People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.

Not so much because of the statement, but because they don't have any
math to back-up said statement. Might as well say, "If I flap my arms
real hard, I could fly." Yeah. Sure. If it WERE possible to build a
400MPG civic or Prius, Honda or Toyota or Ford would would already be
doing it (and bragging about it on the television).



There are limits the universe places on Energy-to-Motion conversion.
You can't exceed those limits. That means NO civic hybrid or prius
hybrid will ever get 400 mpg. As it stands now, both these hybrids
are already operating at 40% efficiency. Even if you increased that
to 60% (a miracle), you'd still only boost them from 50 to 60mpg.

And if you're a wizard like Gandalf who can magically boost a Prius
engine to 100%, such that you had a perfect 1-to-1 conversion w/o
losses, that's still only 125mpg.

In other words, "a 400mpg prius" is not only a bad idea.
It violates the Laws of the universe.
It's perpetual motion.
Impossible.

Now if you leave behind the "standard" car shape, and try something
exotic life a Jetsons-car, then you might be able to do better.
Volkswagen did exactly that a few years ago, with a 1-seat car, 8
horsepower engine, and shaped like a cigar.

But even then, they still only got 250 miles per gallon.

[color=blue]
> Now if you leave behind the "standard" car shape, and try something
> exotic life a Jetsons-car, then you might be able to do better.
> Volkswagen did exactly that a few years ago, with a 1-seat car, 8
> horsepower engine, and shaped like a cigar.
>
> But even then, they still only got 250 miles per gallon.[/color]


I agree it's impossible with the engine design and materials that go into
cars these days. Way too inefficient and way to heavy.

It would require a radical new engine design. Most likely something not
thought of yet.
It would also require a huge leap forward in materials technology .
Something that can be affordable, as strong as steel, and be 90% lighter and
still transport a family.

On Feb 14, 5:26 am, SFTVratings_t...@yahoo.com wrote:[color=blue]
> Not so much because of the statement, but because they don't have any
> math to back-up said statement. Might as well say, "If I flap my arms
> real hard, I could fly." Yeah. Sure. If it WERE possible to build a
> 400MPG civic or Prius, Honda or Toyota or Ford would would already be
> doing it (and bragging about it on the television).
>
> There are limits the universe places on Energy-to-Motion conversion.
> You can't exceed those limits. That means NO civic hybrid or prius
> hybrid will ever get 400 mpg. As it stands now, both these hybrids
> are already operating at 40% efficiency. Even if you increased that
> to 60% (a miracle), you'd still only boost them from 50 to 60mpg.
>
> And if you're a wizard like Gandalf who can magically boost a Prius
> engine to 100%, such that you had a perfect 1-to-1 conversion w/o
> losses, that's still only 125mpg.
>
> In other words, "a 400mpg prius" is not only a bad idea.
> It violates the Laws of the universe.
> It's perpetual motion.
> Impossible.
>
> Now if you leave behind the "standard" car shape, and try something
> exotic life a Jetsons-car, then you might be able to do better.
> Volkswagen did exactly that a few years ago, with a 1-seat car, 8
> horsepower engine, and shaped like a cigar.
>
> But even then, they still only got 250 miles per gallon.[/color]



Now, with a plug-in hybrid, one can play games. If you only used it
for trips less than the battery can contribute, one could get infinite
miles per gallon OF GASOLINE. However, you'd still be using energy,
of course. It is not really valid to talk about plug-in hybrids in
terms of mpg, but I suspect that is what some folks are doing.

"Don Stauffer in Minnesota" <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote in message
news:1171463112.249185.6330@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...[color=blue]
> On Feb 14, 5:26 am, SFTVratings_t...@yahoo.com wrote:[color=green]
>> Not so much because of the statement, but because they don't have any
>> math to back-up said statement. Might as well say, "If I flap my arms
>> real hard, I could fly." Yeah. Sure. If it WERE possible to build a
>> 400MPG civic or Prius, Honda or Toyota or Ford would would already be
>> doing it (and bragging about it on the television).
>>
>> There are limits the universe places on Energy-to-Motion conversion.
>> You can't exceed those limits. That means NO civic hybrid or prius
>> hybrid will ever get 400 mpg. As it stands now, both these hybrids
>> are already operating at 40% efficiency. Even if you increased that
>> to 60% (a miracle), you'd still only boost them from 50 to 60mpg.
>>
>> And if you're a wizard like Gandalf who can magically boost a Prius
>> engine to 100%, such that you had a perfect 1-to-1 conversion w/o
>> losses, that's still only 125mpg.
>>
>> In other words, "a 400mpg prius" is not only a bad idea.
>> It violates the Laws of the universe.
>> It's perpetual motion.
>> Impossible.
>>
>> Now if you leave behind the "standard" car shape, and try something
>> exotic life a Jetsons-car, then you might be able to do better.
>> Volkswagen did exactly that a few years ago, with a 1-seat car, 8
>> horsepower engine, and shaped like a cigar.
>>
>> But even then, they still only got 250 miles per gallon.[/color]
>
>
>
> Now, with a plug-in hybrid, one can play games. If you only used it
> for trips less than the battery can contribute, one could get infinite
> miles per gallon OF GASOLINE. However, you'd still be using energy,
> of course. It is not really valid to talk about plug-in hybrids in
> terms of mpg, but I suspect that is what some folks are doing.[/color]

Car and Drive drove a hybrid prius behind a truck that basically eliminated
all drag. They got around 80 mpg. This was rolling resistance. In real life,
you're going to get more efficent cars over time. But the practical limit
for cars is probably around 60-80 mpg with advances in current (hybrid)
technology. You're not going to do much better by using electricity only.

