• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Interesting read on Terrorism and oil

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,466
1
76
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...lcohol_plan/page2.html

The article puts the blame on the Saudi's and their Wahhabism. It does spell out what is going on for those that really haven't delved too much into Islam and are content to just read the headlines in mainstream media.

Yes, the Saudi's are our friends....only because they are the drug dealers and the oil is their drug.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
But we hold hands and play kissy-kissy with the House of Faud - :D

Using "flex-fuel vehicles" is a temporary waypoint. We need more efficient building and energy. We need to incorporate active and passive solar design in all our construction. We need electrical load management and conservation practices. We need affordable hybrid vehicles and technology. We need further advances in solar power and a commitment - such as Germany's - to embrace the Sun.

All we need to tell the House of Faud the only kissy-kissy they get is our butts!
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,466
1
76
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
But we hold hands and play kissy-kissy with the House of Faud - :D

Using "flex-fuel vehicles" is a temporary waypoint. We need more efficient building and energy. We need to incorporate active and passive solar design in all our construction. We need electrical load management and conservation practices. We need affordable hybrid vehicles and technology. We need further advances in solar power and a commitment - such as Germany's - to embrace the Sun.

All we need to tell the House of Faud the only kissy-kissy they get is our butts!
The cost of solar panels and their technology has decreased significantly enough to make this a possibility. All we would need is for some manufacturers to offer less bling-bling in concept cars and more of an environmental friendly car that can be mass produced and doesn't look like ass. The current batch of hybrids use NiMH batteries which and 100% recyclable and last for the ownership of the vehicle (200k miles or more).

Another interesting read on the "water powered car":
http://www.rexresearch.com/meyerhy/meyerhy.htm

Note the first article is dated 1991 and someone is purported to having ran a vehicle for 4 years on a water cell. So 16 years later and we have.... ?

The technology is there, it's just not being used.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
carbon fiber composites

The big advantage of carbon fiber is that it is one-fifth the weight of steel yet just as strong and stiff, which makes it ideal for structural or semi-structural components in automobiles. Replacing half the ferrous metals in current automobiles could reduce a vehicle's weight by 60 percent and fuel consumption by 30 percent ...
"Whereas today the cost to purchase commercial-grade carbon fiber is between $8 and $10 per pound, the goal is to reduce that figure to between $3 and $5 per pound," said Norris, leader of ORNL's Polymer Matrix Composites Group. At that price, it would become feasible for automakers to use more than a million tons of composites - approximately 300 pounds of composites per vehicle - annually in the manufacturing of cars.
Now if we could only develop structural or semi-structural composites from the fecal matter fed to us from our elected officials ... :D
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,466
1
76
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
carbon fiber composites

The big advantage of carbon fiber is that it is one-fifth the weight of steel yet just as strong and stiff, which makes it ideal for structural or semi-structural components in automobiles. Replacing half the ferrous metals in current automobiles could reduce a vehicle's weight by 60 percent and fuel consumption by 30 percent ...
"Whereas today the cost to purchase commercial-grade carbon fiber is between $8 and $10 per pound, the goal is to reduce that figure to between $3 and $5 per pound," said Norris, leader of ORNL's Polymer Matrix Composites Group. At that price, it would become feasible for automakers to use more than a million tons of composites - approximately 300 pounds of composites per vehicle - annually in the manufacturing of cars.
Now if we could only develop structural or semi-structural composites from the fecal matter fed to us from our elected officials ... :D
that would represent 90% of their body weight though....
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Between that and hot air production, we've got some serious energy.

Haven't seen you here in a while NM, welcome back :) Oh - time to change your sig, ShinerBurke is unbanned :)
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,466
1
76
Originally posted by: alchemize
Between that and hot air production, we've got some serious energy.

Haven't seen you here in a while NM, welcome back :) Oh - time to change your sig, ShinerBurke is unbanned :)


Ty, took a year or so off to get some focus.
 

keird

Diamond Member
Jan 18, 2002
3,714
9
81
I dunno if it's possible to change fuels for the military while fighting a war, but I agree that the dependence on foreign oil could be a crippling, strategic-level liability. We really do need to wean the American consumer off of it. Perhaps a oil embargo would hasten this change. Americans would finally feel the pinch of their nation at war and have to partake in it.

