EV with onboard generator

[Logic]

Originally Posted by Ecky

Mazda has had supercaps in a lot of their cars (including the small and light MX5) for more than a decade now. See i-ELOOP. Regenerative braking into supercapacitors.

Thx. Looking that up...

Originally Posted by Ecky

Restating some of what you've said, Atkinson cycle is a way to have an outrageously large expansion ratio (which always improves power and efficiency) without having too much compression ratio (which would cause fuel to detonate).

It goes further than that:
The compression stroke is a lot of work!
Hand pump up a tire as a simple low pressures example.
That's work the power strokes in the engine are doing.
So if you are compressing for only ~half the compression stroke; you've ~halved that work.

Originally Posted by Ecky

Atkinson cycle relies on the cylinder to ingest air (and fuel, in the case of port injection), then spit it back out into the intake tract, with late intake valve closing, mix with EGR, and get ingested again. The air and fuel pass into the cylinder over the hot intake valves, then are pushed back into the cold intake tract. I expect you'll have some degree of a) fuel recondensing on the intake tract walls, and b) an otherwise very homogeneous mixture.

Hmmm... That's an advantage for fuel economy: All that mixing and heated charge...

Wall condensation:
The tract walls would be hotter further upstream of the engine too, so I don't think condensation is the right word: It's more a case of unevaporated fuel mist coalescing on the surface..?

I NB that tuners have found that ported/sanded surfaces, sanded with a rough, low grit flap wheel (dremel tips are 'old news!') tend to give more power than shiny, polished surfaces.

We wont get into the aero, skin friction, Coanda hugging the inner radius of the turn better, side of that, but rather consider the fuel coalescing on such a surface:
We know how liquids will spread out and stick on rougher surfaces. Kind of a capillary type action/effect. So there's less fuel blown/running toward the chamber.
That's gives more time for that fuel layer to evaporate into the intake tract air.

Then:
The relatively heavy fuel mist/droplets are more likely to hit and coalesce on the outside of bends, aero smoothing them, while leaving the inner bend surface rough and Coanda-ing..!
ie: Smooth where you want it; rough where you don't, all perfectly automated by Physics!

Originally Posted by Ecky

A lot of high efficiency engines rely on having a rich zone inside the cylinder around the spark plug, which you cannot achieve with the combination of Atkinson cycle and port injection, due to Atkinson cycle relying on late valve closing. Certainly you can make an engine run, but the conditions inside the combustion chamber with regards to fuel mixture and distribution are considerably different.

Ah yes, the real reason for direct injection!
(Thx. I hadn't considered lean burn as part of the Atkinson thing)
That rich area around the plug is what makes or breaks an efficient lean burn.

NB that ignition is pre 'squish blast' and that controlling/directing that blast to spread the flame in desirable directions is 'A Thing' in tuning circles.
It's called Chamber Softening and Singh Grooves if you want to get into that.

NB that pre-chambers, as employed by pgfpro and F1 (who was 1st!?) are THE best way to get a lean mixture ignited and burned at the right, crank angle/short time.

pgfpro is running 30 to 1 AFRs! And that allows 30 to 1 compression as you just cant get that week a mixture hot enough to ignite-burn otherwise.
ie:
His AFR is his throttle..!
That means, besides the huge efficiency improvement of high compression, there are no throttle valve pumping losses, so the efficiency advantage of a Diesel... with the lightness and energy density of gasoline... (F=M.A)
He was doing 50mpg in an aero-stock Talon, capable of 7 second quarter miles! IIRC

All that's required is getting one's head around howTF he and F1 fill those passive chambers with a richer mixture! That took a while!

(How that's not more interesting here I have no idea!? I suppose it's because it takes more than half a half thought, a role of sticky tape and some cardboard? )

[JSH]

I think a lot of this discussion is missing the reality that automakers have to hit fuel economy AND emission standards.

Personally I expect an increase in naturally aspirated hybrids in the USA as Tier 4 emission standards kick in from 2027 to 2033. They will require particulate filters for DI turbo gasoline engines.

[Logic]

Originally Posted by JSH

I think a lot of this discussion is missing the reality that automakers have to hit fuel economy AND emission standards.

Personally I expect an increase in naturally aspirated hybrids in the USA as Tier 4 emission standards kick in from 2027 to 2033. They will require particulate filters for DI turbo gasoline engines.

Skip this rant!

Particulate filters are a *****.
The ideal combustion reaction is HC+O2=H2O+C
C! Plain old Carbon as found in carbon based life forms such as ourselves.
They have to be filtered out because..?
Because Politicians and voters can see them!??

You'd think that (technically) ignorant by choice idiot voters would choose to vote for technically proficient politicians to do such 'I can't/don't wanna!' thinking for them.
Polititions who might then tell 'voters' to calm TF down as it's the 'smoke' they cant see they should be worried about!

Also; as most all electricity worldwide is made by coal powered plants; 'little trips' to such plants and a good few good whiffs of real EV exhaust should be compulsory for all pure EV proponents!
Where's the catalyst and particulate filter here!?
Does the wind not blow!?

Yes-Yes; I know it's not just carbon but the attached unburned Hydrogens that are said to be 'The Real Issue'.
I NB that reactive O3 + H = Water. Invisible or not; much better than CO2!
So get it burned and to hell with the visible carbon!

Why is naturally aspirated better than a turbo when forced to use 'idiot-are-ticulate' filters?
Just a case of: Too much back pressure for the Turbo to do anything useful?

I linked (ignored) Ozone research elsewhere here, where tiny amounts of O3 are shown to dramatically decrease both soot and unburned HCs.

