"Bob Hobden" wrote in message
...

The rotary engines we have developed have
all proved less efficient in practice than the
old reciprocating engine (check fuel consumption)
which is why only Mazda persist with them and
then in only one vehicle in their range. Controlling
pollution from them has been a major problem too.

Mazda make a number of cars with rotary engines, but not sold here. The
Wankle is best suited to high revving applications, hence the sports car.
The RX8 is an improved rotary and of only 1300cc giving 225 HP. See if a
1300cc piston engine can deliver that. Also these engines are physically
small with a very high power to weight ratio.

They are best suited to high revving applications. That is why they are
used in light aircraft. The Norton motorbike rotary (which improved the
design too) was sold of to two concerns. One makes it for light aircraft
and the other for target drone aircraft, requiring a small heat and sound
signature, which end up at the bottom of the sea.

The Russians make two rotary engines: one for a plane and the other is used
(well two of them) in a helicopter, which is an ideal application for this
unit.

The "Wankle" design of rotary is flawed to what is acheivable, (Wankle never
invented the rotary) and far newer and improved designs are in development.
Again the Russians just reversed an idea that is the reverse of the wankel.
Instead of an elliptical chamber and triangular rotor, it is the reverse.
The seals are in the engine block, and can be readily and super easily
changed if necessary. The mixed gas input is via the rotor, which is the
equivalent of injecting the mixture via the piston in a piston engine.

The Canadians have the Qusiturboine, a sort of rotary and turbine together
which has received good press. Here are some web sites on concept engines
and some that are in development
http://conceptengine.tripod.com/

http://www.deadbeatdad.org/eliptoid/

All it needs is a big maker to adopt one of the concepts and run with it.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
That is simply not so.

With 300 mile range and potentially one hour fast charge from flat, it
would be ideal for rural use and commuting.

If you add 'potential' to that I might believe you. Non of the electric or
hybrid vehicles I've read about being tested in real world conditions get
near their claims of range, etc. And a one hour charge rules out lead acid
batteries - so the cost of alternatives is presently prohibitive.

What it won't do is 16 hour 1000 mile journeys...

Well, nor will any petrol car I know about without re-fuelling. And anyone
doing such a drive should have a couple of breaks anyway.

--
*Windows will never cease *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

If you're going to build underground car parks for all city cars that
haven't their own off road parking, wouldn't it make much more sense to
spend the money on extending the tube network and making it cheap/free?
An electric car is only suitable for city use and will do nothing for
congestion.

That is simply not so.

With 300 mile range and potentially one hour fast charge from flat, it
would be ideal for rural use and commuting.

Yes,indeed, it would. It is, I agree, a more realistic target than
breeding flying pigs.

2) The petrol used in 300 miles by a typical modern car contains
about 1 GJoule. If we assume a factor of two higher efficiency, then
charging in an hour needs 140 KW. A standard domestic power circuit
is rated at 7 KW. You have a factor of 20 to make up.

Dammit, a CYCLIST will expend some 20 MJoules in 300 miles. Recharging
that in an hour needs 6 KW! There is NO WAY that you will design a car
to be as efficient as a cyclist, despite the motor lobby propaganda.

2) Despite claims, such devices would NOT help with congestion to
a detectable degree.

You CAN fully charge a lithium car in about an hour, but you need
specailsed charging facilities to do it safely.

You need specialised facilities to charge the damn things at all, at
any rate. The necessity for fancy protection mechanisms is one of the
reasons that they are expensive.



Please could you take this stuff to a newsgroup (a) where people are
knowledgable about this sort of thing and (b) where it is on group?


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
That is simply not so.

With 300 mile range and potentially one hour fast charge from flat, it
would be ideal for rural use and commuting.

If you add 'potential' to that I might believe you. Non of the electric or
hybrid vehicles I've read about being tested in real world conditions get
near their claims of range, etc. And a one hour charge rules out lead acid
batteries - so the cost of alternatives is presently prohibitive.

What it won't do is 16 hour 1000 mile journeys...

Well, nor will any petrol car I know about without re-fuelling. And anyone
doing such a drive should have a couple of breaks anyway.

--
*Windows will never cease *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

"Bob Hobden" wrote in message
...

The rotary engines we have developed have
all proved less efficient in practice than the
old reciprocating engine (check fuel consumption)
which is why only Mazda persist with them and
then in only one vehicle in their range. Controlling
pollution from them has been a major problem too.

