Rode an electric bike today

[bogan]

the game sim city, years ago, had the possibility to install microwave plant that receive energy from solar satellite in the space.
beautiful.
still we don't have sats, and in anyway would be easier that givin energy to a massive quantity of mobile devices...

just chuck a big mirror up there and beam down into one of them solar power mirror array towers! even put a bunch of little ones to beam it down to power trains as they move along, sounds safe as eh?

[Ixion]

Ignore that...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_energy_transfer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnifying_transmitter

Granted wikipedia is roughly true but if you do some looking you can decide for yourself.

Also if you don't think there is power in the air already (albeit not ubiquitous, but still) consider this

http://www.inhabitat.com/2009/05/02/...ield-of-beams/

Unfortunately the energy transfer idea seems to be the realm of high budget military projects and hocus pocus 'free energy' websites.
Which is a shame because Mr. Tesla was probably onto something.

What's with the references to Auckland Uni in the wiki article. Does the SMC know about this. If they're involved, I'm leaving town.

[R-Soul]

i'll put it simple: how many links you can brake up in a h2 molecule and how many in a petrol one?

I never said hydrogen was more energy dense than petrol, I said more energy efficient. Take into account how much energy is required to remove oil from the ground, produce 1 liter of petrol from it, and transport it around the world, compared to what you get from that 1 liter.

Now compare that to being able to manufacture H2 out of air from a local electrolysis process (even better if ithe eoctrcity is from a solar cell/wind generator). Compared to what you get from that liter.

ya... there is this sport, lately, of think at pretty like everything EXCEPT the right one... we have the right engine running everywhere, it's been tested for years, it's reliable... no, let's use a sterling...

this is the evidence that words on a paper are more profitable than facts...

I am sure thats exactly what the naysayers said about diesel before it came out. The only thing that petrol and diesel engines have going for it is that it has had a zillion years of development. The Sterling engine has had pretty much none. It can function on any source of heat. And it starts off with a theroetical temperature/pressure cycle that is more efficient than that of IC engines.

[R-Soul]

Check this:

http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2009/...ngine-scooter/

[Urano]

Take into account how much energy is required to remove oil from the ground, produce 1 liter of petrol from it, and transport it around the world, compared to what you get from that 1 liter.
Now compare that to being able to manufacture H2 out of air from a local electrolysis process (even better if ithe eoctrcity is from a solar cell/wind generator). Compared to what you get from that liter.

ehm... actually... nowadays the main way of obtaining hydrogen is through oil.
after all is evident that there is much more hydrogen in a molecule of oil than in a molecule of water.
and this is also the reason why the believe that hydrogen is the way to set free from oil is not so straight...

this obviously as far as i know, so i could truly be wrong and i'd be glad to...

The only thing that petrol and diesel engines have going for it is that it has had a zillion years of development. The Sterling engine has had pretty much none. It can function on any source of heat. And it starts off with a theroetical temperature/pressure cycle that is more efficient than that of IC engines.

partly true.
the fact is, as you say, that IC engines had a whole history of development, and this leaded to strategic errors due only to the fact that is always easier to keep the route than steer away , even if the new way has benefits...

my point is simply that investing in stirling developing is not a good idea, because we have already invested in developing another type of engines which are way better that stirling too...

[imdying]

just chuck a big mirror up there and beam down into one of them solar power mirror array towers! even put a bunch of little ones to beam it down to power trains as they move along, sounds safe as eh?

I have this vision of people fleeing like ants from a magnifying glass when it goes wrong

[bogan]

I have this vision of people fleeing like ants from a magnifying glass when it goes wrong

well in any new system there will be some startup/calibration errors...

[R-Soul]

ehm... actually... nowadays the main way of obtaining hydrogen is through oil.
after all is evident that there is much more hydrogen in a molecule of oil than in a molecule of water.
and this is also the reason why the believe that hydrogen is the way to set free from oil is not so straight...

this obviously as far as i know, so i could truly be wrong and i'd be glad to...

this is clearly not what is meant by reverting to hydrogen as a form of energy for vehicles though. Clearly the future would be to find a way to harvest it from the air and/or water.

Have a look at this:
http://www.gizmag.com/molybdenum-oxo...ydrogen/14967/

There are giants steps being made every day towards this.

Imagine this: Your solar/wind powered home electrolysis machine (with cheap catalyst) separates hydrogen from air/water while you are at work, and fills a tank of the stuff (in solid form as below) , ready for you to come home and swap tanks for the next day. Or you can buy additional fuel from the local service station if you go far.

partly true.
the fact is, as you say, that IC engines had a whole history of development, and this leaded to strategic errors due only to the fact that is always easier to keep the route than steer away , even if the new way has benefits...

my point is simply that investing in stirling developing is not a good idea, because we have already invested in developing another type of engines which are way better that stirling too...

Sterling is also good because it can help get rid of waste products - our society produces a hell of a lot of waste that takes resouces to get rid of.

It depends whether you take a long term view or a short term. Do you throw good money after bad because you have already spent the bad? Or do you figure out the best way long term, and then start working towards it.

I suspect neither to be honest - it will just develop as quickly as anybody can commercailsie their own way of doing it (probably based on a short term, cost savings basis).
The quicker someone can get an electric bike (with Stirling engine generator chagrging batteries, so that of you run out of hydrogen, you can stuff a few leaves in the back) together with a sustainable hydrogen fuel generator out on the market, the quicker the pubic will move this way.

If I knew I would not have to buy any more fuel, I would seriously consider this. Especially if the bike offered generous performance

[Dare]

What's with the references to Auckland Uni in the wiki article. Does the SMC know about this. If they're involved, I'm leaving town.