36.6 kilowatt hours of electricity has the same amount of energy as one
gallon of gasoline. To make the answer meaningful, you have to include the
energy it takes to refine the gasoline and the energy it takes to make the
electricity.

[url]http://www.onlineconversion.com/energy.htm[/url]

A kilowatt hour costs about 12 cents to buy, so costs about $4 for the same
amount of energy as in a gallon of gasoline. But it gas engines are only
about 40% efficent, so it costs about $5 for the same amount of energy. So
there is not much cost advantage to using all electricity. Considering that
the motors only work in an electric car when the engine is working, it
probably pays off for both the enivronment and in cash for all-electric cars
with gasoline generators for longer trips (which is what the VW car might
be).

jeff

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:[color=blue]
> <SFTVratings_troy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1171452408.323940.77550@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...[color=green]
> > Not so much because of the statement, but because they don't have any
> > math to back-up said statement. Might as well say, "If I flap my arms
> > real hard, I could fly." Yeah. Sure.[/color]
>
>
> In the original Star Trek program, people would use these little data
> storage things the size of small cookies. What did you think about that idea
> when you saw it?[/color]


I thought it was theoretically possible, if they used electrons as
their method of storage. (Where the presence of an electron = 1, or
the absence thereof = 0.)

But you see, cars are now reaching the theoretical maximum. You can't
exceed 100% efficiency, and there are diesels on the road right now
(like the Lupo) that have 51% peak efficiency. So there's room for
improvement, but very very little.

Geoff wrote:[color=blue]
> ...... Considering that
> the motors only work in an electric car when the engine is working, it
> probably pays off for both the enivronment and in cash for all-electric cars
> with gasoline generators for longer trips (which is what the VW car might
> be).[/color]


No. The VW cigar-shaped car/prototype was a conventional diesel
engine. The reason it could get ~250 mpg at highway speeds is because
it was very, very narrow & its Air resistance was almost null.

All they needed was an 8 horsepower engine, which burns very little
fuel.

"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:z9GAh.2798$ya1.1059@news02.roc.ny...[color=blue]
> "SFTVratings" <SFTVratings_troy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1171467870.596917.50990@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...[color=green]
>>
>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> <SFTVratings_troy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1171452408.323940.77550@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>>> > Not so much because of the statement, but because they don't have any
>>> > math to back-up said statement. Might as well say, "If I flap my arms
>>> > real hard, I could fly." Yeah. Sure.
>>>
>>>
>>> In the original Star Trek program, people would use these little data
>>> storage things the size of small cookies. What did you think about that
>>> idea
>>> when you saw it?[/color]
>>
>>
>> I thought it was theoretically possible, if they used electrons as
>> their method of storage. (Where the presence of an electron = 1, or
>> the absence thereof = 0.)
>>[/color]
>
>
> Theoretically possible? We have those things now, Einstein.
>[/color]
You seem to have trouble with the grammatical concept of tense. As in past.
Re-read the person's post.

On Feb 14, 9:55 am, "Geoff" <n...@googlemail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Car and Driver drove a hybrid prius behind a truck that basically eliminated
> all drag. They got around 80 mpg. This was rolling resistance.
>[/color]
IIRC, they used a Honda Insight, not a Prius.

- cja

On Feb 14, 5:03 am, "Kinik" <K...@yahoo.com> wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
> > Now if you leave behind the "standard" car shape, and try something
> > exotic life a Jetsons-car, then you might be able to do better.
> > Volkswagen did exactly that a few years ago, with a 1-seat car, 8
> > horsepower engine, and shaped like a cigar.[/color]
>[color=green]
> > But even then, they still only got 250 miles per gallon.[/color]
>
> I agree it's impossible with the engine design and materials that go into
> cars these days. Way too inefficient and way to heavy.
>[/color]
Only the cars that joe schmoe is buying.
Lotus seven body has been around for more than half of the
centrury now.
[color=blue]
> It would require a radical new engine design. Most likely something not
> thought of yet.
> It would also require a huge leap forward in materials technology .
> Something that can be affordable, as strong as steel, and be 90% lighter and
> still transport a family.[/color]

It's doable but since an average car buyer is a moron
who is buying a heavy pig (such as a prius) and does not
pay any attention to the weight aluminum frames for the masses ain't
gonna happen.

