Telescope Reviews: Fusion - back to the Stoneage!

· Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt

· Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User

You are not logged in. [Login]

Entrance · Main Index · Search · New user · Who's Online
FAQ · Calendar

Speciality Forums >> Science! Astronomy & Space Exploration, and Others

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | (show all)

scopethis
Postmaster

Reged: 05/30/08

Loc: Kingman, Ks

Re: Fusion - back to the Stoneage! new

new

[Re: Skip]
#5225228 - 05/16/12 02:07 PM

now I'm gonna get this all wrong because I don't recall all the "facts"..but back in the late 50s or early 60s, Crysler came out with a turbine car that ran on almost anything flammable..whatever happen to that concept?

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

Pess
(Title)

Reged: 09/12/07

Loc: Toledo, Ohio

Re: Fusion - back to the Stoneage! new

new

[Re: scopethis]
#5225652 - 05/16/12 06:19 PM

It flamed out?

Pesse (Turbine car) Mist

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

scopethis
Postmaster

Reged: 05/30/08

Loc: Kingman, Ks

Re: Fusion - back to the Stoneage! new

new

[Re: Pess]
#5227043 - 05/17/12 03:48 PM

Thanks Pess..the link seems to indicate that the car was somewhat successful..I wonder why, with all of today's tech advances, the turbine engine for cars doesn't interest auto makers?

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

seryddwr
Innocent Bystander

Reged: 02/19/10

Loc: I don't know, you tell me.

Re: Fusion - back to the Stoneage! new

new

[Re: scopethis]
#5227181 - 05/17/12 05:53 PM

Could be a fire hazard. I don't think that turbines are very fuel efficient, either. (I saw a webpage once that showed somebody who put a small, helicopter turbine on a motorcycle. It got about 4mpg, though it did put out 400hp.)

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

simpleisbetter
Carpal Tunnel

Reged: 04/18/11

Re: Fusion - back to the Stoneage! new

new

[Re: seryddwr]
#5227209 - 05/17/12 06:20 PM

You also have the troubles of foreign object damage (FOD) with the engine setting so low to the ground. As I recall with the Chrysler engine, acceleration and its power curve were much slower compared to a normal V8.

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA

Re: Fusion - back to the Stoneage! new

new

[Re: simpleisbetter]
#5227229 - 05/17/12 06:35 PM

Gas turbine engines are great for cars, except for one small issue that I recall -- there's a little bit of a rev delay between the time the throttle is hit and the rpms rise. They don't have fast response times.

At least that's the way it was at Indy in 1967 and 1968!

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

ColoHank
Carpal Tunnel

Reged: 06/07/07

Loc: western Colorado

Re: Fusion - back to the Stoneage! new

new

[Re: seryddwr]
#5227248 - 05/17/12 06:45 PM

Quote:

Could be a fire hazard. I don't think that turbines are very fuel efficient, either. (I saw a webpage once that showed somebody who put a small, helicopter turbine on a motorcycle. It got about 4mpg, though it did put out 400hp.)

Jay Leno has/had a gas-turbine motorcycle. I watched a documentary once where he claimed to have ruined the plastic bumper and grill on a car behind him because the driver kept crowding too close at stop lights. Gotta wonder what the guy thought when he got home and discovered that the front of his car was scorched and melted.

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

simpleisbetter
Carpal Tunnel

Reged: 04/18/11

Re: Fusion - back to the Stoneage! new

new

[Re: llanitedave]
#5227277 - 05/17/12 07:06 PM

Thanks Dave. Rev delay is what I was thinking of but couldn't remember what it was called...

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

seryddwr
Innocent Bystander

Reged: 02/19/10

Loc: I don't know, you tell me.

Re: Fusion - back to the Stoneage! new

new

[Re: simpleisbetter]
#5227448 - 05/17/12 09:15 PM

Thanks Hank, that's the bike that I was thinking of. Your story jogged my memory.

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

scopethis
Postmaster

Reged: 05/30/08

Loc: Kingman, Ks

Re: Fusion - back to the Stoneage! new

new

[Re: seryddwr]
#5227647 - 05/17/12 11:53 PM

but...but...don't turbine engines get those big jets into the air?????

