NeilBlanchard’s blog

What would you say about using "cooked" chicken feathers to store hydrogen very efficiently?  How about using chicken feathers as carbon fiber reinforcement in things like wind turbine blades?

Here’s a new one on me; the Riversimple open source hydrogen fuel cell car.

Not too many details are available yet: it has a 1kg tank of hydrogen and a whopping 6kW (8HP) fuel cell that give it a range of 240 miles, and a top speed of 50mph.  It weighs just 350kg (~771 pounds), owing mostly to the carbon fiber chassis.  They are looking to produce 10 next year, and ~50 the year after that, with leases available in 2012, for £200 ($315) per month, including the hydrogen fuel.  Key to their design is efficient regenerative braking (50% returned energy) using some ultracapacitors.

It looks like they are using hub motors in each wheel, and carbon fiber for the chassis.  It does not appear to be on their web page (yet), but they plan to release their plans so that anybody can build one.  I really like this idea of sharing the design information.  The aerodynamics seem to be worked out pretty well — the range of the car with just 1kg of hydrogen is proof of this!  The one (possible) snag is whether or not the side windows are operable — I guess toll roads can be handled with a wireless unit, though.  There is an intake grill, which may be used for ventilating the car.

I have my concerns with hydrogen — you can either get it from processing natural gas (which is obviously not very “green”) — or you need to use renewable energy (electricity from solar/wind/tidal/wave/biomass, etc.) to make the hydrogen.  There is no infrastructure for hydrogen, and this is a nontrivial hurdle.  But with this Riversimple car, they provide the hydrogen as part of the lease.  So this design concept works if you are located close to where they will have service.

What other parts of science do you not believe are true?

Do you believe that the Theory of Gravity is correct?  Or, do you believe in Intelligent Falling?

Do you believe in evolution?  Or, do you believe in Intelligent Design?

Do you believe in the theory of atomic structure?  Or, something else is responsible for how physics and chemistry work?

Do you believe in DNA?  Or, do you believe that God chooses what characteristics to give your child?

What about the theory of how the Universe works, and the life cycles of stars and galaxies?  Or, do you believe that God created it all in 6 days?

Do you believe that the Earth and the other SEVEN planets are orbiting the Sun? Or, does everything revolve around the Earth?

Is the Earth (approximately) a sphere -- or is it flat?

Do you believe that drugs are developed using scientific methods? Or, are they just lucky guesses?

You see, you can't believe in just parts of science -- it all works the same: we explore the unknown, and as we find out more and more, we theorize about how it works. Then, based on the evidence and peer review, the accepted theory emerges; and is continuously tested and debated. Things settle more, as scientist come into closer and closer agreement.

This is how it is for all scientific endeavors -- they are not just making this up! Global Climate Change is real and it is the predominant scientific conclusion that humans have affected an abrupt change in the climate, by burning old carbon fuels; releasing millions of years worth of old carbon in about 150 years.

A few naysayers here and there may be right -- but on the other hand, maybe the large majority of the scientists who study this are right? Which is the bigger risk: that the naysayers are right and we conserve too much fuel and move to renewable energy anyway -- or, we keep on keepin' on and the ocean rises 40 feet in the next 100 years or so, and parts of the world go into an ice age, other parts go into drought, etc. etc. etc. -- who knows what the risks are??

Are you willing to take that risk?

Post Script:

Since Intelligent Design is a renaming of Creationism -- and neither one of them is science, then you can believe in it if you want to.  The Theory of Gravity is science, and so it remains true whether you accept it or not.  If you choose to take a similar tact to believing in Intelligent Design instead of accepting Evolution as the science that it is, then you might need to try to work out calling gravity Intelligent Falling as well.

My intent is to point out that science is a process where based on the facts, we humans work to understand and name the best -- and most consistent theories possible to make all the facts that we know to fit together.  Scientists are constantly testing all the theories, and exploring the unknown.  When they find something that they cannot explain -- they DO NOT just attribute it to some unknown cause; like we all do in our faiths all the time!  This is the different between science and faith.  Science looks to either find out more about the unknown, until either the new thing fits into the accepted theory, or they have to change the theory to fit with everything that has come before AND with the new thing.  Faith simply accepts the unknown thing without question.

