What type of propulsion will power our cars in twenty years time?

Matt Simis

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium
Because of helium's relatively low molar (atomic) mass, its thermal conductivity, specific heat, and sound speed in the gas phase are all greater than any other gas except hydrogen. For similar reasons, and also due to the small size of helium atoms, helium's diffusion rate through solids is three times that of air and around 65% that of hydrogen.

I dont get the claim on that Wiki page as it goes against both physics (atom size) and actual real world experience.
Im basing the leak rate of Helium being worse than Hydrogen from hanging out on ballooning forums and sites, Helium baloons leak faster than hydrogen as (so Im told) its atomic molecule is smaller.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_a_helium_atom_smaller_than_a_hydrogen_atom

Helium is a "sneaky" gas, its atoms are quite small (smallest calculated atomic radius of any element, 31 pm, as compared to 53 pm for the hydrogen atom), and since it is mono-atomic, its molecule are the same as atoms. It will find every little way of escaping, it can diffuse (slowly, but still...) through nearly all material. In the case of a balloon, the layer is understandably thin in order to keep it light, and it inevitably leaks.

Hydrogen is about 8% more buoyant than helium, but its molecules are larger so it will not leak (although hydrogen embrittlement, the interaction of hydrogen diffusing into metal making it fragile, is a known phenomenon) as much as helium.

The radius of Helium is not more than of Hydrogen. On the contrary it is approximately 31 pm. and the radius of hydrogen is greater.

Although Helium has two electrons, both of them are in the same orbital as the one electron of hydrogen i.e. the 1s orbital.

So the radius does not increase due to electrostatic repulsion. The nucleus has two protons which considerably increases the force of attraction. Thus the overall radius reduces.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=306457

Question is, why is calculated atomic radius of hydrogen (53 pm) LARGER than calculated radius of helium (31 pm) ? How can a single proton have larger radius than helium which has two proton ?

Answer:
The answer to why helium is smaller is that both of helium's electrons are in the same orbital as the single electron of hydrogen (the 1s orbital), so it's radius does not expand much from having the second electron. However, the doubled nuclear charge causes both electrons to move closer to the nucleus.

Therefore I stand by my claim that He is "leakier" than H.

Capt'n Midnight

Matt Simis wrote: »

Therefore I stand by my claim that He is "leakier" than H.

Hey it was worth a try

but H2 is still leaky

Sesshoumaru

I think in twenty years time there will still be fossil fuel cars (but declining rapidly), the vast majority of those will be hybrid vehicles. Some could be air/fossil hybrids.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/23/peugeot-car-that-runs-on-air-hybrid_n_2535024.html?utm_hp_ref=green

We breathe it. Why not drive it?

Peugeot Citroen this week introduced a car that runs on air. The car manufacturer said the vehicle should be available by 2016.

"We're quite confident," company spokesman Jean-Baptiste Thomas told The Huffington Post on Wednesday.

Thomas said the company already had developed four of its "Hybrid Air" prototypes and driven them 12,000 miles.

I'd also expect that pure EV's would be widely accepted at that point also. It would be interesting to see does anything not yet on the radar appear, some kind of disruptive technology.

Capt'n Midnight

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

I think in twenty years time there will still be fossil fuel cars (but declining rapidly), the vast majority of those will be hybrid vehicles. Some could be air/fossil hybrids.

Tata Motors
http://www.mdi.lu/english/airpod.php

Sesshoumaru

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Tata Motors
http://www.mdi.lu/english/airpod.php

I remember reading previously they were going to bring out a low cost compressed air powered car. I'd rather wait to see what the Peugeot/Citroen air hybrids will be like

Sesshoumaru

I thought this might please some people!

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-57566308-48/ford-mercedes-benz-and-nissan-target-2017-for-fuel-cell-vehicles/

It must be a new season of sharing as major automakers sign agreements to co-develop fuel cell technology. Last week Toyota and BMW said they would work together on a fuel cell system, while today Ford, Daimler, and Renault-Nissan announced they would pool research into fuel cell technology. In their joint press release, Ford, Daimler, and Renault-Nissan said they would produce fuel cell vehicles in 2017.

Matt Simis

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

I thought this might please some people!

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-57566308-48/ford-mercedes-benz-and-nissan-target-2017-for-fuel-cell-vehicles/

Pity they couldnt all work together, now we have Jap-German on one side and US-Jap-German-French on the other. Bit messed up the Japanese and Germans couldnt even partner with each other.

reboot

LordSutch wrote: »

Surely by 2033 the petrol engine will be pushing up the daisies and talked about in fond terms
in the same way some old folk reminisce about the steam trains of their youth )

So what do you think will replace the internal combustion engine in twenty years time?
might Hybrid be king? or might some form of advanced Battery power taken over? what about Hydrogen cell power?
Compressed Air powered engines? compressed gas? a new form of steam engine? without the coal obviously . . . .