I think Jono is the one to ask about that... AU has some juicy patents, also Samsung ripped them off a little while back apparently..

[Urano]

this is clearly not what is meant by reverting to hydrogen as a form of energy for vehicles though. Clearly the future would be to find a way to harvest it from the air and/or water.
Have a look at this:
http://www.gizmag.com/molybdenum-oxo...ydrogen/14967/
Imagine this: Your solar/wind powered home electrolysis machine (with cheap catalyst) separates hydrogen from air/water while you are at work, and fills a tank of the stuff (in solid form as below) , ready for you to come home and swap tanks for the next day. Or you can buy additional fuel from the local service station if you go far.

uhm... by air is pretty difficult as there's almost no hydrogen in earth air... much more easy by water, and the link is very interesting (and very new, just 3 months ago: i really hope it will work... )

your scenario is what we all are longing for, but face it: it's a long term scenario. i'd say about 50-60 years in the future. hopefully, 'cause remember that in the 60s they thought that by now we'd had flying cars and mars colonies...
where are our flying cars?
anyway, let's say it's a 50 years scenario. i've got one question only: how do we move for the next 50 years?
we need a technology available sooner...

Sterling is also good because it can help get rid of waste products - our society produces a hell of a lot of waste that takes resouces to get rid of.
It depends whether you take a long term view or a short term. Do you throw good money after bad because you have already spent the bad? Or do you figure out the best way long term, and then start working towards it.

so you are aiming at EC engines because you see them as a way to burn waste?
no, sorry, i don't buy it. to me the idea of spending about ten-fifteen years of research to end up to an engine that at its best can have lower efficiency than today's engines just to burn waste with correlated emissions' problems is not so good.

I suspect neither to be honest - it will just develop as quickly as anybody can commercailsie their own way of doing it (probably based on a short term, cost savings basis).
The quicker someone can get an electric bike (with Stirling engine generator chagrging batteries, so that of you run out of hydrogen, you can stuff a few leaves in the back) together with a sustainable hydrogen fuel generator out on the market, the quicker the pubic will move this way. If I knew I would not have to buy any more fuel, I would seriously consider this. Especially if the bike offered generous performance

and what about a bike that burns diesel, or methane, or petrol, or alcohol, or whaterver all with same engine, and that goes from a minimum of 20-25 to a maximum of 200-250 km per liter of diesel?
electric, with "generous" performance and acting as a platform for quick conversion as batteries tech steps forward. available today.
well, in a year...

[R-Soul]

uhm... by air is pretty difficult as there's almost no hydrogen in earth air... much more easy by water, and the link is very interesting (and very new, just 3 months ago: i really hope it will work... )

The point is that it is freely available, and is everywhere.

your scenario is what we all are longing for, but face it: it's a long term scenario. i'd say about 50-60 years in the future. hopefully, 'cause remember that in the 60s they thought that by now we'd had flying cars and mars colonies...
where are our flying cars?
anyway, let's say it's a 50 years scenario. i've got one question only: how do we move for the next 50 years?
we need a technology available sooner...

In the 60's it might have taken 50 years to become reality. But you do not understand the pace of change of today. Look at this link - its happening already!
http://www.gizmag.com/honda-fuel-cell-fcx/8394/

At no stage in mans history (inlcuding the World Wars) have we EVER developed technology this fast before, and on so many fronts. And commercialised it as fast. The Internet has revoluionised the flow of information, and especially the flow of info across technology spaces.

Globalisation is the new "war". Now countries aim to buy countries rather than invade them .

so you are aiming at EC engines because you see them as a way to burn waste?
no, sorry, i don't buy it. to me the idea of spending about ten-fifteen years of research to end up to an engine that at its best can have lower efficiency than today's engines just to burn waste with correlated emissions' problems is not so good.

No - thats just an additional benefit. Sterling engines are MORE EFFICIENT in their thermodynamic cycle,and burn whatever fuel that they are using more cleanly and efficiently. They do not lose enrgy as waste heat like IC engines- they USE the heat as the main driver. Used in combination with electric motors and efficient batteries (which are also moving in leaps and strides, together with supercapacitors) , they
provide a great solution.

As Dean Kamen says - Sterling engines are the insurance policy for electric cars, because if the battery dies, you can put whatever you want in them to drive them to recharge the batteries.

and what about a bike that burns diesel, or methane, or petrol, or alcohol, or whaterver all with same engine, and that goes from a minimum of 20-25 to a maximum of 200-250 km per liter of diesel?
electric, with "generous" performance and acting as a platform for quick conversion as batteries tech steps forward. available today.
well, in a year...

Well that is exactly what a Sterling engine does, when used in conjunction with an electric motor an battery. Available NOW.

[R-Soul]

Another aspect is that we are developing technologes really fast on a broad range of technologies, that are helping each other.

For eg, We are developing (at teh same time)
- nanotechnology
- power storage (batteries and superconductrs)
- pharmaceuticals
- genetics
- computing and electronics (normal)
- quantum computing

We have never develooped so many technologies all at teh same time before, and so fast

As an example of how one can influence the other, check thsi out;

http://www.gizmag.com/new-virus-buil...devices/11523/

Mark my words, in ten years time we will be seeing stuff we never thought was possible.

[Urano]

Sterling engines are MORE EFFICIENT in their thermodynamic cycle

i begin to think you are misunderstanding me.
let's find out: more efficient than WHAT?

[R-Soul]

i begin to think you are misunderstanding me.
let's find out: more efficient than WHAT?

Than the OTTO/diesel IC engine thermodynamic cycle.

[Urano]

and WHO -EVER- talked about otto/diesel ic engines in these pages?



you see? we have engines already developed much more efficient than sterling...