I apologize for this sentence in particular: "Or, do you believe that God created it all?".  Later on I edited this to say "Or, do you believe that God created it all in 6 days?".  There is a BIG difference there, because it means something very different -- so again I apologize.

The difference is that one could believe that a God created the world as a matter of faith AND the creation process is what science is working to explain and understand.  But believing that God created the universe, the world, and all living things in a literal 6 days is a matter of faith which is conflict with science.  I hope that I have made the difference a little clearer.

Again, it was not my intent to debate the difference between faith and science; though this is obviously part of the discussion.  My main point was to try to point out the need for consistency in the understanding of science:  if the scientific process has produced strong theories (which are very different from hypothesis') for things like gravity, atomic theory, plate tectonics, evolution, electricity, astronomy -- all of these things and much more -- are *inseparable* from the way we live and the way we understand all things in science.  To be intellectually consistent, all of these and more -- including global climate change must be accepted as a whole!  If you reject one part, then you must reject all the others, too -- because they are part of the whole.

This certainly does not mean that one cannot question any or all of these things -- this is what scientists do ALL THE TIME!  This is EXACTLY what scientists DO all the time.  But to throw out the theory of evolution say, on the basis of a few examples, is frankly throwing out the baby with the bath water.  If one is to pronounce that any part of accepted science as bunk, then one had better be ready to show that they have a fully working alternative theory -- and to defend it scientifically, through accepted scientific process.

I urge all of you who are interested in this to watch a NOVA video online, or the next time it is broadcast on your local PBS station:

PBS NOVA page

Watch show online

Sincerely, Neil

Hello,

I have installed my own video mirrors on my Scion xA, and it has reduced my frontal area by ~62 sq. in., and I will be doing another coast down test to see how much it may have helped lower my Cd.  I did one set of coast down tests and I got ~0.267 (down from 0.31 of the stock car); though this is based on an estimated rolling resistance of 0.011 for my 44PSI Yokohama Avid tires.

Here's my post about the installation on EcoModder:

Installation post on EcoModder.com

Now that I've driven with the video mirrors for a few days now, and I'm close to being used to their location. I drove in the heavy rain yesterday -- and they work much better than optical mirrors! The lower resolution "misses" much of the mist (kicked up from the tires) and their aperture adjustment makes the images on the screens quite bright. Ditto for dusk operation. I have not driven at night except once, and I think I now have the windshield reflection issue solved...(see the picture below for the current set up, that eliminates the reflection)

If I were to design this from scratch, I would say that a slightly less wide angle of view would be plenty (90-100 degrees instead of the ~110 degrees these cameras provide). The wide angle is great and I love being able to see a bit of the side of my car in both screens, but frankly, it takes getting used to. And that leads me to my next improvement:

I would want the lens optics to compensate for the barrel distortion (and maybe overcompensate?) so the cars behind in the adjacent lanes were shown larger and appeared to be closer. I am still looking over my shoulder to confirm that I have room (which is probably wise in any situation!), because they look pretty small when they are ~100' behind me.

Large (semi) trucks behind me show up in all three mirrors! And the way they work in the rain is quite impressive -- the lens get a few drops when the car is parked, which show up as soft-focus distortions on part of the screen, but if you wipe these off, then they stay dry when you are driving. It doesn't matter if your windows get fogged up, either!

I averaged (just) above 50mpg on a tank, for the first time!  The passenger side was put on about 1/3 through the tank, and the driver side about 2/3 through -- not too bad, if I say so myself.

Here's some pictures of what the video mirrors look like at dusk and near dark -- it's a little tricky getting an exposure that shows it close to what I can actually see!

These are getting progressively darker top to bottom -- the middle one especially makes it look darker outside than it actually is, and the cameras really seem to open up their apertures in this light, and they sometimes are slightly overexposed on one or the other, depending on the direction of the sun.  The last one is sitting in my driveway, and there is very little ambient light -- you can kinda make out the light thrown by my taillights in the right screen...the light ahead is my porch light.

