delhi.
I forgot it once. My transmission suffered from the resulting TLC.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

"Martin Gregorie" wrote in message
...
Bill Daniels wrote:
If you want to look at alternative liguid fuels for the existing fleet
consider Butanol (Butyl alcohol). It has about the same energy content
as gasolene, burns at the same air-fuel mixture and has an octane rating
of 94. It can be made from biomass at better net energy yeld than
ethanol. Since you can mix it with gasolene at any ratio with no changes
needed in the engines, it looks better to me than ethanol.

Butanol sounds like a good idea. I've seen puffs for methanol and ethanol
but no mention of butanol. I wonder why.

I mentioned solar or nuke driven industrial sources for any such fuel (and
quoted ethyl as an example) because I think that biofuel is too limited by
the availability of both arable land and water to replace oil-based fuels.

Possibly irrelevant, but I remember seeing a Scientific American article
back in the late 60s/early 70s on this topic. I forget what triggered it
(possibly a comment on a back to nature movement) but it pointed out that
even then it would be impossible to replace America's oil-powered
transport systems with horses because there wasn't the farm land in the
USA to feed the horses, let alone produce anything else. OK, horses are
not exactly efficient energy sources. Replace them with something more
efficient (biodiesel powered engines?) and factor in the increased energy
consumption after 40 years of economic growth and I think the argument
still holds.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org

I actually think that GM has a good idea in the "Volt". It's an electric
car with a bay into which you (or GM) can install an electricity source like
a genset (diesel or spark), a fuel cell stack or even more batteries. The
flexibility is the value added.

Pure electric vehicles are slowly emerging as quite possibly the final
answer. There has been rapid fire announcements of lithium ion battery
technology advancements in the key areas of energy density and charge time.
Toshiba and others have Lithium Polymer cells that can be fully charged in
less than 5 minutes and still last 20,000 recharge cycles. Charge time is
just as important as driving range with electrics with one offsetting the
other. If the vehicle can be recharged in 5 minutes at convienient
locations, who cares if it only goes 150 miles between charges. For serious
"off grid" driving, the Volt approach looks good.

The so called "hydrogen economy" is just bafflegab from the Bush
administration to delay any action. Hydrogen is not likely to be part of
the solution. An "electric economy" however is easy to imagine.
Electricity is extremely flexible. An electric vehicle can be slowly
recharged overnight at home or quickly at a charging station. The
electricity can come from almost any source.

My original thought is that even an electric could tow a glider trailer if
the trailer itself supplied some of the power. Imagine side boxes ahead and
behind each trailer wheel containing batteries and wheels containing
electric motors. The trailer then powers itself and the "tow" vehicle just
guides it.

Bill Daniels

I actually think that GM has a good idea in the 'Volt'.
It's an electric
car with a bay into which you (or GM) can install an
electricity source like
a genset (diesel or spark), a fuel cell stack or even
more batteries. The
flexibility is the value added.

Pure electric vehicles are slowly emerging as quite
possibly the final
answer. There has been rapid fire announcements of
lithium ion battery
technology advancements in the key areas of energy
density and charge time.
Toshiba and others have Lithium Polymer cells that
can be fully charged in
less than 5 minutes and still last 20,000 recharge
cycles. Charge time is
just as important as driving range with electrics with
one offsetting the
other. If the vehicle can be recharged in 5 minutes
at convienient
locations, who cares if it only goes 150 miles between
charges. For serious
'off grid' driving, the Volt approach looks good.

The so called 'hydrogen economy' is just bafflegab
from the Bush
administration to delay any action. Hydrogen is not
likely to be part of
the solution. An 'electric economy' however is easy
to imagine.
Electricity is extremely flexible. An electric vehicle
can be slowly
recharged overnight at home or quickly at a charging
station. The
electricity can come from almost any source.

My original thought is that even an electric could
tow a glider trailer if
the trailer itself supplied some of the power. Imagine
side boxes ahead and
behind each trailer wheel containing batteries and
wheels containing
electric motors. The trailer then powers itself and
the 'tow' vehicle just
guides it.

Bill Daniels



To add some hope to this situation, albeit down the
road, and some fuel to this debate, check out this
bit of emerging technology:

http://www.gizmag.com/go/5192/

It is a carbon nanotube capacitor, and the article
I linked does a much better and fuller job of explaining
it than I should here. If this technology is 'allowed'
to develop and be distributed, the future does not
look so bleak.
BTW, for those of you who don't already, spend some
time navigating around the parent site the article
is from, www.gizmag.com , with it's many sections (including
aero gizmo). There is a LOT of info there, with wonderful
(and of course some lame ones) new inventions and emerging
technology, updated often. It actually feels like it
is 2007, like the future IS here, when you check out
some of these things, instead of the year 'nineteen
ninety seventeen' we seem stuck in presently. This
site is everything Popular Science and Popular Mechanics
ever wished it could be.

