Eddie Sturman invented a valve for irrigation in Israel. It was safer than manual turn off which could get you shot. His shuttle valve used residual magnetism so power would no longer need to hold the solenoid. This valve was one of the reasons Apllo 13 made it back. This valve then found its way into Diesel engines. Digital fuel injection reduced emissions significantly. He then used the valve to digitally control air in engines as well. Then he used it to control piston position and energy transmission. Imagine this new engine hooked to a carbon fiber accumulator. Fluid power and ammonia as a fuel needs more attention. http://www.trucktrend.com/cool-trucks/1104dp-sturman-industries-camless-engine-systems/photo-gallery/
“Just like any herbivore, the EATR is programmed to forage for biomass-based food, which includes anything plant based. The job of turning biomass into energy was given to Cyclone Power Technologies. It designed a hydrogen and carbon monoxide (syngas) generator that uses external combustion to drive a steam engine, which in turn spins an alternator that generates power for the EATR’s electrical systems. ”
The article goes on to say,
“Since a furnace is less picky than internal combustion engines, the EATR can run off any type of fuel that gives off heat. It’s been calculated that about 3 to 12 pounds of dry biomass will produce 1 kilowatt-hour (kWh) of energy, or enough to drive the EATR two to eight miles. This is just one of the many applications for small steam engines. According to Cyclone, its waste heat steam engine is able to scavenge 7 hp from a diesel truck engine’s exhaust while cruising at 60 mph.”
Another interesting article is linked below.
“SOLO-TREC uses gravity, temperature, and pressure differences in the ocean, and phase-changing materials (PCMs) to power itself. The small-diameter enclosed cylinders on the outside are filled with PCM that expands and contracts about 13 percent when its temperature changes from 50 degrees to 14 degrees. Of course, most of the ocean’s water is between 32 and 35 degrees. This expansion and contraction compresses oil, which the SOLO-TREC stores in a high-pressure reservoir. When the SOLO-TREC needs power, it releases some of this high-pressure oil to drive a hydraulic motor, which is connected to an alternator. According to researchers, a SOLO-TREC will make three to four dives per day between the surface and a 500-meter depth and produce 1.6 watt-hours of power per dive to operate the onboard sensors, GPS receiver, and communication device.”
NH3 could be produced by a car on board. Then burned in an engine.
Every country should have access to nuclear bombs and nuclear energy. Scorpions have stingers and so do bees so nature provides examples of how peace is kept in the natural world.
Is that was Eisenhower was thinking? Is there some truth to it?
“Hopeful that the peaceful atom could prevail, Eisenhower proposed that “governments principally involved, to the extent permitted by elementary prudence, should begin now and continue to make joint contributions from their stockpiles of normal uranium and fissionable material to an international atomic energy agency.” Eisenhower’s speech set into motion the creation of the Atoms for Peace program. This visionary program was based on a bargain between the United States and developing states. The United States provided research reactors, fuel and scientific training to developing countries wanting civilian nuclear programs. In exchange, recipient states committed to only use the technology and education for peaceful, civilian purposes.
Today, the implementation of Eisenhower’s vision is still contested. While well intentioned, the Atoms for Peace program has been criticized for facilitating nuclear proliferation by spreading dual use nuclear technology, i.e., technologies and materials, such as highly enriched uranium, used in early civilian nuclear programs that can also be used for the production of nuclear weapons. Some believe that Atoms for Peace set nuclear aspirants, like Iran, on the path to acquiring necessary technologies and materials for the development of a nuclear weapons program.”
Why are we funding light duty hybrid before heavy duty?
“The only heavy-duty hybrid truck funding available since 2007 has been used to conduct in-use and laboratory evaluations on hybrid vehicles, mostly delivery trucks and transit bus applications. None of this funding was for hybrid R&D. Since 2007, the $1 million to $1.5 million per year for heavy-duty R&D has been focused on aerodynamics, thermal management, and friction and wear reduction. Although there were no congressional requests for FY 2007 through FY 2010 that specifically targeted 21CTP heavy-duty hybrids, the work cited above was completed under the DOE’s Office of Vehicle Technologies, which has included both light-duty and heavy-duty advanced vehicle testing and R&D activities, with some of these being hybrid-specific. Project funding since 2007 is shown in Table 4-2.”
more links on heavy duty funding
KERS and Flybrid system better than Battery electric vehicles.