Check this out!

World's Fastest Electric Car!

Hello,

Here's a really smart idea that I'm surprised that I have not heard about before:

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/04/28/in-israel-solar-power-that-wont-need-subsidies/

They cool the PV with water to make it more efficient, and they can also use the heat that is gathered.  It's as obvious as the nose on your face!

Hi again,

I want to start a list of cars that are exceptional in at least one important way, that improves efficiency.

Aptera 2e: exceptionally low aerodynamic drag with a Cd of 0.15 and a CdA of less than 3 (sq ft).  Low weight (~1,700pounds) and drive train that is aimed at maximizing efficiency: it gets an equivalent of 200mpg on the EPA cycle.  It seats two people side by side, and has plenty of storage capacity, and is supposed to be quite crash worthy.

VW 1Liter car: Nearly as aerodynamic as the Aptera with a Cd of 0.16, and probably a lower CdA, the prototype got ~264mpg US (0.89L/100km).  It weighed just ~650 pounds!  It seats two people one behind the other, and has limited storage capacity.

Schlör "Pillbug" (1937): built on a Mercedes 170 chassis, the body had an astoundingly low Cd of 0.13, and yet has room for 5-7 people.

I have a copy of the Hucho book on car aerodynamics, and I will be making a 3D model of the Schlör Pillbug!  I'll be happy to share it when I get it done.

Maybach Stromlinienkarosserie (1939): Another streamlined car with a very low drag coefficient: 0.16 with flat windshield glass, and 0.14 with curved glass.  Seating is at least 2, and may be 4 people.  This car could go 150mph on just a 150HP engine.

Mercedes Bionic "Boxfish": A very interesting prototype based on the shape of the boxfish, which is counterintuitively very sleek.  The prototype has a Cd of 0.19, seats four with adequate storage, and the structure is also based on the skeleton of the boxfish, which helps reduce weight and increase strength.  With a diesel engine, this car gets ~84mpg US.

Toyota 2010 Prius (3rd generation):  A Cd of 0.25, and efficient parallel hybrid drive train, seats 5 with generous storage capacity -- it is in production now.  It has bee driven by a number of folks who managed to get 70+ mpg.

Toyota/Scion 2010 iQ: Soon to sold in the USA (already sold in Japan and in Europe), this little conventionally powered car has a Cd of 0.29, seats 3 adults and 1 child, and has very limited storage unless you have fewer people in the car.  It gets 55+ mpg, and should cost ~$13.5K.  It is under 10 feet long (only 10" longer than the Smart car), and is front wheel drive, has 9 air bags (1 behind the rear seat), and has very low emissions.

Honda 2009 Fit: Extremely flexible, roomy, and efficient design, mainly because of it's backseat.  It is a good aerodynamic shape (though I do not have a Cd number), and can easily get in the 45+ mpg range, and probably higher if ecodriven well.  It can seat up to 5 people, with several of them 6'-4" or taller.

Repeating what I wrote below, because I think it is very important:

All companies should use the year that a vehicle is sold as the model year. This takes the pressure off of making change for changes sake. It also (hopefully) will reduce the prevalence of planned obsolescence; and increase the durability and the recycle-ability of the materials used. All these things would greatly lower costs over the long run.

All design changes should be based on functional improvements. Imagine it: higher and higher reliability, better and better efficiency, continuous safety improvements, more and more recycled materials, design changes based on owner’s needs — what a concept!

In a nutshell, ecodriving is driving in the most economical way possible:  it starts with brisk acceleration (trying to use the peak torque of the engine) so you get to "cruising" speed fairly quickly, and then trying to use a minimum of throttle to maintain the speed. Obviously, uphills are your biggest challenge, where it takes throttle just to maintain speed -- if you can, it helps if you let yourself lose a little speed up hills.