Paul Hanson

"Do the usual, unusually well"--Len Niemi

On May 21, 10:55 am, "SAM 303a" brentDAHTsullivanATgmailDAHTcom
wrote:
Jeep Liberty CRD
2.8L diesel. At 80 mph, I get 24 mpg running petroleum diesel; 22 mpg
running 100% biodiesel.
Not a bad compromise.

Yes. The Liberty CRD is a *very* nice package.

Now the Grand Cherokee comes with a 3.0L V-6 turbodiesel. The engine
is a Mercedes. Check your local Jeep dealership as they should just
now be coming in. This should be an excellent package for those with
heavier gliders to tow.

Regards,

-Doug

On May 21, 7:42 pm, "Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote:
Pure electric vehicles are slowly emerging as quite possibly the final
answer. There has been rapid fire announcements of lithium ion battery
technology advancements in the key areas of energy density and charge time.
Toshiba and others have Lithium Polymer cells that can be fully charged in
less than 5 minutes and still last 20,000 recharge cycles. Charge time is
just as important as driving range with electrics with one offsetting the
other. If the vehicle can be recharged in 5 minutes at convienient
locations, who cares if it only goes 150 miles between charges. For serious
"off grid" driving, the Volt approach looks good.

The so called "hydrogen economy" is just bafflegab from the Bush
administration to delay any action. Hydrogen is not likely to be part of
the solution. An "electric economy" however is easy to imagine.
Electricity is extremely flexible. An electric vehicle can be slowly
recharged overnight at home or quickly at a charging station. The
electricity can come from almost any source.

My original thought is that even an electric could tow a glider trailer if
the trailer itself supplied some of the power. Imagine side boxes ahead and
behind each trailer wheel containing batteries and wheels containing
electric motors. The trailer then powers itself and the "tow" vehicle just
guides it.

Bill Daniels

Disagree wholesale. Li battery technology development has plateaued
over the last few years. Sony's Nexelion is as good as it gets and
it's not good enough. Li-polymer didn't give the better energy density
promised and suffers equally from the one of the problem of all li
batteries - ageing. All lithium batteries die within a few years
regardless of how they are used (li-ion batteries can be cycled
countless times). Just ask any iPod owner. All the current research is
going into sustaining high discharge rates, and the first results will
be seen in the 2009 Prius which will drop nickel batteries for li with
a considerable weight and space saving.

No, there's a reason why all the R&D money is going into fuel cells -
huge potential. Fuel cell efficiency is improving rapidly and hydrogen
storage via simple compression is already practical (witness the 300
mile drive on a single tank by a couple of GM fuel cars last week)
while hydrogen adsorption has (again that magic feature) huge
potential:

http://www.rsc.org/Publishing/Journa...otPalomino.asp

It's that "low-hanging fruit" thing. Battery technology's has already
been picked while fuel cell's are still hanging.


Dan

"Dan G" wrote in message
ups.com...
On May 21, 7:42 pm, "Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote:
Pure electric vehicles are slowly emerging as quite possibly the final
answer. There has been rapid fire announcements of lithium ion battery
technology advancements in the key areas of energy density and charge
time.
Toshiba and others have Lithium Polymer cells that can be fully charged
in
less than 5 minutes and still last 20,000 recharge cycles. Charge time
is
just as important as driving range with electrics with one offsetting the
other. If the vehicle can be recharged in 5 minutes at convienient
locations, who cares if it only goes 150 miles between charges. For
serious
"off grid" driving, the Volt approach looks good.

The so called "hydrogen economy" is just bafflegab from the Bush
administration to delay any action. Hydrogen is not likely to be part of
the solution. An "electric economy" however is easy to imagine.
Electricity is extremely flexible. An electric vehicle can be slowly
recharged overnight at home or quickly at a charging station. The
electricity can come from almost any source.

My original thought is that even an electric could tow a glider trailer
if
the trailer itself supplied some of the power. Imagine side boxes ahead
and
behind each trailer wheel containing batteries and wheels containing
electric motors. The trailer then powers itself and the "tow" vehicle
just
guides it.

