Duesenburg 2007

"Currently, there is another attempt to revive the Duesenberg name with the "Duesenberg Torpedo Coupe" slated for introduction in January 2007 at the Pebble Beach Concours d'Elegance. This vehicle will have a Mercedes CL 500 as a chassis-donor, and offer an air-cooled, self-lubricating, supercharged, 12 cylinder rotating engine with a calculated 70 MPG and 300 horsepower (see link below). "

Seriously. 70mpg for 300hp.

Call, response on Topic of Audi R-Zero

Blaze on. I hope it is legal where you are.

I would believe new batteries can acquire 180kwh. I agree the car is excessive, but so is an F1 racer. I appreciate that it exists [if it does] for research and medialyte purposes or/and public popularization and attention getting.

I am not interested in electric cars. I perused and engineered some battery cars, and found them somewhat unacceptable. By simply modifying the 1996 EV-1 car, which used lead/acid batteries getting 25kwh, to the new 150kwh liions, you could give it outstanding stats and/or a very long range, or reduce its weight. Weight is a major factor in e- cars. However, it still uses electricity generated from a filthy power plant, and battery technology is rather expensive. I would recommend all cars having their battery augmented by even a modest supercapacitor. I saw how to make a supercap 9v battery, I will test making a supercapacitor 12v battery for auto. Cold start and all that.

Hydrogen gas uncompressed in a 27cc engine produced 76.77hp in-piston at 1000rpm. This is freakish power. I could hold an engine of that size in my hands. To get an engine with midsize car level power, it would only need to be about 2 or 3 times that large, or spin faster depending on the strength of the metal, and a supercar would be cake.

We can get this hydrogen from the technology of water splitting, which i have researched and analyzed extensively. It has many industrio-fiscal side effects, though.

When you discuss hydrogen vs gas here, you are still analyzing force compared to charge. Gas and hydrogen both produce expansion, while battery produces charge. Turning this into torque is the single element that is important in the comparison you raise. Batteries have good torque and a meaningful vehicle can have enough e- motors to produce excellent force. I have noticed the multi-wheel e- vehicles, probably because of the limits on size of an electric motor. This is acceptable. More wheels are more stable and provide better grip [accel] and have few downsizes, except being ugly, but that can be fixed.

Electric transmissions I have read of can be 95.3% efficient, functioning as the wheel of the car. I have also read of multitronic transmissions eliminating the majority of the difficulty of chemical force translation, coming to perhaps 90-95% efficiency. A multitronic has fewer mving parts and is lighter and more efficient than a conventional crankshaft. Making this switch alone, which has no true downside, could save America $billions in fuel of any sort, and equal amounts in auto expense. I believe our consumption is being tailored to meet the needs of a cornering effort, though, accounting for current procedures and levels of marketing approval of alternative energy, organic foods, electric cars, etc. Well, you can read it at my sites. That is a theory I am ironing out in the medium-term.

I know of no way to recharge a chemical battery quickly. You could include compressed air in the vehicle's design to allow it to recharge continually while in operation. With an included compressor, this would allow electrical power to come from battery or turbine, and one could recharge the other, or the secondary could recharge the main if it grows dim. It could have a modest solar array to trickle charge all the time. These elements could all aid in charge level and performance.

Until we develop supercapacitors that can hold meaningful kwh, likely requiring introduction of warm-temperature superconductors and advanced atomic engineering [~spurred on by development of nanorobotics and 3D-printing, which will ~have to wait until after 2012, and new atomic and electromagnetic science popularized via water splitting] battery vehicles will be more limited.

If I were to tell you one thing, it would be Jesus Christ is the son of God. The second thing would be water splitting/fracturing.

X this by transportation reform, energy and power generation restructuring and decentralization.

Mans wrote:

> Hydrogen is less efficient well to wheels than pure battery electric. Well to wheels, hydrogen fuel cell car is about as efficient as internal combustion engine car, ~12%. Battery electric car is ~30% eff well to wheels. Forgive me in case I happen to be incoherent as I am drunk/stoned as I type this, but as an engineer, I have examined the possibilities for renewable energy. Excellent video, but hydrogen does not meet the hype. R-Zero is a silly, stupid vehicle. Its battery pack would be enough to give five midsize electric cars with no special attention to aerodynamic or rolling drag eff 200 miles range per charge. Anything over 2,500 pounds is extraneous weight for motorsport or canyon driving according to the folks at mulhollandraceway.org. The Audi R-zero has as much in common with a 'sports car' as a battle tank has in common with a farm tractor. Judging by the computer rendered images, Audi never built the R-Zero, even if the technology may be there to build it. Judging by the car's top speed of 286 mph, it has a Cd*A of ~5.5 ft^2, which given that Li Ion batteries are 150 Wh/kg, would have a battery pack ~180 kWh capacity. This would be 540 miles range or so at 65 mph for the R-Zero. But I don't think Audi ever built a working example of the car, even if technology may be there. If you have questions, please PM me. You would be wise to research the Eliica from Keio University in Japan. I'm going to go smoke another bowl. :-)

Electric Bus Goes 155 mph

BRING ME THE BUS.