Mazda make a number of cars with rotary engines, but not sold here. The
Wankle is best suited to high revving applications, hence the sports car.
The RX8 is an improved rotary and of only 1300cc giving 225 HP. See if a
1300cc piston engine can deliver that. Also these engines are physically
small with a very high power to weight ratio.

They are best suited to high revving applications. That is why they are
used in light aircraft. The Norton motorbike rotary (which improved the
design too) was sold of to two concerns. One makes it for light aircraft
and the other for target drone aircraft, requiring a small heat and sound
signature, which end up at the bottom of the sea.

The Russians make two rotary engines: one for a plane and the other is used
(well two of them) in a helicopter, which is an ideal application for this
unit.

The "Wankle" design of rotary is flawed to what is acheivable, (Wankle never
invented the rotary) and far newer and improved designs are in development.
Again the Russians just reversed an idea that is the reverse of the wankel.
Instead of an elliptical chamber and triangular rotor, it is the reverse.
The seals are in the engine block, and can be readily and super easily
changed if necessary. The mixed gas input is via the rotor, which is the
equivalent of injecting the mixture via the piston in a piston engine.

The Canadians have the Qusiturboine, a sort of rotary and turbine together
which has received good press. Here are some web sites on concept engines
and some that are in development
http://conceptengine.tripod.com/

http://www.deadbeatdad.org/eliptoid/

All it needs is a big maker to adopt one of the concepts and run with it.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

In article ,
IMM wrote:
Mazda make a number of cars with rotary engines, but not sold here.

They sell rotary engined cars here.

The Wankle is best suited to high revving applications, hence the
sports car. The RX8 is an improved rotary and of only 1300cc giving 225
HP. See if a 1300cc piston engine can deliver that.

Since its specific fuel consumption is terrible for the power output, who
cares what the nominal capacity is? Apart from the likes of you, of
course. You could easily achieve 173 bhp/litre from a piston engine by
turbo or supercharging.

Also these engines are physically
small with a very high power to weight ratio.

That, at least, is true.

--
* What do they call a coffee break at the Lipton Tea Company? *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
That is simply not so.

With 300 mile range and potentially one hour fast charge from flat, it
would be ideal for rural use and commuting.

If you add 'potential' to that I might believe you. Non of the electric or
hybrid vehicles I've read about being tested in real world conditions get
near their claims of range, etc. And a one hour charge rules out lead acid
batteries - so the cost of alternatives is presently prohibitive.

What it won't do is 16 hour 1000 mile journeys...

Well, nor will any petrol car I know about without re-fuelling. And anyone
doing such a drive should have a couple of breaks anyway.

--
*Windows will never cease *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

In article ,
IMM wrote:
Mazda make a number of cars with rotary engines, but not sold here.

They sell rotary engined cars here.

The Wankle is best suited to high revving applications, hence the
sports car. The RX8 is an improved rotary and of only 1300cc giving 225
HP. See if a 1300cc piston engine can deliver that.

Since its specific fuel consumption is terrible for the power output, who
cares what the nominal capacity is? Apart from the likes of you, of
course. You could easily achieve 173 bhp/litre from a piston engine by
turbo or supercharging.

Also these engines are physically
small with a very high power to weight ratio.

That, at least, is true.

--
* What do they call a coffee break at the Lipton Tea Company? *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 15:18:53 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


And how many folk are gong to be trained to be proficient in servicing such
a vastly complicated object?

About the same number trained to be proficient in fixing electronic
faults in a modern car. Around zero :-((((
--
Martin

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 15:18:53 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


And how many folk are gong to be trained to be proficient in servicing such
a vastly complicated object?

About the same number trained to be proficient in fixing electronic
faults in a modern car. Around zero :-((((
--
Martin

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

It is the loses at generation and transmission
losses. This can be reduced by having smaller
local power stations, the UK had them, using
natural gas, using CHP to heat the local district.

The indirect transmision losses involved in
shovelling large numbers of loads of small
amounts of fuel to thousands of small power
stations all over the country are vastly greater
than the transmission losses in power cables.

Not if the fuel is in natural gas pipelines.

I thought that the natural gas accessible to the UK was not all that much
any more.

Transmission losses then are low and overall
energy efficient is very high. Sweden do this.

I bet they have not looked carefully
enough at the costs and energy
efficiencies of such a policy, unless
they are in a position in which the
fuel is naturally available dispersed
all over the country.

The last time I looked, there were highly viable.

The issues then become how to generate electricity without using
fossil
fuel and/or heat engines. Feul cells are not heat engines, but
usually
use fossil fuel. Nuclear power doesn't use fossil fuel, but does use
a
heat engine. windmills do neither, but are ugly, of variable power,
and
woefully inefficient in terms of space used.

