…in this company when it IPOs:
GM…acknowledges that meeting customer and CAFE requirements is going to add to the cost of vehicles in the future and could put downward pressure on sales. The more advanced technologies, like fuel cells and batteries, face even bigger hurdles as neither one has yet proven commercially feasible and there is no guarantee that GM and its suppliers will be able to bring down the costs as hoped. Nonetheless, alternative propulsion systems will be GM’s top research priority going forward.
A non-Government Motors wouldn’t be doing such a nutty thing.
I don’t know if that is so nutty. Toyota came out of left field with their Hybrid concept. That seems to work pretty well. Out of my price range, though.
I wouldn’t bet the farm on any of that, though.
Dunno. The old stockholders got nothing, nada, zilch, bupkis, goose egg, the Big Zero. It is not like holding on to the Old GM shares and waiting for them to come back. There is not coming back.
And people are supposed to own shares in this thing now? The the union as their “silent partner”?
The the union as their “silent partner”?
Hey, what could go wrong?
The fact that the government could take over GM in the first place shows how fragile the rule of law is in this country. That’s only true because we elect people with no honor. We elect people with no honor because many voters have no idea what honor is and the media champions the cause of dishonor.
I note that citizenship rights in starship troopers came after a revolution or 2nd civil war. However unlikely that seems it might be the only thing that saves us. You might think it a strange possibility, but the last two years have been stranger than anything I’ve seen in fifty. If his ground game keeps Obama in power will the majority just sit and let it go on for another four years?
I’m reluctant to send any capital GM’s way. Should it go belly-up again, the investors will get screwed same as last time.
“…a revolution or 2nd civil war. However unlikely that seems it might be the only thing that saves us.”
There are a lot of bad things that could happen in this country, but that would be the absolute worst. To me, the most terrifying thing about the Obama administration is that it has gotten otherwise peaceful people to think in such terms.
It is horrible to consider, but it can only happen if the current administration takes action that force it to happen. I certainly hope they don’t, but the fact is they may already have in the last election. There is solid evidence that Obama stole Hillary’s votes and is prepared to do whatever it takes again.
We have a Justice department that seems to really be working for the current admin. We hope for a correction by election but only time will tell.
It’s a lot more likely than invasion by smart insects (throwing asteroids across the galaxy… oh well, we read it for the poli. sci.)
C’mon ken. Read this. Plenty of young folks know all about honor, and will be schooling the 70s retreads in the Congress and White House when the time comes.
Thanks for the good link Carl and I agree, but still they are a minority. I hope you’re right about the schooling.
BTW, I was watching a youtube where Penn Gillette was going off about how we’re killing people in Afghanistan. It just angered me how disrespectful it was of the honorable service of our volunteers. I like that I can trust him to say what he believes but it just bothered me he didn’t seem to realize the implication.
I think you meant replacing, Carl. The leopards won’t be changing their spots, but they will lose their places in the zoo.
If GM is looking for alternative propulsion technologies on which to focus research, I have a good one: the gasoline-powered internal combustion engine. Though much-maligned and largely disregarded, it is clearly the most efficient system available.
I’ve always thought a turbine/electric would be the way to go perhaps with two counter-rotating flywheels to store energy.
Imagine the whine of a very small engine tuned to run at a single high efficiency speed. Does anyone have an idea of the energy density of flywheels vs. batteries? At the same weight, which can hold more juice?
“At the same weight, which can hold more juice?”
I would expect that light weight composite wheels such as these could store a lot of energy at very high revs.
I think the larger question would be, for how long could they hold it, i.e., at what rate would friction dissipate it? And, for how long could the bearings take the loading from inertial torques?
And, what happens in an accident, when all the stored energy is released in an instant?
Or, if one bearing seizes? Talk about your rollover hazards!
My impression is that virtually all energy storage mechanisms have an energy density no greater than typical chemical energy density of the total apparatus. So you’ll have trouble getting more energy storage density than in a tank of gasoline.
The flywheels don’t have to hold the equivalent energy of a tank of gas. It’s a hybrid. The purpose of the flywheels is to allow the turbine to run at a constant speed so it can be tuned to it’s highest efficiency. As far as friction loss, that should be much lower than a typical engine.
I’m also thinking flywheels have a much longer life than batteries.
“As far as [energy] loss, that should be much lower than a typical engine.”
But, much higher than a typical battery.
