"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 08:12:08 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 31 Jan 2006 10:48:48 -0800, wrote:

We can be thankful for our unique geography
while we wait and hope for technology to help us make some dramatic
improvements in fuel efficiency.

diesel electric - the only way to go for cars and boats.

A locomotive in every garage.

im absolutely serious.

I understand the use of diesel electric in locomotives - the electric motor
drives have immense amounts of torque. But what's the advantage in a boat
or car?

RCE

RCE wrote:
I understand the use of diesel electric in locomotives - the electric motor
drives have immense amounts of torque. But what's the advantage in a boat
or car?


Until they get the bugs worked out of lobe-type engines
(similar to the Wankel), the diesel gives the most bang for
the buck *if* it can be kept within a fairly narrow power band.

Using a diesel to drive a car or truck suffers because it
has to put out varying amounts of torque, up to full rating,
at widely varying RPMs. Even so it can get better fuel
economy than a gasoline engine in the same service.

If you couple a diesel to a generator, so it can constantly
run at it's most efficient RPM & throttle setting, then use
the electricity to drive the car, you basically have a
locomotive only with tires for road use. Adding tricks like
high-density permanent magnet motors (or the still-expesnive
cobalt motors) & advanced tech battery banks & regenerative
braking & solar panels & bulk/trickle chargers boosts the
efficienct higher yet, but basically it's still a
constant-load diesel with an electric transmission.

Regards
Doug King

If you couple a diesel to a generator, so it can constantly
run at it's most efficient RPM & throttle setting, then use
the electricity to drive the car, you basically have a
locomotive only with tires for road use. Adding tricks like
high-density permanent magnet motors (or the still-expesnive
cobalt motors) & advanced tech battery banks & regenerative
braking & solar panels & bulk/trickle chargers boosts the
efficienct higher yet, but basically it's still a
constant-load diesel with an electric transmission.


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
what he said.

Thanks Tom- while I was pontificating (stop me if you've
heard this before) I forgot to add a few details about why
it makes particular sense for cars right now.

The basic technology is the most efficent load-mover devised
and has origins before WW1. Battleships & trains have used
such plants, and as advances in diesel engine design (along
with metallurgy & casting) allow us to make diesel engines
that are both MUCH bigger and much smaller than were
practical just a few years ago.

AFAIK all big commercial ships, tankers & the like, have
big-ass diesel plants (direct drive, no reduction gear) now.
Small diesels have made similar... or even greater...
advances. Small diesel generators are almost magic!

It's possible that somebody will be able to make something
along the lines of a carbon fiber Wankel that will get more
muscle from a gallon of fuel, but I'm betting it will be a
fair bit of time from now, by which time fuel cells will
probably be the workaday power source.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
If you couple a diesel to a generator, so it can constantly run at it's
most efficient RPM & throttle setting, then use the electricity to drive
the car, you basically have a locomotive only with tires for road use.
Adding tricks like high-density permanent magnet motors (or the
still-expesnive cobalt motors) & advanced tech battery banks &
regenerative braking & solar panels & bulk/trickle chargers boosts the
efficienct higher yet, but basically it's still a constant-load diesel
with an electric transmission.


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
what he said.

Thanks Tom- while I was pontificating (stop me if you've heard this
before) I forgot to add a few details about why it makes particular sense
for cars right now.

The basic technology is the most efficent load-mover devised and has
origins before WW1. Battleships & trains have used such plants, and as
advances in diesel engine design (along with metallurgy & casting) allow
us to make diesel engines that are both MUCH bigger and much smaller than
were practical just a few years ago.

AFAIK all big commercial ships, tankers & the like, have big-ass diesel
plants (direct drive, no reduction gear) now. Small diesels have made
similar... or even greater... advances. Small diesel generators are almost
magic!

It's possible that somebody will be able to make something along the lines
of a carbon fiber Wankel that will get more muscle from a gallon of fuel,
but I'm betting it will be a fair bit of time from now, by which time fuel
cells will probably be the workaday power source.

DSK


Makes sense now. Thanks, both Tom and DSK. Wanna start up a business
building diesel electric drives?

RCE

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

Makes sense now. Thanks, both Tom and DSK. Wanna start up a business
building diesel electric drives?

im in.

I am half serious. I need something to do anyway. Thinking we buy an old
boat maybe already with a small diesel, add a battery bank, charging system,
inverter and a big old electric motor. I have access to machining, welding
and fabrication services, plus controls, electrical and CAD design if
needed. Even have some space we could use. We could build a prototype and
optimize it for proof of concept .... then .... on to Wall Street.

Hmmmmm..... this one has caught my attention. I wonder if Mrs.E would
donate her GB?

RCE

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...


True, but the hybrids rate poor on long distance highway driving. They
just do not regenerate enough energy.


How do the hybrids fair in cold weather? Assume you park it outside
overnight without being "plugged in" in subfreezing temps. Do the
batteries lose capacity and affect drivability until they warm up again?

RCE


I live in California. We do not know what cold is. You have to ask those
people in the Northeast.

"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
. ..
Harry Krause wrote:
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 23:33:53 -0500, wrote:

On 31 Jan 2006 10:48:48 -0800, wrote:


In the meantime, we can keep our boats tuned up and maintained, select
and install the correct propellers, haul off unused items to reduce
excess weight, install fuel flow meters to seek the most efficient
cruising speeds, keep the bottom clean, and pay some attention to
currents when planning a cruise.
The biggest thing I have done to save fuel is to SLOW DOWN.
My new motor was 10HP smaller than my old one, EFI 4 stroke vs 90's
technology 2 stroke. I seldom ever get over 3400 RPM and I spend most
of my time around 1100 (legally "slow" speed)
I usually average about 1 GPH over my normal daily cruise. I simply
found interesting things to do that did not require a lot of
speed.

cruise is a good option for any boat to increase mileage. on my boats,
wot open throttle is only efficient on the carbed 25 johnson on the
princecraft.