This gives you both Ozone and flow.
Flow:

• Close to the intake tract wall. (~no boundary layer)
• Close to any semi open valve opening..!
• Some directional control of the flow and Ozone..!! (if you don't go full circle)

(Take it and run! I like starving! Starving's better than being told: "Make it cheaper"!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrqBugPPaNo

[Ecky]

There's always going to be a gap between science and regulation. It is, of course, better for the gap to be smaller.

Location of pollution is a factor. Where I live, we're down to a single coal plant in the country, and it's far away from where anybody lives (or breathes). Cars however drive back and forth in front of playgrounds and parks, and there's good evidence about exhaust exposure in children being a major contributor to developing illnesses. First world problems, certainly, and perhaps first world "solutions" mostly don't yet belong in places that don't have solely first world problems. Often they miss the forest for the trees.

[freebeard]

There's always going to be a gap between science and regulation. It is, of course, better for the gap to be smaller.

Alternatively, make the regulation smaller?

First world problems, certainly, and perhaps first world "solutions" mostly don't yet belong in places that don't have solely first world problems.

I think they interpenetrate. The Third World is full of cell phones and the First World is importing the Third. What difference at this point (as she said) does it make?

Often they miss the forest for the trees.

The best pollution is CO2.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Alternatively, make the regulation smaller?

Alternatively, make it more local, to the individual when possible.

[Ecky]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Alternatively, make it more local, to the individual when possible.

I think this is a useful part of the discussion.

Companies in our economic system are tasked with maximizing profits, and any way they can externalize costs, they're incentivized to. People voting with their dollars has some power, but in the age of globalization, it's relatively easy to just move 1) where you sell your products, and/or 2) where you externalize your costs, so those buying are not those impacted by the negative externalities. So, often, the only way to reign in externalization of costs is to regulate. Nobody likes government, but least of all those incentivized to externalize the costs of their actions onto others.

However, often the regulations are broad, and they capture and hinder more than they should.

Just to make up an example, if Nike sets up a shoe factory in a country with weak institutions and begins making shoes with child or slave labor, and effectively hides the fact, it isn't always clear what to do about this. Is it the responsibility of the country whose children are being put to work? Or the country those products are being sold in to decline to import them? Should regulation attempt to apply first world labor laws to all places? Do we even care where X company acquires its goods, or how? And, how much "accidental overregulation" are we willing to tolerate when attempting to regulate away issues? Does it matter if Nike dumps chemical waste into Indonesia's rivers, if Indonesia is unwilling or unable to regulate it at the point of production?

California had serious smog issues, particularly in LA, due to inversion layers. California is a big, wealthy market, and auto makers have generally just decided to build one product, rather than differentiate those sold in California designed to solve California-specific issues. Emissions still go into the air everyone breathes, but in Florida for example, this mostly just blows out to sea, and the problem is much less acute and visible.

I don't have the answers to these things. I often rub up against regulations because I want to practice individual creativity, and feel stifled by needing to follow the same rules as everyone else, when the impact of my projects is far less than the collective impact of everyone.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by Ecky

I often rub up against regulations because I want to practice individual creativity, and feel stifled by needing to follow the same rules as everyone else, when the impact of my projects is far less than the collective impact of everyone.

Which is why we have regulations - because without them everyone thinks they are just the one person who's contribution doesn't mean much.

Or if we flip it around very few people are going to pay extra money out of pocket to reduce their contribution to pollution if they look around and see every else simply doing things the cheap and polluting way.

Who is going to pay to put in a septic system if all their neighbors are simply piping their drains to the river? If they river is already a toxic mess what is a little more poop from little ole me?

[freebeard]

I think this is a useful part of the discussion.
....
I don't have the answers to these things.

"Don't attempt to reform man. An adequately organized environment will permit humanity's original, innate capabilities to become successful." -- R. Buckminster Fuller

[Logic]

I may be missing something here but:
IMHO This has nothing to do with 'What legislation where': It's all about NOT appeasing idiots at extra cost to the motorist and the environment:

If life here is carbon based, carbon and soot etc is not a problem is it?
Carbon as 'activated' charcoal is in fact what gas masks and cabin filters in cars etc use.
If it's airborne for a while?
So is dust, pollen, etc.
We are born with a built in biological filter for that.

IF:
carbon soot is a benign building block of life
THEN:
why 'particulate filter' it!??

IF;
Its the unburned HCs in the soot that are the problem
THEN
isn't burning the unburned Hydrogens as is done by the current exhaust catalysts the answered answer?

IF
the issue is already solved by current catalysts
THEN
WhatTF are the particulate filters actually for!?

IMHO the only reason particulate filters exist is because people CAN SEE and have decided to be offeeended! by visible smoke. (and anything/everything else!)
ie: "LOOK at that nasty black smoke that's getting into my lungs!"
BUT
It's NOT nasty!? It's just visible! There's a difference!
SO
all the particulate filter does is "Out of sight: Out of mind"
but that cost is passed on to YOU! and the planet!
And they are cleaned by burning yet more fuel!!
(In diesels anyway. I don't know for sure if the same will be true for gasoline?)

ie: Lobbying the politicians to STOP pandering to the idiot majority is whats required here, is it not?
ie: Why just let the morons win, just for being The Majority, as usual!? At your cost!

What am I missing here!? Is that not logical?
Maybe all this is known to everyone here and the feeling is: "The moron-o-jority will always win. Accept it and move on as best you can within that flawed framework" ??

('activated' charcoalis just marketing BS BTW:
IF
the way to make 'activated; charcoal is to heat it red hot
THEN
making it in the 1st place means it's already 'activated'.
But without the extra zeros on the end of the price the mere mention of 'aaactivated' magically adds!

If you want to pay 2 or 3 extra zeros; paying for burned Bamboo may be worthwhile:
Apparently the carbon nanotube type structure of Bamboo makes for a more effective filter)