Can't see the petrol engine still going in twenty years time, can you?

Hot air from Boards?

reboot

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Hey it was worth a try

but H2 is still leaky

Ammonia is seriously be looked at again for ICE, BBC radio recently.

dr.fuzzenstein

Matt Simis wrote: »

Pity they couldnt all work together, now we have Jap-German on one side and US-Jap-German-French on the other. Bit messed up the Japanese and Germans couldnt even partner with each other.

There should be a German, Italian, Japanese collaboration. Oh, wait...
Nevermind, next year I'm getting a Mr. Fusion put in, runs the car on household garbage.

Capt'n Midnight

reboot wrote: »

Ammonia is seriously be looked at again for ICE, BBC radio recently.

Ammonia a great way of storing Hydrogen,

next thing you know they'll be trying trying carbon

reboot

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Ammonia a great way of storing Hydrogen,

next thing you know they'll be trying trying carbon

I think they add a little Hydrogen to start the combustion process?

dr.fuzzenstein

Intermediate steps would have been lpg and biodiesel. Both been drowned in a bucket at birth by the Irish government.
Electric is the next step, but the best step forward is fuel cells and hydrogen from algae or solar. Rubbish like ICE engines being run on hydrogen, methane or other stuff is Mad Max future fantasy and simply trying to keep an obsolote 19 th century technology alive.

Capt'n Midnight

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Rubbish like ICE engines being run on hydrogen, methane or other stuff is Mad Max future fantasy and simply trying to keep an obsolote 19 th century technology alive.

Very nearly 18th century
First Hydrogen car with electric ignition was 1808
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Isaac_de_Rivaz

Kevin the Kid

Air powered cars. have you see the compressed air cars made in France...... check them out.

Capt'n Midnight

Kevin the Kid wrote: »

Air powered cars. have you see the compressed air cars made in France...... check them out.

And India

Problem is the energy density isn't great and the round trip efficiency is very low, mainly because air gets hot when you compress it and gets cold when it expands. Lots of schemes to use lakes as heat sinks/sources for big compressed air schemes.

Main plus is that air is cheap and woven compressed air tanks aren't all that expensive

Bigus

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

And India

Problem is the energy density isn't great and the round trip efficiency is very low, mainly because air gets hot when you compress it and gets cold when it expands. Lots of schemes to use lakes as heat sinks/sources for big compressed air schemes.

Main plus is that air is cheap and woven compressed air tanks aren't all that expensive

Air is cheap , but compressed air is expensive .

Capt'n Midnight

Bigus wrote: »

Air is cheap , but compressed air is expensive .

more expensive...

A lot of alternatives to fossil fuel are only economic because they attract grants or avoid taxes. One Biodiesel study in Germany showed that a litre of fossil fuel was used for every litre of biodiesel produced when you included all the inputs like fertilizer. It was only economic because there was little or no tax on agri-diesel , raw materials or the final product.

What matters is the "well to wheel" efficiency. And you may have to include processing of Nickel or Lithium too.

Here where up to 25% of electricity can come from wind there is some saving.

reboot

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

more expensive...

A lot of alternatives to fossil fuel are only economic because they attract grants or avoid taxes. One Biodiesel study in Germany showed that a litre of fossil fuel was used for every litre of biodiesel produced when you included all the inputs like fertilizer. It was only economic because there was little or no tax on agri-diesel , raw materials or the final product.

What matters is the "well to wheel" efficiency. And you may have to include processing of Nickel or Lithium too.

Here where up to 25% of electricity can come from wind there is some saving.

Some chat on BBC science about new Solar panels based on Lead instead of Silicon, better efficiency?

dr.fuzzenstein

reboot wrote: »

Some chat on BBC science about new Solar panels based on Lead instead of Silicon, better efficiency?

That must be a terrible dilemma for the greens.
Even though they don't care how much toxic sh*t is in "green" technology, as long as what they see as greener is used and fcuk the consequences.

Capt'n Midnight

reboot wrote: »

Some chat on BBC science about new Solar panels based on Lead instead of Silicon, better efficiency?

Haven't heard it.

But lead is cheaper than silicon, and much easier to recycle. Though in fairness silicon is more plentiful.

There are different ways to measure solar panel efficiency.
Percentage conversion is very different to cost per watt.

reboot

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

That must be a terrible dilemma for the greens.
Even though they don't care how much toxic sh*t is in "green" technology, as long as what they see as greener is used and fcuk the consequences.

You may have a point and delicately put. Story also mentioned the pollution from actually manufacturing Solar in the first place. I think these new ,more efficient and higher voltage cells are being considered for producing hydrogen in fuel cells, they may be Peroxide?