I was in Munich and saw a wind-powered electrical generator. It was massive. 100 meters or more. From what I've read, wind power accounts for almost 5% of Germany's energy demand. There have been technical issues, but I think it's a nascent technology. In my home state they're debating wind farms off the shore of Cape Cod. The technology needs to mature, but the only way to do that is getting designs and technology off the drawing board and implement it. Solar for the South West. Nuclear is pretty inviting, too.

meh. That's what you get when Brittany Spears tops the news.
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,466
1
76
Originally posted by: keird
I dunno if it's possible to change fuels for the military while fighting a war, but I agree that the dependence on foreign oil could be a crippling, strategic-level liability. We really do need to wean the American consumer off of it. Perhaps a oil embargo would hasten this change. Americans would finally feel the pinch of their nation at war and have to partake in it.

I was in Munich and saw a wind-powered electrical generator. It was massive. 100 meters or more. From what I've read, wind power accounts for almost 5% of Germany's energy demand. There have been technical issues, but I think it's a nascent technology. In my home state they're debating wind farms off the shore of Cape Cod. The technology needs to mature, but the only way to do that is getting designs and technology off the drawing board and implement it. Solar for the South West. Nuclear is pretty inviting, too.

meh. That's what you get when Brittany Spears tops the news.
that will never happen, too many rich people that own properties on the coast don't want windmills interrupting their sunrises. Nuclear is a good solution, however; you have all those retarded terrorists out there that would just view them as another target.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
With Carbon fiber you could reduce the size of the engine because it requires less force to power it and also less force to stop it.

The other advantage is probably the vehicle body can be made in fewer pieces and assembled faster.

Less weight on roadways could also mean roads would last longer.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
You can't make a consumer car body out of carbon fiber-reinforced composites (CFRC). Metals and some plastics are ideal for this because they absorb a great deal of impact energy such that it is not transferred to the vehicle's passengers. CFRC, on the other hand, is so stiff that essentially all impact energy is transferred to the passengers. I saw a demonstration video of this about 6 years ago with a CFRC school bus loaded with crash test dummies. It was hit by another bus and all of the heads of the dummies came completely detached. The bus, of course, was completely unharmed.

As for making an engine this way, as pisabird suggested, it's not really a great idea because the polymer matrix that surrounds the carbon fibers could not withstand the elevated temperatures found in an engine. Certainly, there are polymers that could do this job, but they are prohibitively expensive and difficult/dangerous to process, making them unsuitable for production scales as large as those required for automotive engines.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
You can't make a consumer car body out of carbon fiber-reinforced composites (CFRC). Metals and some plastics are ideal for this because they absorb a great deal of impact energy such that it is not transferred to the vehicle's passengers. CFRC, on the other hand, is so stiff that essentially all impact energy is transferred to the passengers. I saw a demonstration video of this about 6 years ago with a CFRC school bus loaded with crash test dummies. It was hit by another bus and all of the heads of the dummies came completely detached. The bus, of course, was completely unharmed.

As for making an engine this way, as pisabird suggested, it's not really a great idea because the polymer matrix that surrounds the carbon fibers could not withstand the elevated temperatures found in an engine. Certainly, there are polymers that could do this job, but they are prohibitively expensive and difficult/dangerous to process, making them unsuitable for production scales as large as those required for automotive engines.

I don't think P-Bird suggested making engines out of composites . . .

With Carbon fiber you could reduce the size of the engine because it requires less force to power it and also less force to stop it.
and the point of the article was . . .

carbon fiber composites

The big advantage of carbon fiber is that it is one-fifth the weight of steel yet just as strong and stiff, which makes it ideal for structural or semi-structural components in automobiles. Replacing half the ferrous metals in current automobiles could reduce a vehicle's weight by 60 percent and fuel consumption by 30 percent ...
A school bus is not a passenger car. Passenger cars have 'crumple areas' designed to reduce energy at impact - not to mention safety advances in restraints, airbags and passenger protection.

School bus design has changed little in my lifetime (I'm old :) ). Before I got my edjumication I made driver windows and cut flooring for 32 school buses a day. A school bus is little more than frame rails with sheet metal hung off of them.