Then use the downhills to ease way off the throttle, or if you need to carry speed, put it in neutral and coast (with the engine idling) -- at 60mph at idle in my xA, I get over 300mpg while coasting.  I've found it is best to put the car back into gear right before the bottom of the hill, and use a little throttle to carry the speed that you've gained up the next hill, or onto the flat road.  This is the corollary to losing speed while going up: gain some speed while going down, and use it to your best advantage.

The other common situation is when you can coast, but you need to slow down, or will soon come to a stop -- then you should downshift into a lower gear. When the engine is being pushed by the wheels, in almost all modern fuel injected cars -- will completely shut off the fuel to the engine; yielding "infinite" mileage for the duration of this kind of coasting. I try to only use my brakes at the very end of the coast right before you stop.

So, if you only use just enough throttle to get you where you need to go, and try not waste energy by heating the brakes; but instead use it to shut off fuel to the engine, and coast to carry speed whenever you can, carrying momentum as far as you can -- then you are most of the way to good ecodriving technique.  In hybrid cars, this is when you can use regenerative braking to regain some of the energy you used while accelerating.  Without the electrical regenerative braking though, the best we can do is use this energy to be able to stop burning any more fuel while slowing the car down.

There are other things to try, like pulse and glide (when on flat-ish terrain), and minimizing your use of A/C -- and of course if you want to try some simple and reversible modifications: like pumping up your tires a bit above the recommended pressure – up to the maximum pressure listed on the sidewall, or some of the aerodynamic modifications on the grill, etc., then all the better.

Let's try this: how far above the EPA combined mileage rating can you average on a tankful?

Keep track of your mileage – write down the mileage for each tankful (using the trip odometer) and the amount of fuel you pump each time.

My Scion xA is rated 30mpg in that Combined (2007) EPA rating, so I was over 50% above this last summer, and during the past 90 (winter) days I have been 43.3% above.  

The front grill blocks and fog light covers added ~10-12%, and the smooth wheel covers added ~6%, and yes the rear wheel skirts are ~2 to maybe 3%. The rest is gained from ecodriving technique.  I use a ScanGauge II to help me see how I am driving, and to help me practice and improve my ecodriving.

Build a railroad station at Route 95 & Route 128 intersection, with large parking garage [actually, there is a parking garage very close by, but it is hard to get to from Rt 95], and build train/subway line into Boston.  People can then park their cars (after driving up Route 95, or on Route 128 from either direction) and ride on the train into Boston.  This would relieve a large portion of the traffic at the 95/93 split, and on the southeastern expressway; as well as decrease the demand on parking in the city.

Build a “ring” railroad/subway along Route 128, with parking garages & stations at all the “spoke” highways that intersect with Route 128.  Also, all of the existing train lines that come into Boston/Cambridge should have new stations where they intersect with this new “ring”railroad.  People can drive (or bicycle, or walk) to these stations, and travel either along Route 128, or to another train station (Braintree, Route 95 (see above), Riverside, the Purple Lines, etc.) to travel in towards Boston.

This would relieve a large portion of the traffic on Route 128/95 and all roads from there in towards the city.  It would be much more energy efficient, as well.

Any current owner of their residence should be able to “sell” their own house to themselves – and the new mortgage must be kept by the bank that refinances the transaction.  It can never be sold to another institution, unless that company is in bankruptcy.  The price of the “sale” should be negotiated between the (new) bank that will be financing the renegotiated deal, and the current owner/resident of the property.

The current owner can select the bank that they want to deal with: they should be able to choose between the current institution, and any other local bank i.e. a bank that has a local office.  The banks that want to underwrite the new renegotiated loan would be competing to make the new loan.

So, if the current holder of the mortgage wants to keep their investment, they will have to negotiate a fair (current) price for the property, and the owner would have to qualify for the new loan under reasonable and transparent rules; that are set by the government.

If the institution that is the current mortgage holder is refinancing the renegotiated mortgage, then the government doesn't need to pay out anything.

If the new renegotiated mortgage is being held by a new (local) bank, then the government can split the difference 50/50 between the old and the new mortgages, or pay half of the original mortgage, whichever is less, to the old institution; sharing the losses.