caber
|
| posted on 27/1/06 at 10:24 PM |
|
|
one step beyond the BEC
After following a link on NACA ducts I started to think about what we should do to move beyond BECs to the ultimate 7.
There is concern of the environmentalists over the use of petrol and the seemingly weekly price hikes. We are likely to face ever stricter SVA and
MOT requirements for emissions, not to mention the daft "pedestrian protection" add ons. It is time we looked for the next development of
the 7.
Our design skills have been focussed on light weight construction, general simplicity of design and componentry and an open minded approach to design
and construction problems, therefore we should be looking towards developing ideas that will work with power sources that will get us out of the
petrol loop.
The idea I am beginning to formulate is not new. Those of us who have already build sevens of whatever type will undoubtedly have used the power
source that has come to mind, almost certainly those of us who are still building will have resorted to this method of propulsion as well.
Back to my browsing last night I discovered a rich stream of research into this power source and even found several competition series that are
specifically set up for this. The competitions are all about light weight and aerodynamics with the powersource being capable of tuning up to a point
in a way that , interestingly, reduces the total weight of the vehicle until it reaches maximum power to weight potential!
You may think this is a backward step in development however, if you think about it motor bikes are a bit behind cars in the overall vehicle
development history so if we take one step back from the motor bike we come to one of the most energy efficient vehicles that is known to man. The
information I found is all based on the further development of these vehicles, improving speed and acceleration.
I conclude that the next development of the 7 should be the HP7, the human powered seven! Levereging our skills and knowledge in light weight
structures with high technology applied to bicycles that is ever closer to the technologies we are familiar with, from the hydraulic disk brakes to
the high tech speed / distance / power computers, we must be able to come up with the ultimate HPV.
Of course the power source may take some tuning particularly in my case however the whole project should be very beneficial all around, what do you
think?
Caber
|
|
|
|
|
OX
|
| posted on 27/1/06 at 11:00 PM |
|
|
well if you think im gonna go back to peddling my self around you can think again 
yes maybe the everyday bike is backward compared to the everyday car but i think the engine is far more advanced,,no im not dissing the car engine
,,may even put one in my next kit 
|
|
|
rusty nuts
|
| posted on 27/1/06 at 11:07 PM |
|
|
Pedal powered flight even? something like the plane thet crossed the channel , think it was Gossamer Albetross?. Think about it, no traffic jams, no
fumes , road rage and plenty of exercise , err gone off that idea.
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 27/1/06 at 11:43 PM |
|
|
It was because of pedal power that I passed my driving test
So I'd never have to pedal again
If you want next gen, then electric is the way.
Weight of R V8/box/prop and diff replaced with batteries and electric motor(s) would be quiet Charged up by nuke powered gen stations!
ATB
Simon
[Edited on 27/1/06 by Simon]
|
|
|
Chippy
|
| posted on 27/1/06 at 11:58 PM |
|
|
Hydrogen powered car engines, thats the way foreword. Develop a cracker system to supply hydrogen from water, inject into modified internal combustion
engine, and the only stuff to come out of the exhaust is oxygen. The only reason this has not been developed is the power of the oil producers, and
the likes of Georg W. the US Petrol head.
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 28/1/06 at 12:28 AM |
|
|
dont be such a bush whacker the technology exists but will only gradually reach fruition as oil runs lower - id guess ten years and it will be
common. Its called displaced emisisons, as the emissions are produced at one power plant that splits the water into hydrogen and oxygen. The exhaust
is water/steam.
|
|
|
jolson
|
| posted on 28/1/06 at 12:47 AM |
|
|
something like this??
< < < < < (yes, you're looking at the avatar
that's me doing 35 around Aldersley velodrome a number of years ago. These days the record is 81mph over 200m (with a 5mile + run up). Small
practical velomobiles can get up to surprising speeds if you press hard enough on the pedals.
Some good video on the easyracers site here
Cheers
John
|
|
|
olv
|
| posted on 28/1/06 at 01:29 AM |
|
|
the problem with hydrogen is that is requires such large amounts of energy to crack it from water that not matter how efficient the system or vehicle
is that it's being used in, if you look at the system as a whole it's very inefficient.
