Are Low Energy Nuclear Reactions for real?

[klaus54]

Your point seems to be that the mileage claim for the VW car is fraudulent. I don't think so, it's not 100% diesel, as you yourself pointed out.

But at first you thought it was. I was just doing a little cipherin' with respect to the absolute (and unobtainable) limit of a diesel engine. Of course this is not taking into account power. A very small (say 30 KW) diesel engine would do better, but it wouldn't be able to move much of a vehicle.

K54

[Truthseeker]

The most efficient diesel engines today get around 40% thermal efficiency and 60 mpg. So at 100% efficiency (which is impossible by 2LT) they would get 60/.4 = 150 mpg.

K54

Your point seems to be that the mileage claim for the VW car is fraudulent. I don't think so, it's not 100% diesel, as you yourself pointed out.

[Truthseeker]

I'm not sure how you think we can compare cost per mile since it's location and type specific.

If a certain location makes a big difference, bring all the types there and let's see how they do.

Some types obviously would do worse than the rest in most cases so we could safely ignore them.

[klaus54]

The impression I got from the first article about the VW car was that it was 100% gasoline (or diesel?). I was surprised to read that it was in fact a hybrid.

I don't know what test they used on which the mileage claim is being made.

The best number is the lowest cost per mile. If using electricity is expensive compared to gasoline or diesel, then go 100% the latter (no recharging).

Sparko is writing about a car that is not being mass-produced. And it's a hybrid, which is in a class that is not exactly flying out of dealer showrooms. Still, he does have a good point, if cars like the VW, even if much more roomy, never become popular.

The most efficient diesel engines today get around 40% thermal efficiency and 60 mpg. So at 100% efficiency (which is impossible by 2LT) they would get 60/.4 = 150 mpg.

K54

[Carrikature]

The impression I got from the first article about the VW car was that it was 100% gasoline (or diesel?). I was surprised to read that it was in fact a hybrid.

I don't know what test they used on which the mileage claim is being made.

The best number is the lowest cost per mile. If using electricity is expensive compared to gasoline or diesel, then go 100% the latter (no recharging).

Sparko is writing about a car that is not being mass-produced. And it's a hybrid, which is in a class that is not exactly flying out of dealer showrooms. Still, he does have a good point, if cars like the VW, even if much more roomy, never become popular.

I'm not sure how you think we can compare cost per mile since it's location and type specific.

[Truthseeker]

The impression I got from the first article about the VW car was that it was 100% gasoline (or diesel?). I was surprised to read that it was in fact a hybrid.

I don't know what test they used on which the mileage claim is being made.

The best number is the lowest cost per mile. If using electricity is expensive compared to gasoline or diesel, then go 100% the latter (no recharging).

Sparko is writing about a car that is not being mass-produced. And it's a hybrid, which is in a class that is not exactly flying out of dealer showrooms. Still, he does have a good point, if cars like the VW, even if much more roomy, never become popular.

[Carrikature]

Your last line isn't accurate. If a car can go 250 miles on a gallon of Diesel, there is nothing deceptive about advertising that. No one is saying the engine is that efficient. They are say the car is that efficient in regards to its gasoline/diesel use. The car is the entire package. And in point of fact, if I own a volt, then my costs will be divided between the electricity I buy and the gas I buy. But no matter what, on average and depending on driving habits, I'm going to buy 1 gallon of gas per 100 miles driven. I might buy less if I use more electricity, I might buy more if I goose the engine a lot. The only way it would be deceptive is if I can't go that far on that much gas period, no matter what I did, or if it was a number that only applied to very special cases. IOW, if I could only get that efficiency for the first hour of the trip and then after that I'm only getting what the internal combustion engine can deliver. That is not the case with these cars.

For a plug-in system like the Volt, you could go hundreds of miles without even burning gasoline if you recharge regularly. Cost doesn't matter, and how much fuel you need to buy to go X miles isn't relevant. Your case for it being deceptive is exactly what happens. You can only get that efficiency for however long the battery lasts, and after that you're only getting what the internal combustion engine can deliver. MPGE is electric-mileage plus gas-mileage. MPG is only gas-mileage. They're not equivalent. The vehicles were being presented with MPGE as if it were MPG, and that is deceptive.

If, OTOH, I'm looking for a way of comparing all cars no matter what the type of fuel, and comparing them directly on their relative use of energy, regardless of its form, then we do need another metric. Nevertheless, in either case, MPG still gives me a good idea of how much gas I'm going to need to buy relative to some other car. And so I don't see calling that 'deceptive' - unless one is somehow dealing with a public clueless about the fact that if I have a plug-in car, then part of my cost for driving the thing is going to be seen in my electric bill.

You agree that another metric was needed, so that's cool. However, MPG doesn't tell you how much gas you need when potentially all of your mileage doesn't even need gas. That's kind of the point. A plug-in hybrid like the Volt could go hundreds of miles without burning a drop if it's regularly recharged.

Regardless, calling the public clueless is generally a safe bet.

[oxmixmudd]

I agree that mpg is not meant to imply total cost of ownership, but then cost never had anything to do with mpg. MPGE does not correlate fuel and electricity costs, either. Rather it establishes a ratio of fuel to electricity which can then be used to create a single standard for all motor vehicles. Cost has nothing to do with it. It's incorrect to say that it tells you how much gas/diesel you will need to buy to go to 500 miles, though.

