Montanans and electric cars

Barely related thread drift trivia.

Name an electrically powered research mission, that has remained fully charged after working for 45 years, and now transits interstellar space.





Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk
 
bigwheelzip said:
Name an electrically powered research mission, that has remained fully charged after working for 45 years, and now transits interstellar space.
Click to expand...

Voyager.

But, electricity didn't put it in space, nor propel it to start its journey.

And it runs on about 1/2 the wattage required to run a coffee maker. ;)
 
Last edited:
Rodan said:
Voyager.

But, electricity didn't put it in space, nor propel it to start its journey.

And it runs on about 1/2 the wattage required to run a coffee maker. ;)
Click to expand...

And it hasn't held a charge for 45 years, instead is has generated power constantly using pressed plutonium-238 oxide spheres, probably something we don't want powering our cars.
 
vt_shooter said:
... using pressed plutonium-238 oxide spheres, probably something we don't want powering our cars.
Click to expand...

I might give it a try. I worked on the manufacture of the RTGs for DoE/NASA, and they were designed to withstand a catastrophic launch failure without leakage. Though cost might be a bit higher than my current VW.




Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk
 
Hybrid has one good party trick. where there is heavy stop and go traffic and wildly dynamic loads as is encountered in an urban environment, it can put otherwise wasted energy into battery reserve to expend it at the next high demand condition.
Outside this environment, it operates at a loss, constantly converting kinetic energy to electrical where a percentage is needlessly lost to heat.
It has a place, but by no means is it a universal fit for the American condition.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
bigwheelzip said:
BINGO!!

Yes, chemistry got it moving, and radioisotopes will keep it electrically powered for a very long time.
The package power output was designed for the mission, and fully scalable.


Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

gettin' warmer ...
"Modular Molten Salt Reactor" is the latest gizmo in the glow in the dark toybox. Some expired coal plants have become host to some of these systems with early reports being favorable.
I believe this could be applied to a power intensive process to create a liquid alternative fuel.
To apply it to EV's leaves a glaring infrastructure problem. Power transmission lines in place are inadequate to carry the power demand, and upgrade is cost prohibative.
Much shorter line runs to a methanol plant presents much better logistics
 
With all due respect, they are not making fun of Montanans. The goal is to make fun of flyover country whether that is Montana or Ohio.

"The Hunger Games" clued us into the underlying current in society that us folks who live more that 250 mi from the coast are here to mine and manufacture what the coasts desire.

When you belittle us enough, it will be ok to mine our land, steal our water and use us to make the coastal electricity.

Additionally, I hear they have a guy who wants to scrape and vacuum those off the floor of the ocean. Says it is all laying on the surface of the ocean floor. I'm sure mining that won't destroy too much marine habitat!
 
WR Moore said:
Well, the Benz patent-if he had one-has certainly run out. Battery pack weight might sink the power to weight ratio to the point of being impractical.

If we're being practical, the diesel electric pattern used on locomotives, heavy haul mining trucks and some other stuff would work. Pretty much hybrid on the industrial scale, but the ICE is always running. Often at a fixed most efficient engine speed.
Click to expand...

That last point meets the most instant customer resistance. Just ask all the CVT haters. "It doesn't sound right" they wail.

My biggest beef with hybrids and electric vehicles is that the manufacturers go off the deep end with insane interior designs that are just a man-machine interface (MMI) disaster and visually bloody awful. When I drive a car, I spend more time looking at the inside of a car than the outside. If the interior looks like a 1990s all-in-one stereo coughed its guts up on every surface, I don't want to be in there. Some of the exterior mods can be questionable, too.
 
Last edited:
pharmer said:
If you have ever sparked gasoline fumes you know how much energy is available from that vapor. If auto makers explored that potential I imagine it's possible to go hundreds of miles on fumes. Except nobody wants that so we are stuck with fuel injection which still burns liquid gas. There might come a time when "smart folks" actually work on solutions to our energy problems but unfortunately they spend all their time on TV raising money to defeat their "enemies", the stupid who disagree with them. Joe
Click to expand...

Gasoline engines do burn vaporized fuel. Liquid gasoline doesn't burn.
 
LVSteve said:
That last point meets the most instant customer resistance. Just ask all the CVT haters. "It doesn't sound right" they wail.

My biggest beef with hybrids and electric vehicles is that the manufacturers go off the deep end with insane interior designs that are just a man-machine interface (MMI) disaster and visually bloody awful. When I drive a car, I spend more time looking at the inside of a car than the outside. If the interior looks like a 1990s all-in-one stereo cough its guts up on every surface, I don't want to be in there. Some of the exterior mods can be questionable, too.
Click to expand...

Americans seem to be completely inept at designing good looking cars. Modern 'infotainment' systems are a disaster. Way too fiddley.
 
johngalt said:
Gasoline engines do burn vaporized fuel. Liquid gasoline doesn't burn.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the gas is in the form of finely atomized liquid when it is burned in a car motor. If you turn it into a vapor you cannot get the mass flow of gas and air you need to make power.
 
LVSteve said:
My understanding is that the gas is in the form of finely atomized liquid when it is burned in a car motor. If you turn it into a vapor you cannot get the mass flow of gas and air you need to make power.
Click to expand...

Atomized liquid is a vapor. To burn properly you need the correct air fuel ratio, I think 14 to 1. Fuel injectors (and carberators in the past) are designed to create a vapor of the correct ratio.

Some fuel is always wasted with throttle body injection (injected and mixed with air above the intake and drawn in). Direct injection ( injected directly into the cylinder) is supposed to solve this but requires very high pressure to atomize the fuel so that it properly mixes with the air. Which has also been a problem with reliability as some companies have had problems with fuel pump failures.

Regardless of the method, engines are burning a vapor.
 
LVSteve said:
My understanding is that the gas is in the form of finely atomized liquid when it is burned in a car motor. If you turn it into a vapor you cannot get the mass flow of gas and air you need to make power.
Click to expand...

Right now the most efficient internal combustion engine is about 50% and most are closer to 35% and that is at the fly wheel. The is still drive line loss and Atmospheric drag.

But, face it a lot of fuel is often burned hauling just 1 200#+- human around in a 3000#+ car. Yes I do it to.
 
Last edited:
I think this sums it up quite nicely

b8eb6dc6a22f130a919cf4cbac74a488.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Faulkner
Tales from the Faulkner Files: Vehicle vs deer
2 3
Replies
42
Views
2K
steelslaver
steelslaver
LVSteve
Reflections on a road trip to Reno
Replies
7
Views
698
Nevada Ed
Nevada Ed
TXBryan
A perfect day
Replies
5
Views
1K
robvious
robvious
LVSteve
Nasty rental car experience
Replies
17
Views
1K
BC38
BC38
walkin jack
Childhood memories
2 3
Replies
40
Views
2K
pmanton
pmanton

Latest posts

Back
Top