does anyone know if there has been any research into using a tightly wound coil to store kinetic energy which can then be used to maintain a cars speed on long trips. a purely electric car would require an enormous amount of battery power to keep it running, but what if you were to leave the internal combustion engine intact for the purpose of accelerating, then switch it off and use the energy in this coil to maintain its speed?
hybrid car idea
- Thread starter vslayer
- Start date
- Status
well forgive me for being inquisitive...but how exactly is that going to be enough?
How would you wind the spring to begin with? How big is this spring going to have to be in order to go say 100 miles? How much does it weigh? I really don't think this would be such a good idea by just asking those questions because the spring would be HUGE, it would weigh a ton or more and it would take a great deal of electricity to wind it up to begin with. 
Last edited:
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
It would be too heavy. One idea that might be practical for stationary energy storage is a carbon fiber disk, spun at tremendous speeds.
For automotive energy storage, compressed air is a more easily-constructed (and lighter) "spring" to employ.
Kinetic batteries are practical now, but waiting (like so many practical, economically-scalable alternatives to centralized and monopolized utilities are) for the overcoming of that infinitely-greater inertia... herd mentality.
In a more independent age still ahead, many of us will likely have flywheels buried in our back yards for storing the energy we all can harvest from sun, wind, water, and earth, and from right where we live.
[link with pop-up removed]
Kinetic batteries are practical now, but waiting (like so many practical, economically-scalable alternatives to centralized and monopolized utilities are) for the overcoming of that infinitely-greater inertia... herd mentality.
In a more independent age still ahead, many of us will likely have flywheels buried in our back yards for storing the energy we all can harvest from sun, wind, water, and earth, and from right where we live.
[link with pop-up removed]
Last edited by a moderator:
globenstein
Registered Senior Member
Flywheels?
Aren't flywheels extraordinarily inefficient? I remember doing some flywheel problems in physics class and something like a three story high wheel spinning around a frictionless axis at great speed didn't even hold enough energy to use a stove for a few minutes...
Aren't flywheels extraordinarily inefficient? I remember doing some flywheel problems in physics class and something like a three story high wheel spinning around a frictionless axis at great speed didn't even hold enough energy to use a stove for a few minutes...
It's fairly straightforward- a motor-generator/flywheel combination can be considerably simpler, more energy-dense, longer lived, more reliable, and more environmentally friendly than chemical batteries.
I have long advocated super-flywheel buses and urban delivery trucks that have the mobility to go anywhere in the city, as not tied to trolley lines etc.
(In part because 25 years ago I worked with Dan Rabenhorst of APL's space department, who was earlier developer of super fly wheels - testing various design to destruction. He tended to favor the "spinning brush" design, with glass or carbon fibers leaving radially form the hub, but did also work on some wound filament disks types. They all turn to dust when they fail and the production of a lot of surface area consumes much of the energy. You really do not want solid metal chuncks flying into heavy containment walls for mobile power.)
One thing, quite obvious, regardless of the Hype some of Hypewader's links provide, is that the most practical Earth bound applications are for short term storage. Certainly not for solar and wind energy to power your home thru the night as they suggest. This is because the flywheel axis of rotation is a fixed orientation in space, but the trees in your back yard rotate thru 90 degrees every 6 hours. Get real guys.
In addition to perhaps an order of magnitude, certainly a factor of 5, greater energy / pound storage capacity compared to modern batteries the more important aspect is the extremely low dissipation of energy in charging or discharging of the supper-flywheel compared to ALL batteries. This means for example that the supper flywheel bus can have relatively few "power poles" thru-out the city. Typically buses try to maintain a schedule (let the driver have a "bathroom break" cup of coffee, etc.) There is so little heat produced in recharge that it can be 100 times faster than batteries. In a 30 second stop while passengers get off and on at one of the power pole stops, the bus can recharge more than enough to go many miles of the level, especially if regenerative braking is used.
For the high energy cost era, the US badly needs to get away from traffic jams, pollution, private cars in cities make. The super-fly wheel bus is how. I have posted on it more than a year ago, but do not easily find where.
(In part because 25 years ago I worked with Dan Rabenhorst of APL's space department, who was earlier developer of super fly wheels - testing various design to destruction. He tended to favor the "spinning brush" design, with glass or carbon fibers leaving radially form the hub, but did also work on some wound filament disks types. They all turn to dust when they fail and the production of a lot of surface area consumes much of the energy. You really do not want solid metal chuncks flying into heavy containment walls for mobile power.)