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

barasits
sage

Reged: 06/12/11

Loc: Chicago

Re: Fusion - back to the Stoneage! new

new

[Re: scopethis]
#5227702 - 05/18/12 12:54 AM

Quote:

but...but...don't turbine engines get those big jets into the air?????

Nah, big jets get airborne owing to the repulsive effect of dark energy. The turbofans on a 747 are just decorative.

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

Jarad
Postmaster

Reged: 04/28/03

Loc: Atlanta, GA

Re: Fusion - back to the Stoneage! new

new

[Re: scopethis]
#5227899 - 05/18/12 07:28 AM

Quote:

but...but...don't turbine engines get those big jets into the air?????

Yes.

And the fuel cost is a big part of why it costs more to fly somewhere than to drive.

Turbines are good for high power, but not so great for efficiency. Momentum is MV, but energy used is MV^2, so the high exhaust speed produces low efficiency. The newer turbofans add the "fan" part to scoop up more air, and use a larger mass of air at a lower speed to improve efficiency, but it's still not terribly efficient compared to a piston engine.

Jarad

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

Pess
(Title)

Reged: 09/12/07

Loc: Toledo, Ohio

Re: Fusion - back to the Stoneage! new

new

[Re: Jarad]
#5228110 - 05/18/12 10:57 AM

As a direct power supply turbines are loud, whiny, exhibit low millage and have significant throttle lag among other problems.

But they run forever, have few moving parts and burn just about anything that explodes.

Turbines are best running at a constant high rpm.

I am wondering if a small turbine would be practical in a hybrid vehicle? Use the turbine just to turn a generator?

You'd operate the turbine when needed in its most efficient configuration (constant high rpm).

I dunno. I guess if it was practical someone would have tried to implement it by now.

Pesse (Wasn't the Batmobile turbine driven?) Mist

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

Jarad
Postmaster

Reged: 04/28/03

Loc: Atlanta, GA

Re: Fusion - back to the Stoneage! new

new

[Re: Pess]
#5228136 - 05/18/12 11:10 AM

Quote:

Turbines are best running at a constant high rpm.

I am wondering if a small turbine would be practical in a hybrid vehicle? Use the turbine just to turn a generator?

You'd operate the turbine when needed in its most efficient configuration (constant high rpm).

Interesting idea. I read about a company trying to develop something along that idea a few years ago. They weren't using a turbine, but they were using electric motors/generators on each wheel (so 4-wheel drive), driven by electricity only. They had a battery pack and a gasoline powered generator, and it was wall-socket chargeable. So you charge it up overnight, drive till the battery gets low, then the gasoline generator kicks in to recharge the battery, running at a constant RPM where it is most efficient. They reported a test model that was getting over 100 mpg in combined daily driving (using the wall-charged battery first), but still got 60-70 mpg in highway driving after the battery was depleted and the gas engine kicked in.

They were trying to license the integrated wheel/motor technology to other car companies (each wheel produced 150-200 foot-lbs of torgue). I don't know if they were successful or not.

My hunch is that a turbine will still be less efficient, just based on the exhaust temperature. Hot exhaust still has lots of energy left in it, cool exhaust has had more energy converted into mechanical energy by expanding against a force (and cooling as it expands). The more heat left in the exhaust, the less energy you managed to extract from it on the way out. It's the old power vs. efficiency trade-off - in general, the higher the power output, the lower the efficiency, and vice-versa.

Jarad

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

lightfever
Carpal Tunnel

Reged: 09/27/04

Loc: Macomb Michigan

Re: Fusion - back to the Stoneage! new

new

[Re: Jarad]
#5228544 - 05/18/12 03:34 PM

Quote:

Interesting idea. I read about a company trying to develop something along that idea a few years ago. They weren't using a turbine, but they were using electric motors/generators on each wheel (so 4-wheel drive), driven by electricity only. They had a battery pack and a gasoline powered generator, and it was wall-socket chargeable. So you charge it up overnight, drive till the battery gets low, then the gasoline generator kicks in to recharge the battery, running at a constant RPM where it is most efficient. They reported a test model that was getting over 100 mpg in combined daily driving (using the wall-charged battery first), but still got 60-70 mpg in highway driving after the battery was depleted and the gas engine kicked in.

That's the Chevy Volt!