"woefully inefficient in terms of space used"?
You see cows grazing under them. They can
be in the middle of fields and only occupy a small
footprint. There are windmill farms being built off-shore
all over the UK right now, Out of sight.

Sadly, incapable of producing anything more
than a negligible amout of power.

The UK is aiming for 25% of its power generation by wind. CHP Stirling
boilers are also envisaged to fill gaps too.

It would surprise me if they ever got that much wind power installed.

Water and wave power does
neither, but is localised as to its applicability. solar cells are
even
ore woefully inneficient,

Wet solar panels generally inefficient per squ foot,

You should not use such a meaningless
term in a discussion which is more or
less scientifically based.

??? You can get high efficient wet solar panels, but they are "very"
expensive. Flat plate collectors are a lot less efficient.

Efficiency is defined as power out/power in.
There is no room for a subsidiary phrase
"per square foot".

You should understand how flat plate collectors work.

I do indeed understand how they work. The term "efficiency per square foot"
is nonsense.
Do you mean to tell me that if a panel has an efficiency of 1% per square
foot, the installation of, say, 200 sq. ft of panel would have an efficiency
of 200%?

but have the whole of a
south facing roof being a solar
panel and the by shear size you have an
efficient collector, that will virtually provide
all of the houses needs if you can store
the heat in a large thermal store

Put PV cells on every south facing roof
and most of the power generation
station will not be needed. The solutions are
there. It needs political will to force it through.

Unfortunately the economics are still wrong. Very wrong. Otherwise
they
would have been in use by more than the afficionados.

The economics "now" are wrong. Political will, will force it through and
mass production will reduce components accordingly to a point it is
feasible. It is the kick-start that is required.

That has been the situation for a couple of decades. It is not politics,
but physics and engineering which may, or may not, get the economics right.

There are far more efficient diesel and gasoline
engines around, and are running. These can
be developed fully and integrated into a hybrid setup.
Another method suggested is waste heat from
an advanced rotary engine (not an inefficient
Wankel design) which has well over 50% efficiency,
driving a small Stirling engine from its waste heat,
which drives a compressor, which charges an air tank.

The compressed air assists drive via an air motor in a
hybrid setup. This is a fine stop gap, and around
town the car can run on non-polluting air, which
is generated from what would have been wasted
heat. The whole setup can be small in size as
rotary engines are small and a compressor/air
motors is also small. The compressor can also
be the starter motor too.

And how many folk are gong to be trained
to be proficient in servicing such
a vastly complicated object?

Complicated? None of that is complicated at all. A lot less complicated
than the current petrol IC engine/electric motor hybrids.

Actually I have my doubts about them too.

Franz

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

It is the loses at generation and transmission
losses. This can be reduced by having smaller
local power stations, the UK had them, using
natural gas, using CHP to heat the local district.

The indirect transmision losses involved in
shovelling large numbers of loads of small
amounts of fuel to thousands of small power
stations all over the country are vastly greater
than the transmission losses in power cables.

Not if the fuel is in natural gas pipelines.

I thought that the natural gas accessible to the UK was not all that much
any more.

The North sea is still full of it and we also import the stuff from Russia.

Transmission losses then are low and overall
energy efficient is very high. Sweden do this.

I bet they have not looked carefully
enough at the costs and energy
efficiencies of such a policy, unless
they are in a position in which the
fuel is naturally available dispersed
all over the country.

The last time I looked, there were highly viable.

The issues then become how to generate electricity without using
fossil
fuel and/or heat engines. Feul cells are not heat engines, but
usually
use fossil fuel. Nuclear power doesn't use fossil fuel, but does
use
a
heat engine. windmills do neither, but are ugly, of variable
power,
and
woefully inefficient in terms of space used.

"woefully inefficient in terms of space used"?
You see cows grazing under them. They can
be in the middle of fields and only occupy a small
footprint. There are windmill farms being built off-shore
all over the UK right now, Out of sight.

Sadly, incapable of producing anything more
than a negligible amout of power.

The UK is aiming for 25% of its power generation by wind. CHP Stirling
boilers are also envisaged to fill gaps too.

It would surprise me if they ever got that much wind power installed.

There is a mass installation programme right now, with much off it just
off-shore, out of sight and in direct line of wind.

Britain is the windiest country in Europe.

Water and wave power does
neither, but is localised as to its applicability. solar cells are
even
ore woefully inneficient,

Wet solar panels generally inefficient per squ foot,

You should not use such a meaningless
term in a discussion which is more or
less scientifically based.