“I’m also thinking flywheels have a much longer life than batteries.”
I don’t follow you there. As I mentioned above, have you considered the stresses on the bearing from the omega cross H terms? They would be huge. The wheels together cancel the overall momentum induced torque on the vehicle, but individually, the bearings have to take that load.
Karl Hallowell Says:
August 21st, 2010 at 2:53 pm
“My impression is that virtually all energy storage mechanisms have an energy density no greater than typical chemical energy density of the total apparatus.”
All current practical energy storage mechanisms, perhaps. But, a flywheel’s energy density is theoretically infinite, assuming infinite wheel material integrity and bearing stiffness, and a non-relativistic universe (can’t have the outer rim moving faster than the speed of light, afterall). Obviously, though, the devil is in those assumptions. But, the potential energy storage could still be as near infinite as makes no practical difference. And, then, there is the question of how long it can store the energy given friction losses.
My impression is that, if it were practical, someone would have done it by now.
Google “flywheel energy storage” and you will find many companies. For example…
Beacon’s Smart Energy 25 flywheel has a high-performance rotor assembly that is sealed in a vacuum chamber and spins between 8,000 and 16,000 rpm. At 16,000 rpm the flywheel can store and deliver 25 kWh of extractable energy. At 16,000 rpm, the surface speed of the rim would be approximately Mach 2 – or about 1500 mph – if it were operated in normal atmosphere. At that speed the rim must be enclosed in a high vacuum to reduce friction and energy losses. To reduce losses even further, the rotor is levitated with a combination of permanent magnets and an electromagnetic bearing.
assuming infinite wheel material integrity
Not a valid assumption, hence I include flywheels (except those of very large dimension) in my above claim.
‘Google “flywheel energy storage” and you will find many companies. For example…’
Hate to break it to you, but you could have found such companies and such vaporware promises at least 30 years ago, when I first read about similar in Pop Mech. Flywheel energy hype is like the latest diet craze. It’s periodically updated in a new form, but it never really pans out.
Well of course Bart, but there are *some* products being sold. I have no idea what the numbers are but they’re out there in different nooks and crannies.
I knew an engineer that told me about a car crushing machine he worked with. He said he always wanted to try turning it off and see if it had enough stored energy to rip through a car anyway. He said he was too chicken to try it and perhaps get a car stuck half way through even though he was absolutely certain it would make it all the way through.
I don’t think it’s an entirely safe assumption to say, “if it were practical, someone would have done it by now.”
As a matter of fact, I believe the exact opposite is often true to an extent we can hardly imagine. For example, before SpaceX (and even now) the nay sayers have been having a field day.
Remember Edison remark about inspiration and perspiration? How much does not get done because they just don’t want to overcome that hurdle? I look at the failure rate of companies and I’m proud of those that make the attempt even with such poor statistics. No central planner could ever compete with that.
Eh, maybe. But, I did mention the two things I think are killers to the idea:
I do not know how much you work with bearings – I’m not an expert, I don’t build them, but I have to plan for their failure in my systems, because they fail a lot. One thing we do to try to extend life is to stress them as little as possible. These are some MAJOR stresses you are talking about. I could see that a magnetic bearing would help, but the torque required to cage the device would be so massive that I think it would suck enormous amounts of power.
And, then, there is the question of accidents, which already kill 50,000 people on our roads every year, and which occur on less catastrophic levels very frequently. What is going to happen to all that stored energy when the housing is crushed and the wheel disintegrates? I’m picturing a cloud of hot shrapnel worse than several fragmentation grenades, whipping through other vehicles and pedestrians.
I think magnetic bearings can handle much greater loads than any physical bearing could.
Suppose you have a safety? If the G forces get too high the counter rotating wheels can cancel each other out like a disc brake? Would it become shrapnel, melt, discharge fast enough… I couldn’t say.
Gas has proven pretty safe. Only in Hollywood do they tend to explode. …and sparks, amazing how things become sparklers in the movies.
“I think magnetic bearings can handle much greater loads than any physical bearing could.”
They can, but it doesn’t come free. The stiffer it is, the more power it requires.
“If the G forces get too high the counter rotating wheels can cancel each other out like a disc brake?”
The energy’s got to go somewhere.
continuing…
The energy’s got to go somewhere – imagine the heat generated in a very short time. Boom!
So we have lift off… the flying car is born.