Are Governments Picking the Winners?
From the President, Tim Reeser
Developed nations around the world are stepping up their investment in technologies and regulations to address the increasingly apparent issues around the use of fossil fuels – air pollution and smog and the human health concerns surrounding them, and the basic fact that fossil fuels won’t last forever. Most major cities around the world experience increased incidence of smog, and the political pressure to clean up the air is on. In preparation for the United Nations Climate Change Conference to be held in Paris later this year, nations are being required to come to the table with documented commitments regarding greenhouse gas reductions. The United States has already declared its intention of reducing economy-wide CO2 emissions by 26-28% below 2005 levels before 2025. In parallel with addressing greenhouse gases, Europe and the USA are leading efforts to reduce transportation generated pollutants across all vehicles, with Euro VI vehicle regulations now in force in Europe, parts of Asia and Africa, and the White House’s Phase II rules due to be finalized next year for adoption in the US in 2018.
Such intentions are certainly laudable, and the increased attention on a sustainable environment is a good thing. Achieving these goals, however, is not simple as there are many moving parts to the economy of a nation, many stakeholders, and many political positions. For these initiatives to be successful will require wise use of a range of tools, including regulations and incentives. Above all, it’s important to avoid pitfalls which can set back progress and diminish political good will.
In the transportation industry, we’re seeing a proliferation of technologies and fuels as fleets look for ways to reduce fuel consumption and operational costs, while also controlling emissions to meet increasingly tight regulations. The US in particular has seen growth in natural gas (compressed and liquid), biodiesel, propane and fully electric vehicles and their associated infrastructures. Hybrids, whether hydraulic or electric also play in the mix, delivering both fuel savings and emissions reductions for applicable driving profiles. With all these contenders, how should a government nurture progress towards GHG and air quality goals?
There is certainly a temptation to jump on a particular technology to the exclusion of other candidates. For example, there’s been a strong push for fully electric vehicles, with US investment in companies such as China’s BYD to get electric buses on the roads. At first glance, electric seems like a great idea – no emissions on the road, quiet, comfortable and popular. However, while batteries make sense for light vehicles (ask Elon Musk), their benefits are outweighed by issues of weight, cost and lifetime as we look at heavier vehicles. Not to mention that the charging infrastructure is expensive, and the electricity is only as environmentally clean as the power station it came from. Unfortunately, the US government, whether at federal level or in individual states, has favored electric vehicles with incentives and regulations which have often left other technologies out in the cold. We know this as “picking the winners” and it often done quite naively, as most politicians aren’t experts in transportation, vehicle technologies, and energy science.
A better approach is for governments to adopt a technology-neutral approach and let the markets decide. I say “markets”, because different solutions will make sense for different users. Regulations should be designed to certify vehicles which meet emissions and fuel economy parameters regardless of the technology employed to achieve them (though of course, some details will be technology dependent). Most people I know respond better to carrots than to sticks, so incentive programs such as vouchers and rebates are a valuable tool in helping great technologies to get established – as long as the terms for these vouchers are inclusive enough to allow fleets to decide which specific technologies work best for their fleets and drive cycles.
Lightning Hybrids is actively engaged at state and federal levels to educate governments to understand that the best way to meet their aggressive GHG and air quality goals is to nurture all candidate technologies in the field. The ones that emerge on top will be the ones that make commercial and environmental sense – and, in the end, political sense too.
Lightning Hybrids opened our doors five years ago today with the goal to design and manufacture a hydraulic hybrid vehicle. At that time we were focused on a 100 MPG sports car – an exciting venture! In the year that followed we found that taking a passenger car to market was a $2 BILLION project at a time when venture capital had dried up. At the same time we found that fleets were very interested in our technology, especially medium-duty trucks and buses in urban drive cycles. As an answer to that demand, we set out to create a hydraulic hybrid for fleets. (You can read more about our history here.)
Niflheim Media says:
It seems like the media coverage for hydraulic hybrids has gone down? It will be nice to compare media coverage and funding of the different technologies.
Here is a past article I wrote.
Why doesn’t every vehicle have a turbo or two until better engines come along.
One of the reasons climate models fail is because of clouds.