According to urban myth, the model T-Ford could do 40 mpg.


"There are no enemies in science just anomalies"

Dano wrote:[color=blue]
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:z9GAh.2798$ya1.1059@news02.roc.ny...[color=green]
> > "SFTVratings" <SFTVratings_troy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1171467870.596917.50990@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...[color=darkred]
> >>
> >> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> >>> <SFTVratings_troy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>>
> >>> > Not so much because of the statement, but because they don't have any
> >>> > math to back-up said statement. Might as well say, "If I flap my arms
> >>> > real hard, I could fly." Yeah. Sure.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> In the original Star Trek program, people would use these little data
> >>> storage things the size of small cookies. What did you think about that
> >>> idea
> >>> when you saw it?
> >>
> >>
> >> I thought it was theoretically possible, if they used electrons as
> >> their method of storage. (Where the presence of an electron = 1, or
> >> the absence thereof = 0.)
> >>[/color]
> >
> >
> > Theoretically possible? We have those things now, Einstein.
> >[/color]
> You seem to have trouble with the grammatical concept of tense. As in past.
> Re-read the person's post.[/color]



Yes. Let me rephrase to clarify: [When I originally saw Star Trek
TOS in the 1980s], I thought it was theoretically possible [to store
video on tiny cookie-sized wafers] , if they used electrons as their
method of storage. (Where the presence of an electron = 1, or the
absence thereof = 0.)

But the situation we're talking about, making a 400mpg Civic or Prius,
is never gonna happen. Just as you can not fly by flapping your arms.

In article <1171452408.323940.77550@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
[email]SFTVratings_troy@yahoo.com[/email] wrote:
[color=blue]
> There are limits the universe places on Energy-to-Motion conversion.
> You can't exceed those limits.[/color]

True. But we don't know that we've hit those limits, so we keep trying.

I'm sure people 200 years ago thought we hit all sorts of limits, which
someone then proceeded to blow through.

Shoot, at one time heavier-than-air flight was thought impossible.

"Mark" <bogusmailmark@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1171477459.332207.173200@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
[color=blue]
> On Feb 14, 10:23 am, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:[color=green]
>> In article <l0FAh.2787$ya1.1...@news02.roc.ny>,
>>
>> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborea...@yahoo.com> wrote:[color=darkred]
>> > <SFTVratings_t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:1171452408.323940.77550@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> > > Not so much because of the statement, but because they don't have any
>> > > math to back-up said statement. Might as well say, "If I flap my
>> > > arms
>> > > real hard, I could fly." Yeah. Sure.[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>> > In the original Star Trek program, people would use these little data
>> > storage things the size of small cookies. What did you think about that
>> > idea
>> > when you saw it?[/color]
>>
>> JoeSpareBedroom, allow me to introduce you to Troy Heagy, performance
>> troll and the self styled "most annoying man on usenet"
>>
>> Troy posts under at least half a dozen names (see below) and his game is
>> to create a thread that might otherwise be interesting, and introduce a
>> deliberate mistake into it, and watch it fall apart with people arguing
>> about his mistake instead the actual topic.
>>
>> He's been busted in rec.arts.tv so many times that he's expanding his
>> net to other groups, like mostly sci-fi like Farscape, and now auto
>> related ones like these. But he sets the cross posts to rec.arts.tv to
>> show that he's still managing to annoy us here.
>>
>> He'll now scream that we're haters, and are stalking him, etc., etc.,
>> etc., and probably threaten legal action, yadda yadda yadda.
>>
>> Oh, and he sends death threats to people that expose him like this, and
>> then will claim they've been sending HIM death threats, and writing his
>> boss and trying to get him fired, blah blah blah.
>>
>> Killfile Troy Heagy in all (s)he-its many incarnations now:
>> Troy.He...@gmail.com,videonov...@yahoo.com
>> videonovels2...@yahoo.com,telenov...@yahoo.com,fred_h_had...@yahoo.com
>> **DON'T FORGET THE NEWEST ONE>>> SFTVratings_t...@yahoo.com[/color]
>
> Not to worry, Joe does the "death threats" thing too... (yawn)
>[/color]


Hey - I never heard back from you on your business theories with the pizza
place.

On Feb 14, 6:25 am, "Don Stauffer in Minnesota"
<stauf...@usfamily.net> wrote:[color=blue]
> Now, with a plug-in hybrid, one can play games. If you only used it
> for trips less than the battery can contribute, one could get infinite
> miles per gallon OF GASOLINE. However, you'd still be using energy,
> of course. It is not really valid to talk about plug-in hybrids in
> terms of mpg, but I suspect that is what some folks are doing.[/color]

excellent point.

"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:blNAh.2870$ya1.2301@news02.roc.ny...[color=blue]
>
> Same here. Many have lost their licenses because of drunk driving. We're
> not allowed to shoot them (yet).[/color]

Lethal injection works for me, it's a quieter means of disposing of the
trash.