Capt'n Midnight

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

That must be a terrible dilemma for the greens.
Even though they don't care how much toxic sh*t is in "green" technology, as long as what they see as greener is used and fcuk the consequences.

LOL any of the studies I've seen show that renewables are way greener than the alternatives

There are many different solar technologies , some that use rare or toxic metals , but they usually do so in very small amounts compared to the same metals presence in fossil fuel ash.

Lead safely enclosed in panels isn't an issue compared to roughly 8Kg of lead in the battery on almost every car on the road, that's maybe half a percent of the total weight of all traffic. And new panels would have to be RoHS compliant.

Oddly enough at this stage some older panels might be worth scrapping for the materials in them. One of the many reasons why panels keep getting cheaper is that they are now thinner ( cutting silicon with lasers instead of saws, thin film technologies , organics ) so they need less materials.

josealdo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

LOL any of the studies I've seen show that renewables are way greener than the alternatives

There are many different solar technologies , some that use rare or toxic metals , but they usually do so in very small amounts compared to the same metals presence in fossil fuel ash.

Lead safely enclosed in panels isn't an issue compared to roughly 8Kg of lead in the battery on almost every car on the road, that's maybe half a percent of the total weight of all traffic. And new panels would have to be RoHS compliant.

Oddly enough at this stage some older panels might be worth scrapping for the materials in them. One of the many reasons why panels keep getting cheaper is that they are now thinner ( cutting silicon with lasers instead of saws, thin film technologies , organics ) so they need less materials.

what about bicycles ?

reboot

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

LOL any of the studies I've seen show that renewables are way greener than the alternatives

There are many different solar technologies , some that use rare or toxic metals , but they usually do so in very small amounts compared to the same metals presence in fossil fuel ash.

Lead safely enclosed in panels isn't an issue compared to roughly 8Kg of lead in the battery on almost every car on the road, that's maybe half a percent of the total weight of all traffic. And new panels would have to be RoHS compliant.

Oddly enough at this stage some older panels might be worth scrapping for the materials in them. One of the many reasons why panels keep getting cheaper is that they are now thinner ( cutting silicon with lasers instead of saws, thin film technologies , organics ) so they need less materials.

I believe the issues mentioned are discussed in the recent pod cast on Disoivery BBC World Service.

September1

figs666 wrote: »

what about bicycles ?

Dangerous hence high cost to society also fuel is very damaging to environment.

reboot

figs666 wrote: »

what about bicycles ?

"Get a bicycle,you won't regret it, if you live"
Mark Twain.

"Life is like a bicycle, if you want to keep your balance, you have to keep moving" Albert Einstein.:)

the_syco

LordSutch wrote: »

So what do you think will replace the internal combustion engine in twenty years time?

Depends on wars, who gets liberated, and who liberates them. I can see Russia liberating a few more countries from Western influence to expand to former USSR size. Oil, no respect for any laws, and not caring about it's image could mean that Russia won't need to hold back.

Thus oil may become too expensive, both in monetary terms, and in terms of the power it can hold over people. Lockheed Martin have mentioned it's fusion plan, but as someone has said, fusion power has always been 25 years away since 1960.

That said, if fusion power did become a reality, I could see it being given to most western countries to cut off Russia's supply of cash that it gets for it's current sale of oil and gas.

Cheap electricity could mean a larger push for better batteries, and in turn less economic use in cars, thus possibly an emergence of "muscle" electric cars with bigger engines to entice the petrol heads away from their petrol and diesel cars and trucks.

dr.fuzzenstein

It will have no benefit for the end consumer, can't, won't and never will.
The government is dependent on billions in tax on fossil fuel, imagine if we all bought electric cars? Either the state would face into an unprecedented crisis, or they would load the cars and electricity with taxes.
Early adaptors might seem to be getting a better deal, but will have to deal with poor supply, an unreliable product and a very high purchase price.
So in the end the consumer will have to get screwed for about the same amount in order for the states tax income to stay the same.

Capt'n Midnight

the_syco wrote: »

Cheap electricity could mean a larger push for better batteries, and in turn less economic use in cars, thus possibly an emergence of "muscle" electric cars with bigger engines to entice the petrol heads away from their petrol and diesel cars and trucks.

We already have muscle electric cars with things like the tesla and electric dragsters, the world speed record back in 1899 was held by an electric car

electricity is already cheap enough that once rail traffic raises to a certain level it's cheaper to move from diesel to overhead power lines.
The most ridiculous muscle car just doesn't to what you can do if tune up a train - The current TGV world speed record is 574.8 km/h (357.2 mph),



The problem is not the motors or the cost of electricity , it's the cost/weight of the batteries.