One thing, quite obvious, regardless of the Hype some of Hypewader's links provide, is that the most practical Earth bound applications are for short term storage. Certainly not for solar and wind energy to power your home thru the night as they suggest. This is because the flywheel axis of rotation is a fixed orientation in space, but the trees in your back yard rotate thru 90 degrees every 6 hours. Get real guys.
In addition to perhaps an order of magnitude, certainly a factor of 5, greater energy / pound storage capacity compared to modern batteries the more important aspect is the extremely low dissipation of energy in charging or discharging of the supper-flywheel compared to ALL batteries. This means for example that the supper flywheel bus can have relatively few "power poles" thru-out the city. Typically buses try to maintain a schedule (let the driver have a "bathroom break" cup of coffee, etc.) There is so little heat produced in recharge that it can be 100 times faster than batteries. In a 30 second stop while passengers get off and on at one of the power pole stops, the bus can recharge more than enough to go many miles of the level, especially if regenerative braking is used.
For the high energy cost era, the US badly needs to get away from traffic jams, pollution, private cars in cities make. The super-fly wheel bus is how. I have posted on it more than a year ago, but do not easily find where.
Last edited by a moderator:
Since 2007, all IRL IndyCar series racers run on low environmental impact 100% ethanol fuel. Scheduled for release in the U.S. in the summer and in Japan in the autumn of this year, the FCX Clarity runs on hydrogen and emits no CO2 or other environmentally harmful emissions in operation, making it an ideal vehicle for the event. The fuel cell vehicle emits only water and is regarded as the ultimate environmentally responsible vehicle.
The FCX Clarity is powered by the highly compact, efficient and powerful Honda V Flow fuel cell stack. Boasting a low-slung, dynamic and sophisticated appearance made possible by the innovative layout of the fuel cell power plant, the FCX Clarity offers superior design and driving performance as well as environmental responsibility.
Among other duties, the FCX Clarity official car will act as a pace car at the start, leading the 18 race cars participating in the Indy Japan event, and will be on display inside the Twin Ring Motegi paddock.
FCX Clarity: Principal Specifications (U.S. Model)
Number of occupants 4
Motor Max. output 100kW
Max. torque 256N·m
Type AC synchronous electric motor
(permanent magnet)
Fuel cell stack Type PEMFC
(Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell)
Max. output 100kW
Fuel Type Compressed hydrogen gas
Storage High-pressure hydrogen tank(35MPa)
Tank capacity 171 liters
Dimensions(L×W×H) 4,835×1,845×1,470mm
Vehicle weight 1,625kg
Maximum speed 160km/h
Energy storage Lithium ion battery
Note: All values Honda calculations
http://world.honda.com/news/2008/4080416FCX-Clarity/
The FCX Clarity is powered by the highly compact, efficient and powerful Honda V Flow fuel cell stack. Boasting a low-slung, dynamic and sophisticated appearance made possible by the innovative layout of the fuel cell power plant, the FCX Clarity offers superior design and driving performance as well as environmental responsibility.
Among other duties, the FCX Clarity official car will act as a pace car at the start, leading the 18 race cars participating in the Indy Japan event, and will be on display inside the Twin Ring Motegi paddock.
FCX Clarity: Principal Specifications (U.S. Model)
Number of occupants 4
Motor Max. output 100kW
Max. torque 256N·m
Type AC synchronous electric motor
(permanent magnet)
Fuel cell stack Type PEMFC
(Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell)
Max. output 100kW
Fuel Type Compressed hydrogen gas
Storage High-pressure hydrogen tank(35MPa)
Tank capacity 171 liters
Dimensions(L×W×H) 4,835×1,845×1,470mm
Vehicle weight 1,625kg
Maximum speed 160km/h
Energy storage Lithium ion battery
Note: All values Honda calculations
http://world.honda.com/news/2008/4080416FCX-Clarity/
No it increases the total CO2 release in the US for at least a couple of decades.*
Very many non fossil fuel power plants need to be built just to get the fixed location loads off the fossil fuel tit. Until there is more non-fossil fuel power available to met these fixed loads it is silly to think of using hydrogen fuel cell cars. -this is just a great diversion by the oil companies** in their TV ads to keep attention from the "here and now" available fuel (alcohol for non-food crops) that is more powerful and about half the cost. Sugar cane alcohol is now more than half the car fuel used in Brazil and that scares the S--- out of the oil companies.
Note here I have not said anything about how impossibly costly the delivery of H2 to your car would be or the fact that storage tank for it would at least increase the weight of the car 50%, lowering its efficiency
DO NOT BE DISTRACTED BY THE OIL COMPANIES – THINK.