[/drunk ramblings]
|
|
|
stevec
|
| posted on 28/1/06 at 08:29 AM |
|
|
Easy solution to this, Put the pedals in the passenger side!
|
|
|
rusty nuts
|
| posted on 28/1/06 at 09:11 AM |
|
|
No good Steve, the missus will not get into the car again . It messed her hair up , still I don't suppose she would pedal fast enough
|
|
|
cossey
|
| posted on 28/1/06 at 09:38 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by olv
the problem with hydrogen is that is requires such large amounts of energy to crack it from water that not matter how efficient the system or vehicle
is that it's being used in, if you look at the system as a whole it's very inefficient.
[/drunk ramblings]
its actually for efficient than petrol or diesel just not by enough to justify the costs.
|
|
|
clbarclay
|
| posted on 28/1/06 at 10:55 AM |
|
|
Looking at the picture as a hole, if you want to get from A to B as effciently as possible then half a ton of space frame chassis is just dead
weight.
The question you need to ask your self is what are you trying to achive. if its a reduction in green house gasses, then why not turn to bio fuels.
Because the plants take in as much CO2 from the atmosphere as your car burning the fuel chucks out the level of green house gasses will not
increase.
Another reson for bio fuels is that plants like oil seed rape can be burnt straing without processing in coal fired power stations. Combine this with
the numerous mouth balled coal power stations that are left in the UK and you have renuable sourced electricity.
The problem with petrol and diesel is that the fuel companies have to greater grip on the market, and us lot are not likely to stop buying there
fuels, its just not practical. Would/could you live without you car (or any other fosil fuel buring form of transport) for a year just to save the
planet?
If you did then the time and money would be invested in ulternatives like bio fuels or wind/solar power and the costs of these energy sources would
drop dramacitall as there output is increased.
[Edited on 28/1/06 by clbarclay]
|
|
|
Spyderman
|
| posted on 28/1/06 at 02:31 PM |
|
|
I have often wondered what a direct comparison would be like and have never seen the figures, unless someone here can direct me to a site/
book/source, for electric and petrol!
The seven clones would be a good basis for a comparison. Light weight and easy access.
A saloon car would be much harder to do a comparison on as they are designed around their power plants.
As a basis for comparison I would choose something like a 1100/1300 kent or maybe an A series engined seven. This would give lively if not supercar
performance, but would be more like the power required for general driving.
What I would like to know is:
1. Weight of motors and batteries needed in comparison with Petrol engine componemts.
2. Driving range, obviously dependent on 1.
3. Cost of recharging and time needed to recharge.
4. Expected lifespan of batteries and other componemts.
No doubt if weights are not similar then there could be many variations to the above. So some basis for direct comparison would be needed.
Any other suggestions for comparisons?
Terry
[Edited on 28/1/06 by Spyderman]
Spyderman
|
|
|
clbarclay
|
| posted on 28/1/06 at 03:03 PM |
|
|
Electricty comes into your home through a nice clean white plug socket, but thats not to say its clean to produce. The norm is either you've got
fosil fuels being burnt (no better than your petrol engine), or nuclear power that leaves you with waste to deal with.
Also as I understand it batteries are not a particularely efficient way of storeing energy. Batteries have there time and place like in forklift
trucks where the weight of the battery helps counter balance the truck.
[Edited on 28/1/06 by clbarclay]
|
|
|
kev R1
|
| posted on 28/1/06 at 03:17 PM |
|
|
YOU'RE NOT A GLUE SMOKING STUDENT BY ANY CAHNCE ARE YOU!!!! pedal power get a life!!!
|
|
|
caber
|
| posted on 28/1/06 at 06:27 PM |
|
|
Oh well as you don't seem to fancy the exerecise involved in that scheme and seem wedded to the infernal combustion engine I have another idea.
To take this one forward i will need some help from anyone on the forum with medical knowledge about the human digestive system. I would need some
approximations as to the quantity of curry to be consumed on a Friday night that will provide a full Saturday of methane powered automotive fun.
This approach may be more acceptable to those of us on the cuddly side of lean fit racing machine and is still highly environmentally friendly as
Methane is also a greenhouse gas so reducing emissions would be generally good for the planet.
Caber
PS I have already applied for the US patent on a butt plug with non return valve and hose connection If anyone is interested I can sell them a
working prototype!
[Edited on 1/28/2006 by caber]
|
|
|
rusty nuts
|
| posted on 28/1/06 at 07:07 PM |
|
|
Always find in my case that brussel sprouts seem to work better (or is that worse ) than a curry .P.S Stilton's good as well
|
|
|
clbarclay
|
| posted on 29/1/06 at 01:58 PM |
|
|
So what do you run your car on?