??? You can get high efficient wet solar panels, but they are "very"
expensive. Flat plate collectors are a lot less efficient.

Efficiency is defined as power out/power in.
There is no room for a subsidiary phrase
"per square foot".

You should understand how flat plate collectors work.

I do indeed understand how they work. The term
"efficiency per square foot" is nonsense.
Do you mean to tell me that if a panel has
an efficiency of 1% per square
foot, the installation of, say, 200 sq. ft of
panel would have an efficiency of 200%?

No. Just that other panels, such as Thermomax, are far higher per squ foot
area than a normal cheap flat plate.

but have the whole of a
south facing roof being a solar
panel and the by shear size you have an
efficient collector, that will virtually provide
all of the houses needs if you can store
the heat in a large thermal store

Put PV cells on every south facing roof
and most of the power generation
station will not be needed. The solutions are
there. It needs political will to force it through.

Unfortunately the economics are still wrong. Very wrong. Otherwise
they
would have been in use by more than the afficionados.

The economics "now" are wrong. Political will, will force it through and
mass production will reduce components accordingly to a point it is
feasible. It is the kick-start that is required.

That has been the situation for a couple
of decades. It is not politics,
but physics and engineering which may,
or may not, get the economics right.

The technology and engineering is there, and it is improving by the month.
That is not the problem at all. It is educating the people about the new
technology and the will to push it through.

There are far more efficient diesel and gasoline
engines around, and are running. These can
be developed fully and integrated into a hybrid setup.
Another method suggested is waste heat from
an advanced rotary engine (not an inefficient
Wankel design) which has well over 50% efficiency,
driving a small Stirling engine from its waste heat,
which drives a compressor, which charges an air tank.

The compressed air assists drive via an air motor in a
hybrid setup. This is a fine stop gap, and around
town the car can run on non-polluting air, which
is generated from what would have been wasted
heat. The whole setup can be small in size as
rotary engines are small and a compressor/air
motors is also small. The compressor can also
be the starter motor too.

And how many folk are gong to be trained
to be proficient in servicing such
a vastly complicated object?

Complicated? None of that is complicated at all. A lot less
complicated
than the current petrol IC engine/electric motor hybrids.

Actually I have my doubts about them too.





---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

Nick Maclaren wrote:

In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Dave Plowman wrote:


If you're going to build underground car parks for all city cars that
haven't their own off road parking, wouldn't it make much more sense to
spend the money on extending the tube network and making it cheap/free?
An electric car is only suitable for city use and will do nothing for
congestion.

That is simply not so.

With 300 mile range and potentially one hour fast charge from flat, it
would be ideal for rural use and commuting.


Yes,indeed, it would. It is, I agree, a more realistic target than
breeding flying pigs.

2) The petrol used in 300 miles by a typical modern car contains
about 1 GJoule. If we assume a factor of two higher efficiency, then
charging in an hour needs 140 KW. A standard domestic power circuit
is rated at 7 KW. You have a factor of 20 to make up.


I never said you would use the domestic circuit to fast charge. The
scenario was a 'fats charge' station like a petrol station where you
could plug in, have a pee, have a coffee, and come back with a more or
less charged car in under an hour. Typically you would NOT run the thing
totally flat - more like do 200 miles and then wait 40 minutes to charge it.

I am not going to repeat the figures, but I and someone else came up
independently with 9/10 hours at 20A to do the charge. That would mean
essentially 200A or 50Kw to do the one hour charge. I am not sure where
we differ between 50Kw and 140kW. My figures derived from taking the
shaft bhp used on a normal run, and electrifying those: The figures were
borne out by an actual test car that is running.

Ah. You have assumed a factor of two efficincy. I think that you should
be looking at 3 or more for a start. Petrol engines are not markedly
effuicient at part throttle. Transmission and ancillary sttuff
(alternator and other takeoffs - colling fans etc - sap more). They are
0% efficient sitting at traffic lights whereas electric motors can be
stopped altogether.



Dammit, a CYCLIST will expend some 20 MJ in 300 miles. Recharging
that in an hour needs 6 KW! There is NO WAY that you will design a car
to be as efficient as a cyclist, despite the motor lobby propaganda.


Well I dunno about cyclists. My figures were for about 50kWh (180MJ) for
the 300 miles. And those figures are borne out by other test sites I
found - no I haven't got them to hand because it arose in another
discussion elsewhere. Might be able to dig them up if you are
interested. ireckon a cyclist ambling along at 15mph might need about a
horsepower.. 750W - and would take 20 hours. That's 15KWh or 55MJ? yeah.
within the same range as you. For a back-of-the-envelope calculation.

If we take say 60mph as the average speed, its a 5 hour trip averaged at
10Kw, or about 15bhp. That seems eminently reasonsable for something
like a Fiat Punto - 50bhp - run at on average 1/3rd throttle. I am
assuming better than 90% conversion efficviency, because that is what a
decent electric motor, cells and controller can do. These are not fairy
land figures.



2) Despite claims, such devices would NOT help with congestion to
a detectable degree.


No one said they would. what we are aiming for is almost zero pollution
at teh point-of-transport, and utilkisation of an existing electricity
infrastructure, especailly use of off peak electricity, which allows for
better efficiency of generation anyway.

Congestion can only be reduced by either dramatically raising speed
limits, or taking cars actually off the road.




You CAN fully charge a lithium car in about an hour, but you need
specailsed charging facilities to do it safely.


You need specialised facilities to charge the damn things at all, at
any rate. The necessity for fancy protection mechanisms is one of the
reasons that they are expensive.


Nothing too fancy is needed. A simple voltage and temperature monitor is
all that is required.

Currently the ones being developed for model use are about 30% of cell
cost - a few dollars only. How this would scale with larger cells is
unknown. Its the last area to investigate.





Please could you take this stuff to a newsgroup (a) where people are
knowledgable about this sort of thing and (b) where it is on group?


Well you seem to think YOU are, and so does IMM. AND I think its is
interesting enough to stay here until it dies of boredom.

Its no more YOUR group than it is mine. Its marginally nearer on topic
than 'britney spears nude'




Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Dammit, a CYCLIST will expend some 20 MJ in 300 miles. Recharging
that in an hour needs 6 KW! There is NO WAY that you will design a car
to be as efficient as a cyclist, despite the motor lobby propaganda.


Well I dunno about cyclists. My figures were for about 50kWh (180MJ) for
the 300 miles. And those figures are borne out by other test sites I
found - no I haven't got them to hand because it arose in another
discussion elsewhere. Might be able to dig them up if you are
interested. ireckon a cyclist ambling along at 15mph might need about a
horsepower.. 750W - and would take 20 hours. That's 15KWh or 55MJ? yeah.
within the same range as you. For a back-of-the-envelope calculation.


What ??? I can't imagine a human being able to develop a horsepower
for very long at all - more like 100 or 200 watts and even that would not be
sustainable for long. So how does the average "regular" cyclist ride a bike for
an hour or so at 15 mph covering 15 miles ?

Nick

Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

That is simply not so.


With 300 mile range and potentially one hour fast charge from flat, it
would be ideal for rural use and commuting.


If you add 'potential' to that I might believe you. Non of the electric or
hybrid vehicles I've read about being tested in real world conditions get
near their claims of range, etc. And a one hour charge rules out lead acid
batteries - so the cost of alternatives is presently prohibitive.


Not so. Things have really moved on in the last year or so. To the point
where there is at least one company brave enough to have built a lithium
polymer powered test car and be offering cell packs for sale. They have
repacakged the biggest they could find with safety circuitry and the
tests they came up with were close enough to my predictions for me to
feel they were not avaiting porcines.

Price is still an issue - the sort of stuff I buy retails at $3 per watt hour, so 50kWh is $150,000

Thst for torch battery sized stuff. That represents a sort of 'it won't
cost more than that' level. A hand built racing engine costs thet much
as well, and no one says that because a Cosworth F1 engine is 100 grand,
thats waht a Ka should cost as well..





What it won't do is 16 hour 1000 mile journeys...


Well, nor will any petrol car I know about without re-fuelling. And anyone
doing such a drive should have a couple of breaks anyway.



No, but the problem is the one hour minimum to completely refill its 'tank'

Here are some links

http://www.sae.org/automag/techbriefs/02-2002/page7.htm
This one is already 9 years old but predicts todays performamnce figures

http://lily.keri.re.kr/battery/wwwbo...ages96/56.html

Heres the record holding electric car for teh Pikes |Peak run

http://www.compactpower.com/pdf/2002...essRelease.pdf

Here is a company that can acatually supply 35kWh batteries for
cars...tho there is a whiff of bovine excrement about his one.
http://www.gatewayreports.com/reports/electrovaya.pdf

heres some data from a 1998 conference that pretty much says the same
thing I have been saying.
http://www.avere.org/evs15/press/evs_2.html

Ah. I found the one site I was looking for

www.acpropulson.com

This is a mean machine.

Enjoy :-)