Demand the right to cut your cost of driving IN HALF, LOWER the CO2 in the air instead of increasing it by burning fossil fuels,*** and reduce the funding of the Saudi "religious" schools that teach students to hate the US so much that they flew planes into US building on 9/11.
*Almost three units of fossil energy burned at power plant for every unit of energy the H2 fuel cell can produce, even if it were 100% efficient, which is far from being.
** Often in partnership with a car company as neither wants there to be any change from the gas powered car one makes and the other fuels. Both need to divert your attention from the real threat - tropical alcohol. It appears they have 100% succeeded in fooling you.
Coal industry is more diversified - not just 7 global companies, and does not appear to be as dishonest (perhaps just dumber). They are just now starting to do PR about "how secure US would be with liquids from coal plants," but do not tell that they too will be inefficient, more costly fuel, and increase the pollution as the conversion is energy intensive. Not to mention that they will probably increase the pollution of streams and acid rain they already make with greater mining.
***Oil companies do NOT “produce oil” – They “de-sequester” it. It was carbon “safely sequestered” deep in the Earth until they sold it for you to pollute the air, add (who know how much, but something) to global warming. - But what the hell - with current prices it is the most profitable business that exist- but please do not consider taking away their tax breaks, such as the "depletion allowance," etc.
Last edited by a moderator:
yeah people...about fuell cell cars only releasing water...it's a darn lie. I went to the exposition of this hydrogen car technology and these things require lots of oil or some sort of chemicals to lubricate it or to cool it down...so it still releases NOX and other harmfull chemicals.
At Billy T.......
One often hears that powering vehicles with hydrogen fuel cells will eliminate pollution; that their only emission is water. In this situation water may be a very dangerous pollutant.
When hydrogen combines with oxygen to produce water in a fuel cell the hydrogen is taken from a tank carried in the vehicle and the oxygen is taken from the air (as it is in gasoline-combustion vehicles). The reaction is 2 H2 + O2 -> 2 H2O . So, for every 2 hydrogen atoms taken from the fuel tank, 1 oxygen atom is taken from the air. An oxygen atom is about 16 times more massive than a hydrogen atom, so the water molecule is 9 times [(16 + 2) / 2] more massive than the 2 hydrogen atoms used to make it.
Where is that water going to go when it is produce by the engine of a vehicle? It will come out as liquid or steam, depending on the "exhaust" temperture.
Depending on the weather conditions produced steam may rise and form clouds around the road, or it may form fog at the road surface, or it may condense and drop on the road. Even in warm weather water on the road will be dangerous. In freezing weather it will make the road downright treacherous, especially if most or all vehicles on the road are powered by hydrogen fuel cells.
The steam could be condensed and stored as very hot water in a tank in the vehicle. Then the vehicle will eventually have to carry 9 times as much mass as the hydrogen fuel tank carried when full, and the tank will be dangerously hot. Carrying the water around in the vehicle will greatly reduce the energy efficiency of the vehicle. The water tank would have to be emptied when the hydrogen tank is filled, or more often if it is not large enough to hold all the water produced by the total amount of hydrogen in the fuel tank. Pure water is good to have, but it sounds like something with which most vehicle drivers will not want to bother.
Don't forget that water vapor is a better greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Also, don't forget the pollution that occurs in the process of producing the hydrogen to be used as fuel; that needs to be studied very carefully.
http://www.roperld.com/science/fuelcellspollution.htm
The main point is that we are trying to use another type of fuel besides oil, that is why hydrogen will be , for the time being, the best of solutions until something better comes along.
One often hears that powering vehicles with hydrogen fuel cells will eliminate pollution; that their only emission is water. In this situation water may be a very dangerous pollutant.
When hydrogen combines with oxygen to produce water in a fuel cell the hydrogen is taken from a tank carried in the vehicle and the oxygen is taken from the air (as it is in gasoline-combustion vehicles). The reaction is 2 H2 + O2 -> 2 H2O . So, for every 2 hydrogen atoms taken from the fuel tank, 1 oxygen atom is taken from the air. An oxygen atom is about 16 times more massive than a hydrogen atom, so the water molecule is 9 times [(16 + 2) / 2] more massive than the 2 hydrogen atoms used to make it.
Where is that water going to go when it is produce by the engine of a vehicle? It will come out as liquid or steam, depending on the "exhaust" temperture.
Depending on the weather conditions produced steam may rise and form clouds around the road, or it may form fog at the road surface, or it may condense and drop on the road. Even in warm weather water on the road will be dangerous. In freezing weather it will make the road downright treacherous, especially if most or all vehicles on the road are powered by hydrogen fuel cells.