Regulare balti
Super jalfrezi
or the bio plant alternative
5% Sprout balti mix
(The 5% Sprout balti mix is actually quite nice on boxing day)
|
|
|
cossey
|
| posted on 31/1/06 at 03:06 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by clbarclay
Electricty comes into your home through a nice clean white plug socket, but thats not to say its clean to produce. The norm is either you've got
fosil fuels being burnt (no better than your petrol engine), or nuclear power that leaves you with waste to deal with.
Also as I understand it batteries are not a particularely efficient way of storeing energy. Batteries have there time and place like in forklift
trucks where the weight of the battery helps counter balance the truck.
[Edited on 28/1/06 by clbarclay]
power stations are roughly twice as efficient as cars though so modern gas dual cycle plants are not as bad as most people say. the main problem comes
in storing and using the energy, batteries are very poor (hence many battery powered cars are less efficent than petrol powered ones)
nuclear power stations are the future as waste storage technology has pretty much been sorted and they are far better for the environment.
fuel cells are better than batteries and linked to co2 free power stations (read nuclear as wind and solar are a waste of time) can sort alot of our
greenhouse warming probs.
|
|
|
caber
|
| posted on 31/1/06 at 06:26 PM |
|
|
Cossey,
Does that mean my third idea of using a small wind turbine on the font of the leccy 7 to keep the batteries topped up is also a no goer?
How about a very small nuclear plant that you could fit into a 7? How could you get electricity out of this without the hassle of a steam turbine? Or
maybe we should be looking at steam power direct from the nuclear plant? a multi cylinder high revving 2 stage expansion engine conected direct to
back axle, this always has the advantage of 100% torque at 0 revs?
Caber 
|
|
|
cossey
|
| posted on 1/2/06 at 08:55 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by caber
Cossey,
Does that mean my third idea of using a small wind turbine on the font of the leccy 7 to keep the batteries topped up is also a no goer?
How about a very small nuclear plant that you could fit into a 7? How could you get electricity out of this without the hassle of a steam turbine? Or
maybe we should be looking at steam power direct from the nuclear plant? a multi cylinder high revving 2 stage expansion engine conected direct to
back axle, this always has the advantage of 100% torque at 0 revs?
Caber
the wind turbine on the car would creat so much drag that the energy needed to overcome the drag would massively outweigh the energy collected from
the turbine.
small nuclear is also a no go as the technology doesnt scale well. (plus would you want to have to fill half the car with concrete to form a safety
shield)
however if you could then i would use a steam turbine and a cvt style gearbox as even with the low efficiency of the gearbox it would be out weighed
by the massively high turbine efficency.
the comment about solar/wind being a waste of time is not beacause the technolgy doesnt work it is more due to the cost and space requirements for it
to make a real impact. to get to the government targets for wind farms will require covering very large stretches of the country.
France gets 75% of its electricty from nuclear power and exports very large amounts to the UK (more than we produce by windfarms) at yet over there it
is a non issue. they are also constructing the worlds first nuclear fusion power plant which once theyve got the technology sort will provide vast
amounts of energy without the waste. if we put all the money we are wasting on windfarms into developing a truely futureproof power source then our
co2 problems would go away alot faster.
|
|
|
caber
|
| posted on 1/2/06 at 12:29 PM |
|
|
Cosssey
I was kidding about the wind turbine on the car, if that woekrd it would be a perpetual motion machine, still working on that one!
I disagreee that wind turbines are not a good potential source of power particularly off shore, I don't know if anyone is thinking about the
soon to be redundant production platforms in the North Sea you could certianly stick wind and wave generators on these structures up the voltage and
stick a coaxial cable in the sea between them and the land.
Personally I quite like how turbines look and they are quiet these days, i would be happy to see a lot more around the landscape and you can stick the
NIMBY's in the foundation concrete!
I also think we need to look at coal again there is lots under the UK that suddenly became uneconomic to extract in the Thatcher era.
I also agree that nuclear is potentially viable as long as they build plants on top of the ones they are decommissioning and this time build them so
they are either long term repairable or built for an operating life of 100 years not the 20 to 30 the current lot seem to have lasted for. I would
also like them to stop using Gas turbine plants unless for emergency top up though a working coal fired plant can very rapidly increase output if
required.
So how else can I generate high pressure steam for my theoretical eco7
Caber
|
|
|
.jpg)