This is shown in a recent study by researchers from Stockholm University and the University of Miami published in Nature Communications. The cooling effect of mid-level clouds is currently missing in global climate models.
“Using the satellite observations and high-resolution numerical modelling, we find that thin mid-level clouds are frequently formed in the tropics in the vicinity of deep convective clouds and that their cooling effect could be as large as the warming induced by high cirrus clouds”, says lead author of the study Quentin Bourgeois, postdoctoral associate at the Department of Meteorology (MISU) and the Bolin Centre for Climate Research, Stockholm Un
Also another short quote
Clouds cover about 70% of the Earth’s surface at any time. Different types of clouds affect the Earth’s climate differently: low liquid clouds, such as the cotton-like cumulus, cool the Earth while high altitude ice clouds, such as the wispy cirrus, warm the climate. Overall, clouds cool the climate by about 20 W m-2. In contrast, the Earth receives on average about 340 W m-2 energy from the sun every day and our current emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases warm the climate by about 3 W m-2.
So if the models were that wrong about clouds what else were they wrong about? If huge pieces of the puzzle 20 w-m2 are missing how can we get fine grain detail eg the 3 W-m2? Garbage in garbage out?
Clouds need to condense around small particles called aerosols to form, and human aerosol pollution—primarily in the form of sulfuric acid—has made for cloudier skies. That’s why scientists have generally assumed Earth’s ancient skies were much sunnier than they are now. But today, three new studies show how naturally emitted gases from trees can also form the seed particles for clouds. The results not only point to a cloudier past, but they also indicate a potentially cooler future: If Earth’s climate is less sensitive to rising carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, as the study suggests, future temperatures may not rise as quickly as predicted.
That was a quote from the article.
I thought I’d start a new email thread.
I admire inventors including you. I invented a little – I have one patent. I’m an educator of sorts, and attempt to pass along some of my limited knowledge.
One thing I cannot teach is to be an inventor. You are or you’re not. I think you are, so don’t let me stop you. However, I hope you peruse the following.
Power from the Wind
Wind provides excellent fodder for inventors. Any new method, wind sails, practical homeowner wind generators, etc. are welcome. However, I suggest you don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. Windmills are still viable:
1. Bird Choppers? Current design windmills kill far fewer birds than the power plants they replace. In addition, they kill fewer than birds flying into plate glass windows.
– The Audubon Society supports windmills. These premiere bird lovers have a few conditions and work with windmill engineers and planners. They ‘don’t want windmills constructed on migration flyways,’ and they insist on participation in their design and location.
– We need Inventors to figure out how to reduce bird deaths from windmills. Perhaps slow the blades or reflective and sound generation on the blades?
2. The Report cited from APS Physics fails on several points even though it does what good science requires – it questions everything. The UNLV blog also asks some good questions. It’s always useful to review the models and data.
a. There was no mention of consilience –I’ve already written about this.
b. Rate of temperature rise is not considered – it’s 10 times higher than 800,000 years..
c. They cited the 15 year temperature slowdown. A TEMPERAUTURE SLOWDOWN NEVER HAPPENED. https://goo.gl/R5sVqy
I’ve considerable experience in analyzing data from complex chemical processes. My analysis of the data confirms that there was no slowdown – it’s the opposite. See chart in my attachment in MSWord format.
The chart shows the earth’s temperature trend from NOAA and UAH (University of Alabama Huntsville). I include the 95% confidence interval. Note my baseline is year 1965 so my temperatures anomalies (y data) are about 0.3 degrees lower than https://goo.gl/R5sVqy
With my baseline, the temperature anomaly for 2016 to date would be about 1.1 degrees, namely: OFF THE CHART. If anything global temperature increase is accelerating.
Note the coefficient of determination (r2) for the NOAA data is 0.86, which means the relationship of year to temperature rise is very good. Also, note that the UAH trend and Japanese trends fall within the 95% confidence interval. r2 for UAH data is 0.6, which is poor. I used raw data from the UAH website to develop the curve. Climate deniers often cite UAH as proof of the temperature slowdown. Note similar NASA and Climate U.K. trends also fall within the 95% confidence interval. (95% of data fall within the interval.)
The chart I developed is in the attachment in MS Word. Let me know if you need it in a different format.