I am pleased that this electric vehicle technology has been unleashed! However, the hydrogen car will still beat this machine's top speed. But a 155mph electric bus is very good. This vehicle apparently will be at the 2008 Olympic games in Beijing. I demand to see the schematics of this bus before the end of 2006. If a bus can do this any vehicle can.

This is the location of this image.

I think the bus' style is strange, but I'd get in. Especially if it slid up at 155mph and came when i texted it. However, the text should be sendable from the stop. 'Push button for bus'. Etc.

Show me the water splitter/fuel cell bus that powers itself and the city and I will join you and the aliens in utopia.

Bike and 1/2

While driving today I saw a musician and girlfriend riding on a bike and half. It was really fantastic because I had considered the topic previously by about a year and a half and would very much like to design one that runs on hydrogen and a little fuel cell. I recently finished designing the hydrogen powered motorcar, particularly getting 525Hp from a tiny 2-liter uncompressed engine running at 1000RPM. I think I could do very well with a 250ML engine [about the size of a soft drink] two-banger or similar style fuel cell engine, and race all over the place. The hydrogen vehicle probably wouldn't even need the pedals, but I would still incorporate them.

Honda has an interesting 4-stroke cylinder 49cc[ml] engine. I wonder how fast it will get to, and how many mpg it gets. It still burns gasoline so it is bad for the environment and economy.

Hydrogen burns at 325btu/cu'. 1 hp = 2540btu/h. Hydrogen is uncompressed at 10 molecules per cc. 30cm X 30cm X 30cm = 1 square foot. That is 2700cc and 270,000 atoms of hydrogen burning [in one hour] to make 1hp.

If we have a 250ml engine and it is filled with hydrogen running at X [1000] rpm, at 1:1 compression, how many Hp will it produce? 270,000 atoms of hydrogen in one hour is 1hp.

1 RPM is one engineload of hydrogen in one minute. There are 60 minutes in an hour.

If we burn 1 cubic foot of hydrogen [2700cc] 2.7 liters of engine worth of hydrogen per full engine rotation, that will produce 325btu of power uncompressed per cycle. If the engine spins at 1000rpm, it will burn 325,000btu of hydrogen in one minute, and 19,500,000btu/h. 19,500,000btu/h divided by 2540btu/h = 7677.165 hp. This is substantial Hp, and a 2.7 liter engine should not be allowed to run or it would destroy itself.

I need perhaps 100hp. Not 7677Hp. What could I do to reduce the power of this engine? I suppose reducing it to a 270CC engine would be suitable, and would produce 'only' 767.7Hp @ 1000RPM. I could even do a 27CC engine that made 76.77Hp. That is enough for one man on a horse.

According to net speculation, the Kawasaki ZX6 has around 98BHp, X transmission inefficiency. It's a 500 pound bike. The hydrogen one should be substantially lighter, but that is for another engineering project.

I am not sure if regular metal will be able to absorb and use this kind of power intensity repeatedly. It can probably be done, but it will need to be solid product or it'll just warp the iron right off. Maybe a kind of carbon fiber with metal support through it, and a governor of sorts. We could also dilute the hydrogen by increasing the piston size but not the flow. That would reduce psi.

Hmm. 76.77hp might not be enough for a quick bike. We will need to devote 1/3 of the power generated to special electrolysis. Furthermore, the multitronic transmission is estimated 90% efficient for the remaining force. It will require about 25.6Hp of force to produce the energy needed for electrolysis.

...since electrolysis is required for this operation, it would be wiser to run the hydrogen through a fuel cell than convert it back through a large alternator. That project will be acquired once the combustion method and fuel cell stats have been completed.

I recommend a 54CC engine running at 1000RPM producing ~153.54 Hp from uncompressed hydrogen gas. ~50hp of it used for electrolysis, leaving ~100Hp for the drivetrain. A multitronic transmission estimated 90% efficient putting 90Hp on the road.

Since the engine is so tiny and the amount of fuel is at the level of drops not liters, I estimate this bike will weigh not more than 300 pounds. I don't care about the mpg for this feature. It is probably numerous times more efficient than the 525hp engine [which must be corrected far upwards for HP-BTU translation.]

Now, the fuel cell. I am not totally sure how to go about doing this. I could probably figure how many jourles of energy a fuel cell produced per reaction. I water splitter attached to a fuel cell would be a FANTASTIC journey. I could attach the fuel cell to a series of brushless dynamos and take any vehicle spinning for about a billion hours. I mean, quintillion.

1 Hp of power equals 0.746 KW of power. 1 watt = 1 joule per second.