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

simpleisbetter
Carpal Tunnel

Reged: 04/18/11

Re: Fusion - back to the Stoneage! new

new

[Re: lightfever]
#5228564 - 05/18/12 03:43 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Interesting idea. I read about a company trying to develop something along that idea a few years ago. They weren't using a turbine, but they were using electric motors/generators on each wheel (so 4-wheel drive), driven by electricity only. They had a battery pack and a gasoline powered generator, and it was wall-socket chargeable. So you charge it up overnight, drive till the battery gets low, then the gasoline generator kicks in to recharge the battery, running at a constant RPM where it is most efficient. They reported a test model that was getting over 100 mpg in combined daily driving (using the wall-charged battery first), but still got 60-70 mpg in highway driving after the battery was depleted and the gas engine kicked in.

That's the Chevy Volt!

Yep, but with only a 30ml or so range until the gas engine kicks in. My sister's Prius beats the Volt in all areas.

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

Pess
(Title)

Reged: 09/12/07

Loc: Toledo, Ohio

Re: Fusion - back to the Stoneage! new

new

[Re: simpleisbetter]
#5228624 - 05/18/12 04:31 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Interesting idea. I read about a company trying to develop something along that idea a few years ago. They weren't using a turbine, but they were using electric motors/generators on each wheel (so 4-wheel drive), driven by electricity only. They had a battery pack and a gasoline powered generator, and it was wall-socket chargeable. So you charge it up overnight, drive till the battery gets low, then the gasoline generator kicks in to recharge the battery, running at a constant RPM where it is most efficient. They reported a test model that was getting over 100 mpg in combined daily driving (using the wall-charged battery first), but still got 60-70 mpg in highway driving after the battery was depleted and the gas engine kicked in.

That's the Chevy Volt!

Yep, but with only a 30ml or so range until the gas engine kicks in. My sister's Prius beats the Volt in all areas.

Prius: 0-60mph 10.4 seconds qtr mile: 17.8 seconds

Volt: 0-60mph 8.9 seconds qtr mile: 16.7

Pesse (Let's drag...) Mist

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

simpleisbetter
Carpal Tunnel

Reged: 04/18/11

Re: Fusion - back to the Stoneage! new

new

[Re: Pess]
#5228663 - 05/18/12 05:15 PM

Quote:

Prius: 0-60mph 10.4 seconds qtr mile: 17.8 seconds

Volt: 0-60mph 8.9 seconds qtr mile: 16.7

Pesse (Let's drag...) Mist

LOL! Well you got me there, although I wasn't even thinking about that sort of performance. And 16.7sec qtr isn't a bad number, but it's just no substitute for a good Mustang...

Actually I was thinking more on the lines of the Volt requiring house electricity to charge where the Prius self-charges off the gas engine, and the Prius (at least my sister) gets over 50mpg city and highway, vs the Volt's mpg which in reality is closer to its "fuel" rated fuel economy number, not its "electric" rated. And if you have to drive the way I do, at least 50mls daily, then the Volt isn't an economical choice anyway you look at it. Kind of the same troubles as discussed above re fusion, solar, etc.; we're just not to the point to either make them work or be economically sound. With fusion, after another month since last input, I'm still not holding my breath...

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

lightfever
Carpal Tunnel

Reged: 09/27/04

Loc: Macomb Michigan

Re: Fusion - back to the Stoneage! new

new

[Re: simpleisbetter]
#5228758 - 05/18/12 06:53 PM

The Prius is different technology that uses a small battery to assist the gasoline engine, it is never totally electric powered. The Volt is a totally electric drive train and can go for about 40 miles on a charge which is not enough for your needs but perfect for about 90 percent of our driving. Plus everyone knows the Volt looks good and the Prius is just , well never mind.

How did we go from nuclear fusion to Volt vs Prius?

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

FeynmanFan
sage

Reged: 02/18/11

Loc: N Colo front range

Re: Fusion - back to the Stoneage! new

new

[Re: lightfever]
#5228772 - 05/18/12 07:03 PM

We got here, because fusion seems to be going nowhere.

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | (show all)

Extra information

1 registered and 4 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator: LivingNDixie, Jarad, WaterMaster

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Thread views: 5024

Jump to

Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics