12-28-2011, 12:46 PM
|
#1 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: london, on
Posts: 355
Buggie - '01 Vw Beetle TDI Gls
Thanks: 4
Thanked 37 Times in 27 Posts
|
You guys are doing it wrong
Instead of worrying about fuel economy and aerodynamic desinsg you guys should leave well enough alone. Instead work on a "tractor beam" like in star wars so you can beam onto the car ahead of you and let them pull you along. Kind of like drafting. Let him worry about his mpg while you just coast along behind with the engine off
If that idea is to futuristic at least have some telescopic electromagnets that you can attach to the car ahead of you and use high test fishing line to connect
|
|
|
Today
|
|
|
Other popular topics in this forum...
|
|
|
12-28-2011, 01:29 PM
|
#2 (permalink)
|
Human Environmentalist
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 12,815
Thanks: 4,327
Thanked 4,480 Times in 3,445 Posts
|
I have entertained the idea of an electromagnet attaching to a big rig for freeway travel. The driver would probably not even notice the extra load on flat ground. It's those pesky laws that I'm really worried about though.
|
|
|
12-28-2011, 01:46 PM
|
#3 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,209
Thanks: 225
Thanked 811 Times in 594 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
It's those pesky laws that I'm really worried about though.
|
True. Plus the fact that for a lot of us, it's not really our personal fuel consumption that's the fundamental issue, it's the effects of burning petroleum. Thus if I reduce my consumption X amount by causing someone else to increase their consumption by the same amount, I've achieved nothing.
PS: Though drafting a semi should also produce a small aerodynamic benefit for the semi...
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to jamesqf For This Useful Post:
|
|
12-28-2011, 05:56 PM
|
#4 (permalink)
|
Human Environmentalist
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 12,815
Thanks: 4,327
Thanked 4,480 Times in 3,445 Posts
|
For highway travel, it doesn't make sense that thousands of vehicles moving in the same direction and roughly the same speed should individually power themselves. It would be like having an engine attached to each boxcar of a train. Gasoline engines are incredibly inefficient when operating at such low sustained loads.
Attaching your vehicle to a truck and turning the motor off would save a lot of fuel, even when considering the loss of MPGs experienced by the truck.
|
|
|
12-28-2011, 06:09 PM
|
#5 (permalink)
|
...beats walking...
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: .
Posts: 6,190
Thanks: 179
Thanked 1,525 Times in 1,126 Posts
|
...big problem with a "train" is that if/when somebody in the middle needs to turn-off for gasoline or potty break, everybody behind him are suddenly gonna be "coasting" much to their surprise!
|
|
|
12-28-2011, 06:23 PM
|
#6 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,927
Thanks: 877
Thanked 2,024 Times in 1,304 Posts
|
Vactrain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Evacuated tube transportation technology.
A ride in a 0 atmosphere tube after being fired by a magnetic rail gun, slowly enough to keep you from disintegrating on your way to 5000 MPH.
regards
Mech
|
|
|
12-28-2011, 06:47 PM
|
#7 (permalink)
|
Human Environmentalist
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 12,815
Thanks: 4,327
Thanked 4,480 Times in 3,445 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Mechanic
Vactrain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Evacuated tube transportation technology.
A ride in a 0 atmosphere tube after being fired by a magnetic rail gun, slowly enough to keep you from disintegrating on your way to 5000 MPH.
regards
Mech
|
I've always thought it would be quite efficient to send satellites to space using an evacuated tube and rail gun. I just don't know what kind of heat shield would be needed for when the craft exits the tube, or if the sudden impact of hitting 1atm at ~20,000mi/hr would pulverize everything. Build this gun on top of a tall mountain near the equator and you can cut it down to 0.5atm and reduce the required velocity.
Last edited by redpoint5; 12-28-2011 at 07:04 PM..
|
|
|
12-28-2011, 06:48 PM
|
#8 (permalink)
|
Eco-ventor
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: sweden
Posts: 1,645
Thanks: 76
Thanked 709 Times in 450 Posts
|
Why bother with a tractor beam when you can just make a transporter?
__________________
2016: 128.75L for 1875.00km => 6.87L/100km (34.3MPG US)
2017: 209.14L for 4244.00km => 4.93L/100km (47.7MPG US)
|
|
|
12-28-2011, 06:54 PM
|
#9 (permalink)
|
(:
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
|
Oh, I don't know... maybe tear around less?
|
|
|
12-29-2011, 10:24 PM
|
#10 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 588
Thanks: 59
Thanked 59 Times in 47 Posts
|
Why bother going anywhere at all? You're already someplace.
__________________
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Ladogaboy For This Useful Post:
|
|
|