And thanks to the lobbying efforts of my former employer AFAIK school buses have yet to adopt any type of safety restraints -years ago the industry even wasn't happy with padding the top of the seats so the little tykes wouldn't split their melons open in an accident - LOL

It will take a 'full court press' (gotta luv those sports analogies) to reduce our addictions to fossil fuels. There is no portion of our lives that should not be examined in promoting 'The New Way Forward' (gotta love those Orwellian Bush analogies) to energy efficiency.

And the point of the thread - reduce the capital available for those who would do us harm by reducing our dependence on their oil.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
A school bus is not a passenger car. Passenger cars have 'crumple areas' designed to reduce energy at impact - not to mention safety advances in restraints, airbags and passenger protection.

School bus design has changed little in my lifetime (I'm old :) ). Before I got my edjumication I made driver windows and cut flooring for 32 school buses a day. A school bus is little more than frame rails with sheet metal hung off of them.

And thanks to the lobbying efforts of my former employer AFAIK school buses have yet to adopt any type of safety restraints -years ago the industry even wasn't happy with padding the top of the seats so the little tykes wouldn't split their melons open in an accident - LOL
And you missed my point entirely. Carbon fiber-based composites will never crumple, period. They undergo extremely stiff, virtually perfectly elastic deformation to the point of fracture. Metals undergo viscoplastic deformation, which makes them infinitely better at absorbing impact energy. If I use carbon composites as structural members, the crumple zones no longer crumple. Airbags and seatbelts will not prevent me from snapping my neck. The laws of physics and materials science apply equally well whether one is designing a school bus or a compact car.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
No offense, Dood, but with your wealth of knowledge I assume you are superior to the engineers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and a consortium of engineers from Ford, General Motors and DaimlerChrysler. Where in the world do you find the time to post at Anand's ?

And I assume with the huge brain in that Big Head of yours you are intellectually superior to the engineers at Atmospheric Glow Technologies, a high-tech company which assisted in the creation of ORNL fiber using atmospheric pressure plasma processing.

And with your mental power exceeding that of Google servers I'm sure automobile parts made from carbon fiber composites must be figments of our imagination and jihadist plots.

Yah better tell the Porsche Carrera GT road car, the BMW M6 and the Chevy Corvette they don't exist. Nor do those pesky auto parts including carbon fiber wheels, hoods, trunks, mirrors, intake manifolds, clutches, motor mounts, driveshafts, seat frames, fenders, doors, roofs, interior trim . . . . and on and on.

And please inform the international corporations investing hundreds of millions of dollars in the manufacturing of auto components from carbon fiber composites they are wrong.

We bow to your greatness - and that really strong neck you must have. Impart more of your wisdom O Great Wizard . . . .


 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
No offense, Dood, but with your wealth of knowledge I assume you are superior to the engineers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and a consortium of engineers from Ford, General Motors and DaimlerChrysler. Where in the world do you find the time to post at Anand's ?

And I assume with the huge brain in that Big Head of yours you are intellectually superior to the engineers at Atmospheric Glow Technologies, a high-tech company which assisted in the creation of ORNL fiber using atmospheric pressure plasma processing.

And with your mental power exceeding that of Google servers I'm sure automobile parts made from carbon fiber composites must be figments of our imagination and jihadist plots.

Yah better tell the Porsche Carrera GT road car, the BMW M6 and the Chevy Corvette they don't exist. Nor do those pesky auto parts including carbon fiber wheels, hoods, trunks, mirrors, intake manifolds, clutches, motor mounts, driveshafts, seat frames, fenders, doors, roofs, interior trim . . . . and on and on.

And please inform the international corporations investing hundreds of millions of dollars in the manufacturing of auto components from carbon fiber composites they are wrong.

We bow to your greatness - and that really strong neck you must have. Impart more of your wisdom O Great Wizard . . . .
You are taking the extrapolations of a journalist as the Bible truth, then claiming that his words are those of the scientists at ORNL. This is simply a failure on your part to connect the dots and critically read the article that you are citing. The journalist cites studies that showed some weight ratio of metal:carbon would reduce fuel consumption by another ratio. The journalist then said that this ratio leads to the "data" that is presented in the article. Do you know whether these data were taken directly from the study reports or extrapolated? No. You ASSUMED that they were taken directly from the reports. However, on a more basic level, you failed to realize that the journalist never even claims that these numbers could be employed in a car that meets any basic safety standard, which was the claim that I made. So, to summarize, you took a journalist at his word without any critical thought on your part, ascribed his statements of questionable (at best) validity to scientists at a national lab, then told me what an ignorant putz I am for disagreeing with your completely naive assessment.