The steam could be condensed and stored as very hot water in a tank in the vehicle. Then the vehicle will eventually have to carry 9 times as much mass as the hydrogen fuel tank carried when full, and the tank will be dangerously hot. Carrying the water around in the vehicle will greatly reduce the energy efficiency of the vehicle. The water tank would have to be emptied when the hydrogen tank is filled, or more often if it is not large enough to hold all the water produced by the total amount of hydrogen in the fuel tank. Pure water is good to have, but it sounds like something with which most vehicle drivers will not want to bother.
Don't forget that water vapor is a better greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Also, don't forget the pollution that occurs in the process of producing the hydrogen to be used as fuel; that needs to be studied very carefully.
http://www.roperld.com/science/fuelcellspollution.htm
The main point is that we are trying to use another type of fuel besides oil, that is why hydrogen will be , for the time being, the best of solutions until something better comes along.
NONSENSE
Tropical alcohol "came along" in large scale as a car fuel 30 years ago in Brazil. About 100 years ago it was used in small scale (I think the Ford's model A (or T?) often ran on it as back when it first came out, alcohol was more available than gasoline.) The first diesel engines used bio fuel (various oils, but peanut oil was preferred, I think)
Either you work for Oil Company or Auto Company or cannot read with understanding my prior post or are brain dead. Hydrogen is not the fuel of the future and never will be as it is hard to store, inefficiently produced, and not even a fuel in truth - it is an energy storage agent. That gives back only fraction of the energy it took to make it.
I was not speaking of the weight of the hydrogen, but of the sturdy walled tank that can hold it at 200 or more atmospheres pressure or the very heavy metal hydrides than can absorb it on nearly a 1 to 1 atomic ratio. (These hydrides do not cycle well - worse than some batteries - i.e. they soon turn to useless dust and goo, so like batteries, they need to be replaced several times during a 10 year car life. They tend to be costly metals also.)
As far as water in the exhaust being dangerous that too is nonsense. Gasoline car make a lot of H2O. Thus as gas power auto releases H2O, this nonsense of yours eliminates either of the "working for oil or auto company" alternatives above. You seem to be able to read and write. - What does that leave? :shrug:
There is nothing man can do to increase the H2O in the air significantly by releasing it so long as the sun shines on the oceans and rain falls. Get Real.
Last edited by a moderator:
***Oil companies do NOT “produce oil” – They “de-sequester” it. It was carbon “safely sequestered” deep in the Earth until they sold it for you to pollute the air, add (who know how much, but something) to global warming. - But what the hell - with current prices it is the most profitable business that exist- but please do not consider taking away their tax breaks, such as the "depletion allowance," etc.
And if we leave it in the ground, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air will continually decrease.
Billy T, you seem to consider forces of precession as prohibitive for stationary flywheel batteries, while curiously advocating flywheels in mobile vehicles as the more promising application.
I think you have the magnitude of the challenges reversed: The slow, steady precession of planetary rotation is easily managed through the supporting bearings, whether mechanical or magnetic. In mobile applications, heavier and more failure-prone bearings and even gimbals are required for customary power/vehicle weight ratios. Stationary flywheel batteries are more straightforward to implement than mobile ones, because precession due to Earth's rotation is much smaller and more constant than what a moving vehicle induces.
Billy T: "the most practical Earth bound applications are for short term storage. Certainly not for solar and wind energy to power your home thru the night as they suggest. This is because the flywheel axis of rotation is a fixed orientation in space, but the trees in your back yard rotate thru 90 degrees every 6 hours. Get real guys."
The flywheel batteries under development are all about converting intermittent power input into sustained, steady output, without grid dependency. You're overblowing the challenge of slow, constant precession, while hastily dismissing some promising flywheel battery developments.
I think you have the magnitude of the challenges reversed: The slow, steady precession of planetary rotation is easily managed through the supporting bearings, whether mechanical or magnetic. In mobile applications, heavier and more failure-prone bearings and even gimbals are required for customary power/vehicle weight ratios. Stationary flywheel batteries are more straightforward to implement than mobile ones, because precession due to Earth's rotation is much smaller and more constant than what a moving vehicle induces.
Billy T: "the most practical Earth bound applications are for short term storage. Certainly not for solar and wind energy to power your home thru the night as they suggest. This is because the flywheel axis of rotation is a fixed orientation in space, but the trees in your back yard rotate thru 90 degrees every 6 hours. Get real guys."
The flywheel batteries under development are all about converting intermittent power input into sustained, steady output, without grid dependency. You're overblowing the challenge of slow, constant precession, while hastily dismissing some promising flywheel battery developments.
- Status