Bill Daniels

Disagree wholesale. Li battery technology development has plateaued
over the last few years. Sony's Nexelion is as good as it gets and
it's not good enough. Li-polymer didn't give the better energy density
promised and suffers equally from the one of the problem of all li
batteries - ageing. All lithium batteries die within a few years
regardless of how they are used (li-ion batteries can be cycled
countless times). Just ask any iPod owner. All the current research is
going into sustaining high discharge rates, and the first results will
be seen in the 2009 Prius which will drop nickel batteries for li with
a considerable weight and space saving.

No, there's a reason why all the R&D money is going into fuel cells -
huge potential. Fuel cell efficiency is improving rapidly and hydrogen
storage via simple compression is already practical (witness the 300
mile drive on a single tank by a couple of GM fuel cars last week)
while hydrogen adsorption has (again that magic feature) huge
potential:

http://www.rsc.org/Publishing/Journa...otPalomino.asp

It's that "low-hanging fruit" thing. Battery technology's has already
been picked while fuel cell's are still hanging.


Dan


Hmm... I'd suggest reading this article by no less than EV Weekly:

Fuel Cells - a Reality Check
http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=730

It says the likely effeciency of fuel cells is 14 - 28% which doesn't take
into account the hydrogen production losses which are considerable. More
than one person has suggested that the whole "hydrogen economy" thing is a
stalking horse for the nuclear industry since the only way to produce enough
hydrogen to replace petroleum based motor vehicle fuels is with about 1500
new nuclear power plants. Even with those, building a hydrogen distribution
and storage system would be a formidable undertaking. I smell pork barrel
politics.

In the last few days, one of the national labs, Los Alamos I think, reported
doubling the energy density of lithium ion batteries while virtually
eliminating thermal runaway. The electric power industry has stated that
the existing power grid can recharge electric cars whithout problems even if
85% of the existing cars were electric. Again with an existing distribution
system and fast charge batteries giving a 300 mile range, it's going to be
hard to beat simple electrics.

Bill Daniels

On May 21, 6:37 pm, "Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote:
"Dan G" wrote in message

ups.com...







On May 21, 7:42 pm, "Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote:
Pure electric vehicles are slowly emerging as quite possibly the final
answer. There has been rapid fire announcements of lithium ion battery
technology advancements in the key areas of energy density and charge
time.
Toshiba and others have Lithium Polymer cells that can be fully charged
in
less than 5 minutes and still last 20,000 recharge cycles. Charge time
is
just as important as driving range with electrics with one offsetting the
other. If the vehicle can be recharged in 5 minutes at convienient
locations, who cares if it only goes 150 miles between charges. For
serious
"off grid" driving, the Volt approach looks good.

The so called "hydrogen economy" is just bafflegab from the Bush
administration to delay any action. Hydrogen is not likely to be part of
the solution. An "electric economy" however is easy to imagine.
Electricity is extremely flexible. An electric vehicle can be slowly
recharged overnight at home or quickly at a charging station. The
electricity can come from almost any source.

My original thought is that even an electric could tow a glider trailer
if
the trailer itself supplied some of the power. Imagine side boxes ahead
and
behind each trailer wheel containing batteries and wheels containing
electric motors. The trailer then powers itself and the "tow" vehicle
just
guides it.

Bill Daniels

Disagree wholesale. Li battery technology development has plateaued
over the last few years. Sony's Nexelion is as good as it gets and
it's not good enough. Li-polymer didn't give the better energy density
promised and suffers equally from the one of the problem of all li
batteries - ageing. All lithium batteries die within a few years
regardless of how they are used (li-ion batteries can be cycled
countless times). Just ask any iPod owner. All the current research is
going into sustaining high discharge rates, and the first results will
be seen in the 2009 Prius which will drop nickel batteries for li with
a considerable weight and space saving.

No, there's a reason why all the R&D money is going into fuel cells -
huge potential. Fuel cell efficiency is improving rapidly and hydrogen
storage via simple compression is already practical (witness the 300
mile drive on a single tank by a couple of GM fuel cars last week)
while hydrogen adsorption has (again that magic feature) huge
potential:

http://www.rsc.org/Publishing/Journa...otPalomino.asp

It's that "low-hanging fruit" thing. Battery technology's has already
been picked while fuel cell's are still hanging.

Dan

Hmm... I'd suggest reading this article by no less than EV Weekly:

Fuel Cells - a Reality Checkhttp://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=730

It says the likely effeciency of fuel cells is 14 - 28% which doesn't take
into account the hydrogen production losses which are considerable. More
than one person has suggested that the whole "hydrogen economy" thing is a
stalking horse for the nuclear industry since the only way to produce enough
hydrogen to replace petroleum based motor vehicle fuels is with about 1500
new nuclear power plants. Even with those, building a hydrogen distribution
and storage system would be a formidable undertaking. I smell pork barrel
politics.

In the last few days, one of the national labs, Los Alamos I think, reported
doubling the energy density of lithium ion batteries while virtually
eliminating thermal runaway. The electric power industry has stated that
the existing power grid can recharge electric cars whithout problems even if
85% of the existing cars were electric. Again with an existing distribution
system and fast charge batteries giving a 300 mile range, it's going to be
hard to beat simple electrics.

Bill Daniels

http://www.physorg.com/news97255464.html

Never know where a major paradigm shift might show up.

Say by throwing cheap H2 in here
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/12/4828

Or here, thinking outside the box, something different here
http://www.physorg.com/news94144517.html

Cheap is a relative number, but without the platinum.....

Frank Whiteley

On May 21, 9:55 pm, Frank Whiteley wrote:
On May 21, 6:37 pm, "Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote:



"Dan G" wrote in message

oups.com...

On May 21, 7:42 pm, "Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote:
Pure electric vehicles are slowly emerging as quite possibly the final
answer. There has been rapid fire announcements of lithium ion battery
technology advancements in the key areas of energy density and charge
time.
Toshiba and others have Lithium Polymer cells that can be fully charged
in
less than 5 minutes and still last 20,000 recharge cycles. Charge time
is
just as important as driving range with electrics with one offsetting the
other. If the vehicle can be recharged in 5 minutes at convienient
locations, who cares if it only goes 150 miles between charges. For
serious
"off grid" driving, the Volt approach looks good.

The so called "hydrogen economy" is just bafflegab from the Bush
administration to delay any action. Hydrogen is not likely to be part of
the solution. An "electric economy" however is easy to imagine.
Electricity is extremely flexible. An electric vehicle can be slowly
recharged overnight at home or quickly at a charging station. The
electricity can come from almost any source.

My original thought is that even an electric could tow a glider trailer
if
the trailer itself supplied some of the power. Imagine side boxes ahead
and
behind each trailer wheel containing batteries and wheels containing
electric motors. The trailer then powers itself and the "tow" vehicle
just
guides it.

Bill Daniels

Disagree wholesale. Li battery technology development has plateaued
over the last few years. Sony's Nexelion is as good as it gets and
it's not good enough. Li-polymer didn't give the better energy density
promised and suffers equally from the one of the problem of all li
batteries - ageing. All lithium batteries die within a few years
regardless of how they are used (li-ion batteries can be cycled
countless times). Just ask any iPod owner. All the current research is
going into sustaining high discharge rates, and the first results will
be seen in the 2009 Prius which will drop nickel batteries for li with
a considerable weight and space saving.

No, there's a reason why all the R&D money is going into fuel cells -
huge potential. Fuel cell efficiency is improving rapidly and hydrogen
storage via simple compression is already practical (witness the 300
mile drive on a single tank by a couple of GM fuel cars last week)
while hydrogen adsorption has (again that magic feature) huge
potential:

http://www.rsc.org/Publishing/Journa...otPalomino.asp

It's that "low-hanging fruit" thing. Battery technology's has already
been picked while fuel cell's are still hanging.

Dan

Hmm... I'd suggest reading this article by no less than EV Weekly:

Fuel Cells - a Reality Checkhttp://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=730

It says the likely effeciency of fuel cells is 14 - 28% which doesn't take
into account the hydrogen production losses which are considerable. More
than one person has suggested that the whole "hydrogen economy" thing is a
stalking horse for the nuclear industry since the only way to produce enough
hydrogen to replace petroleum based motor vehicle fuels is with about 1500
new nuclear power plants. Even with those, building a hydrogen distribution
and storage system would be a formidable undertaking. I smell pork barrel
politics.

In the last few days, one of the national labs, Los Alamos I think, reported
doubling the energy density of lithium ion batteries while virtually
eliminating thermal runaway. The electric power industry has stated that
the existing power grid can recharge electric cars whithout problems even if
85% of the existing cars were electric. Again with an existing distribution
system and fast charge batteries giving a 300 mile range, it's going to be
hard to beat simple electrics.

Bill Daniels

http://www.physorg.com/news97255464.html

Never know where a major paradigm shift might show up.

Say by throwing cheap H2 in herehttp://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/12/4828

Or here, thinking outside the box, something different herehttp://www.physorg.com/news94144517.html

Cheap is a relative number, but without the platinum.....

Frank Whiteley

Now here's a hybrid tow vehicle
http://tinyurl.com/yskkk9

Frank