And, just to make myself feel better after your ridiculous personal attacks, I was taught all about composites by perhaps the definitive authority on the subject while working in his old lab where these things were first conceived. I've also twice visited the facility where the first Corvette carbon composite leaf springs were fabricated. I was taught about high-performance thermosetting polymer composites by the guy who developed that process. I'm not claiming that this makes me an expert in the field, since I certainly am not, but it gives me enough background to spot a ridiculous claim by an ignorant journalist. My automotive repair work (things you have to learn when you're in college for 9 years) is also sufficient to tell me that, except in rare cases, a leaf spring is NOT a part that is designed to absorb energy from a crash. I fully understand that there are some metallic parts that can be successfully replaced with high-performance composites, but I stand by my original statement that replacing 60% of the car's mass with carbon composites will not happen in the foreseeable future.
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
Crumple zones are nothing more than designed structural weaknesses with an eye to predictable failure rates and progressions.

Carbon fiber body panels might be designed to fail at connection points with the chassis. Deformable adhesives for example, might be able to absorb significant energy. Frame construction could use a telescoping configuration where the male portion would have to rupture barriers in the female portion as it collapses to absorb energy, and deformable adhesives might play a role as well here. Bumpers can be mounted in sockets in the frame with a viscus jell in them. On impact, the bumper supports shear a pin that ordinarily holds them in place, then act as a piston to compress the jell, blowing seals that vent the jell at a predetermined rate by port size and shape. There may even be parts that could be hinged and pinned with the pin designed to fail at some stress point.

Just because the parts are rigid, doesn't mean a collection of them cannot be designed to absorb impact energy.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Crumple zones are nothing more than designed structural weaknesses with an eye to predictable failure rates and progressions.

Carbon fiber body panels might be designed to fail at connection points with the chassis. Deformable adhesives for example, might be able to absorb significant energy. Frame construction could use a telescoping configuration where the male portion would have to rupture barriers in the female portion as it collapses to absorb energy, and deformable adhesives might play a role as well here. Bumpers can be mounted in sockets in the frame with a viscus jell in them. On impact, the bumper supports shear a pin that ordinarily holds them in place, then act as a piston to compress the jell, blowing seals that vent the jell at a predetermined rate by port size and shape. There may even be parts that could be hinged and pinned with the pin designed to fail at some stress point.

Just because the parts are rigid, doesn't mean a collection of them cannot be designed to absorb impact energy.
Reliance on designer viscoelastic/viscoplastic materials to reduce impact energies is certainly an option. However, as someone who works in the field of designing viscoelastic gels for specific dynamic operations, I feel it's safe to say that these methods will not be commercialized for at least 10 years. This is true simply because the computational power to solve the relevant mechanical models is currently infeasible in all but a handful of labs worldwide, and those labs are working on other things. Making the design even more problematic is the problem of predicting impact velocities, since different velocities can have nonlinear effects on the damping properties of this class of materials. They have the unfortunate characteristic of decreased damping at high impact velocities (i.e. when you would need it most for this application).

Like I said, this area of research is not infeasible, but it's not going to be commercialized in the very near term. Therefore, is not likely to have an impact on the price of oil until after other energy sources begin to mature. In other words, it's cool stuff, but I'm not holding my breath for lower oil prices as a result of this work.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Vehicles are already available made of carbon-fiber, if you're willing to pay through the nose for one. However, I doubt we'll see carbon-fiber composites in standard vehicle production for one simple reason - production costs. Metal can be forged, stamped, machined, and cast with relative ease in a high-producion environment. The same cannot be said for carbon-fiber. Practically all carbon-fiber modling is done by hand and it's a very labor intensive process. I suppose a large scale automated layup and molding process could be developed but it still wouldn't be a process anywhere close to competitive with the costs of producing metal body components and I doubt the public is willing to bear the increase in price of vehicles that would be required for carbon-fiber to become a reality for every day drivers.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY