SegwayChat
Home . Old Gallery

Go Back   SegwayChat > Other Topics > Science and Technology

Notices

Science and Technology Science & technology discussions not related to the Segway. This includes discussion of Segway knockoffs and clones.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-22-2002, 07:58 AM   #11
JohnM
Senior Member
JohnM is a glorious beacon of lightJohnM is a glorious beacon of lightJohnM is a glorious beacon of lightJohnM is a glorious beacon of lightJohnM is a glorious beacon of light
 
JohnM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ManchVegas, NH
Posts: 2,148
5 yr Member
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by Casey

While there is a shifting of pollution as you describe, it also results in a decrease in pollution per given unit of power generated. It is easier to control particulate and gaseous discharges in a central location than in small individual locations. The main problem with centralized power generation is the huge losses in power lines on the way to the consumer.

Further cleaning up fossil fuel burning automobile exhaust has gone about as far as it can go. Under some situations now, cars expel cleaner air than than take in.

Alternative "clean" energy sources are going to have to replace fossil fuel if they are going to gain further in eliminating air pollution.
Yet everyone is clamoring for the day when each Segway will have it's own stirling engine. Your centralized pollution control will go right out the window.
JohnM is offline  
Old 10-22-2002, 09:18 AM   #12
Casey
Member
Casey is an unknown quantity at this point
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: , , .
Posts: 561
5 yr Member
Default

Quote:
quote: Your centralized pollution control will go right out the window.
I hope we get away from centralized power generation because of the huge waste in delivering the electricity.

That depends on the fuel. All a stirling needs is a heat differential, and sunlight is pretty clean "burning" (at least from 93000000miles) as are geothermal and some others that can be used in home generation systems.

Solar power currently requires very large cells, but just as batteries are tiny compared to the original wet cells, I have a feeling solar cells will be downsized to the point of being practical for small transportation devices. Of course that is speculative, but I have yet to see new technology that didn't improve a lot over a short period of time. Calculators, computers and battery development are good examples of that.

My point was more that we have seen about as much improvement as we are going to in cleaning up fossil fuel power generaation (including running cars).

Casey is offline  
Old 10-22-2002, 10:41 AM   #13
JohnM
Senior Member
JohnM is a glorious beacon of lightJohnM is a glorious beacon of lightJohnM is a glorious beacon of lightJohnM is a glorious beacon of lightJohnM is a glorious beacon of light
 
JohnM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ManchVegas, NH
Posts: 2,148
5 yr Member
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by Casey

Quote:
quote: Your centralized pollution control will go right out the window.
I hope we get away from centralized power generation because of the huge waste in delivering the electricity.

That depends on the fuel. All a stirling needs is a heat differential, and sunlight is pretty clean "burning" (at least from 93000000miles) as are geothermal and some others that can be used in home generation systems.

Solar power currently requires very large cells, but just as batteries are tiny compared to the original wet cells, I have a feeling solar cells will be downsized to the point of being practical for small transportation devices. Of course that is speculative, but I have yet to see new technology that didn't improve a lot over a short period of time. Calculators, computers and battery development are good examples of that.

My point was more that we have seen about as much improvement as we are going to in cleaning up fossil fuel power generaation (including running cars).
We really are changing the world here, aren't we?
I did a junior high science fair project on solar energy in 1963. I was pretty excited by it because it looked like practical uses of solar energy were right around the corner.
Now, please excuse me while I go back to sleep for another 40 years. Wake me when the world changes.
JohnM is offline  
Old 10-22-2002, 11:26 AM   #14
Casey
Member
Casey is an unknown quantity at this point
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: , , .
Posts: 561
5 yr Member
Default

Well now lets see.

Today--------2002
Univac-------1943
Lapsed Time--59 years

I didn't say "overnight". I said "improve a lot over a short period of time. Calculators, computers and battery development are good examples of that."

Relax, there's still a remote chance something might replace fossil fuels.
Casey is offline  
Old 10-22-2002, 11:46 AM   #15
don c.
Junior Member
don c.
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: , , .
Posts: 61
5 yr Member
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by Casey

Well now lets see.

Today--------2002
Univac-------1943
Lapsed Time--59 years

I didn't say "overnight". I said "improve a lot over a short period of time. Calculators, computers and battery development are good examples of that."

Relax, there's still a remote chance something might replace fossil fuels.
http://www.uidaho.edu/bae/biodiesel/...formation.html


don c. is offline  
Old 10-22-2002, 01:20 PM   #16
Jnadke
Junior Member
Jnadke
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: , , .
Posts: 23
5 yr Member
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by JohnM

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by Casey

While there is a shifting of pollution as you describe, it also results in a decrease in pollution per given unit of power generated. It is easier to control particulate and gaseous discharges in a central location than in small individual locations. The main problem with centralized power generation is the huge losses in power lines on the way to the consumer.

Further cleaning up fossil fuel burning automobile exhaust has gone about as far as it can go. Under some situations now, cars expel cleaner air than than take in.

Alternative "clean" energy sources are going to have to replace fossil fuel if they are going to gain further in eliminating air pollution.
Yet everyone is clamoring for the day when each Segway will have it's own stirling engine. Your centralized pollution control will go right out the window.
You overestimate the usefulness of the Segway and the Stirling engine. You still need a heat source to generate the temperature differential required to power the Stirling engine. This requires electricity or fuel cells. Fuel cells require hydrogen or methane. Hydrogen must be generated using electricity or extreme heat. This leads back to my example of a centralized pollution source. Stirling engines still are not very efficient. They are more efficient than motors and combustion engines, but heat (energy) is still lost from the system to the surroundings.

As for automobiles being efficient... I've never heard anything far from the truth. The internal combustion engine is far from efficient. If you calculate the energy released from the combustion of gasoline, with the actual energy used to propel your automobile and used by the alternator, you have extreme amounts of energy wasted as heat. The current gasoline engine is, at best 50% efficient. Current small engines are 15% efficient, with automobile engines being 30% efficient. Less than 15% actually makes it to driving the wheeels.

There exists 43 MegaJoules of energy per every kilogram of gasoline. There is approximately 3 kg of gas in every gallon. Do the math.
Jnadke is offline  
Old 10-22-2002, 01:49 PM   #17
Casey
Member
Casey is an unknown quantity at this point
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: , , .
Posts: 561
5 yr Member
Default

Quote:
quote:This requires electricity or fuel cells.
A heat differential engine does not require a fuel as you describe. Any method of introducing a large enough temperature difference to the engine will act as "fuel", including concentrated sunlight, geothermal effects and excess heat in such things as the smokestack of a factory.

A Stirling only requires a "heat differential" not a physical fuel.

With the help of catalysts automobile engines do indeed emit cleaner air under some circumstances than they take in.

I am not debating fuel efficiency. The subject is cleanliness, ie pollution.
Casey is offline  
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:27 PM.
Copyright © 2002-2023 SegwayChat.org.
All rights reserved. Not affiliated with Segway Inc.

FreshBlue vBulletin skin by
VayaDesign
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SegwayChat Archive