The gauge I watch closest is the fuel-flow meter. I surely know what GPH
means in terms of my wallet.
Harry,
Have you figured out what your next ideal boat would have to allow you
sufficient speed at the lowest possible gas consumption? Since we don't
have any hybrid engines, on a boat gas consumption seems directly
correlated to size and weight. My guess is you will see more fisherman
using the smallest boat that will do the job.

--
Reggie
************************************************** *************
That's my story and I am sticking to it.

************************************************** *************

Nope, the fisherman with a larger boat, wants safety and comfort. May not
go as much, or take more friends along to chip in. If you are paying $50k+
for a boat, you most likely can afford a couple hundred a month in fuel
bills.

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
If you couple a diesel to a generator, so it can constantly run at it's
most efficient RPM & throttle setting, then use the electricity to drive
the car, you basically have a locomotive only with tires for road use.
Adding tricks like high-density permanent magnet motors (or the
still-expesnive cobalt motors) & advanced tech battery banks &
regenerative braking & solar panels & bulk/trickle chargers boosts the
efficienct higher yet, but basically it's still a constant-load diesel
with an electric transmission.


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
what he said.

Thanks Tom- while I was pontificating (stop me if you've heard this
before) I forgot to add a few details about why it makes particular sense
for cars right now.

The basic technology is the most efficent load-mover devised and has
origins before WW1. Battleships & trains have used such plants, and as
advances in diesel engine design (along with metallurgy & casting) allow
us to make diesel engines that are both MUCH bigger and much smaller than
were practical just a few years ago.

AFAIK all big commercial ships, tankers & the like, have big-ass diesel
plants (direct drive, no reduction gear) now. Small diesels have made
similar... or even greater... advances. Small diesel generators are almost
magic!

It's possible that somebody will be able to make something along the lines
of a carbon fiber Wankel that will get more muscle from a gallon of fuel,
but I'm betting it will be a fair bit of time from now, by which time fuel
cells will probably be the workaday power source.

DSK


As the wankel engineer told my class in university, that the Wankel is great
if you have no pollution controls. Is basically a dirty engine.

Reggie Smithers wrote:


Chuck,
Your cost analysis of hybrid vs non hybrid shows why the start to lower
oil consumption is to increase the cost of fuel. Very few people will
make the choice to pay more for the greater good of society. As long as
it cost more to operate a hybrid it will not be the preferred choice
for the majority.

--
Reggie
************************************************** *************
That's my story and I am sticking to it.

************************************************** *************



It probably costs less to actually operate a hybrid, up to the point
where the battery eventually needs to be replaced. Most of the systems
seem to have 100k mile warranties on all the hybrid stuff. The bump in
the road is the acquisition cost. The hybrids we have looked at cost
about $7,000 more than their gasoline counterparts. Factor in that the
hyhbrids are in short supply and *nobody* is willing to come off
MSRP.....(they simply look over your head to the lineup in the showroom
and holler "Next!" when you want to discuss a discount- let alone
invoice)... and the typical difference is probably closer to $9000.

Nobody is buying hybrids to save money. I think it would take 150,000
miles of in-city driving to break even. I guess you buy a hybrid for
the same reason you sort the recyclables from your trash or step up for
a 4 stroke outboard when a 2 stroke is cheaper.
Some things get done because they are considered by some at least to be
the right thing, not the cheapest thing.

Artificially making oil more expensive in order to drive people to
alternative resources isn't always good policy. Like so many ideas, it
would impact most those in society who have the fewest resources and
choices. If a guy pushing a broom around WalMart buys as many gallons
of gas as I do every month, it is certainly taking a bigger percentage
of his monthly income to do so than it takes from mine. (maybe just
barely). The WalMart broom jockey *has to* buy gas to get to work in
most locations, it isn't a luxury, and he isn't in the financial
position to acquire cutting edge, more economical options.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Reggie Smithers wrote:


Chuck,
Your cost analysis of hybrid vs non hybrid shows why the start to lower
oil consumption is to increase the cost of fuel. Very few people will
make the choice to pay more for the greater good of society. As long as
it cost more to operate a hybrid it will not be the preferred choice
for the majority.

--
Reggie
************************************************** *************
That's my story and I am sticking to it.

************************************************** *************



It probably costs less to actually operate a hybrid, up to the point
where the battery eventually needs to be replaced. Most of the systems
seem to have 100k mile warranties on all the hybrid stuff. The bump in
the road is the acquisition cost. The hybrids we have looked at cost
about $7,000 more than their gasoline counterparts. Factor in that the
hyhbrids are in short supply and *nobody* is willing to come off
MSRP.....(they simply look over your head to the lineup in the showroom
and holler "Next!" when you want to discuss a discount- let alone
invoice)... and the typical difference is probably closer to $9000.

Nobody is buying hybrids to save money. I think it would take 150,000
miles of in-city driving to break even.


Bingo!




I guess you buy a hybrid for
the same reason you sort the recyclables from your trash or step up for
a 4 stroke outboard when a 2 stroke is cheaper.
Some things get done because they are considered by some at least to be
the right thing, not the cheapest thing.

Artificially making oil more expensive in order to drive people to
alternative resources isn't always good policy. Like so many ideas, it
would impact most those in society who have the fewest resources and
choices. If a guy pushing a broom around WalMart buys as many gallons
of gas as I do every month, it is certainly taking a bigger percentage
of his monthly income to do so than it takes from mine. (maybe just
barely). The WalMart broom jockey *has to* buy gas to get to work in
most locations, it isn't a luxury, and he isn't in the financial
position to acquire cutting edge, more economical options.