The reason why it's misleading is not related to cost. It's related to portrayal. In an era where high mpg is valued, it's easy to represent an engine as having high mpg when in fact the internal combustion engine portion is not any more efficient than is standard. Enter the Chevrolet Volt, a plug-in hybrid with a supplemental internal combustion engine. Originally, the mpg rating for this vehicle was presented as the combined distance reachable with a fully charged battery and the supplemental engine. The engine itself wasn't anything very special in terms of mpg, but with the added mileage from the electric motor, it looks super efficient. The Leaf and Volt were claiming ~100 mpg even though the gas engine only got ~30mpg. Take away the electric motor, and you have the same mpg you always had. In truth, an owner could conceivably never need the supplemental engine if they charged regularly and realize mpg ratings in the hundreds or higher using the basic formula of miles driven divided by total fuel consumed.

That's why MPGE was/is needed. Rather than using miles per gallon of fuel consumed, now we measure using miles per unit of energy consumed. Changing fuel types no longer lets you look pretty in a numbers game short of actually changing consumption needs. No more gaming the system, and no more selling cars as super-efficient that just don't do what's claimed.

Your last line isn't accurate. If a car can go 250 miles on a gallon of Diesel, there is nothing deceptive about advertising that. No one is saying the engine is that efficient. They are say the car is that efficient in regards to its gasoline/diesel use. The car is the entire package. And in point of fact, if I own a volt, then my costs will be divided between the electricity I buy and the gas I buy. But no matter what, on average and depending on driving habits, I'm going to buy 1 gallon of gas per 100 miles driven. I might buy less if I use more electricity, I might buy more if I goose the engine a lot. The only way it would be deceptive is if I can't go that far on that much gas period, no matter what I did, or if it was a number that only applied to very special cases. IOW, if I could only get that efficiency for the first hour of the trip and then after that I'm only getting what the internal combustion engine can deliver. That is not the case with these cars.

If, OTOH, I'm looking for a way of comparing all cars no matter what the type of fuel, and comparing them directly on their relative use of energy, regardless of its form, then we do need another metric. Nevertheless, in either case, MPG still gives me a good idea of how much gas I'm going to need to buy relative to some other car. And so I don't see calling that 'deceptive' - unless one is somehow dealing with a public clueless about the fact that if I have a plug-in car, then part of my cost for driving the thing is going to be seen in my electric bill.



Jim

[Carrikature]

I don't think it is misleading. It tells you how much gas/diesel you will need to buy to go 500 miles. MPG rating is not in any way supposed to equate to 'total cost of ownership', nor is it supposed to allow computation of the total amount of petroleum required across all possible consumers of petroleum associated with that 500 mile trip. It just tells you approximately how much gas/diesel you will use based on the number of miles and type of driving you do. And that number is as correct for hybrids as it is for any other kind of car that burns fuel as part of moving around.

It could perhaps be claimed that if one plugs a vehicle in and pays for the electricity stored in the batteries that some other sort of measurement would be appropriate if the intent is to define 'immediate cost to drive 500 miles'. Then one would need some sort of KWh/mile or per charge electrical cost measure as well.

I think it is a mistake to try to create some sort of MPGE (miles per gallon equivalent). As fuel and electricity costs are not necessarily correlated, nor necessarily even constant (e.g. assuming you plug in your hybrid overnight it is a fixed electrical cost regardless of how many miles you drive the next day)

Jim

I agree that mpg is not meant to imply total cost of ownership, but then cost never had anything to do with mpg. MPGE does not correlate fuel and electricity costs, either. Rather it establishes a ratio of fuel to electricity which can then be used to create a single standard for all motor vehicles. Cost has nothing to do with it. It's incorrect to say that it tells you how much gas/diesel you will need to buy to go to 500 miles, though.

The reason why it's misleading is not related to cost. It's related to portrayal. In an era where high mpg is valued, it's easy to represent an engine as having high mpg when in fact the internal combustion engine portion is not any more efficient than is standard. Enter the Chevrolet Volt, a plug-in hybrid with a supplemental internal combustion engine. Originally, the mpg rating for this vehicle was presented as the combined distance reachable with a fully charged battery and the supplemental engine. The engine itself wasn't anything very special in terms of mpg, but with the added mileage from the electric motor, it looks super efficient. The Leaf and Volt were claiming ~100 mpg even though the gas engine only got ~30mpg. Take away the electric motor, and you have the same mpg you always had. In truth, an owner could conceivably never need the supplemental engine if they charged regularly and realize mpg ratings in the hundreds or higher using the basic formula of miles driven divided by total fuel consumed.

That's why MPGE was/is needed. Rather than using miles per gallon of fuel consumed, now we measure using miles per unit of energy consumed. Changing fuel types no longer lets you look pretty in a numbers game short of actually changing consumption needs. No more gaming the system, and no more selling cars as super-efficient that just don't do what's claimed.

[oxmixmudd]

The mpg rating has been under some criticism with the advent of electric-assist. It's misleading to call it a 250mpg car when the gas (in this case diesel) engine is not actually much more efficient than is standard.

Last I heard, there was discussion whether to revise mpg standards or exclude certain cars from posting mpg ratings.

I don't think it is misleading. It tells you how much gas/diesel you will need to buy to go 500 miles. MPG rating is not in any way supposed to equate to 'total cost of ownership', nor is it supposed to allow computation of the total amount of petroleum required across all possible consumers of petroleum associated with that 500 mile trip. It just tells you approximately how much gas/diesel you will use based on the number of miles and type of driving you do. And that number is as correct for hybrids as it is for any other kind of car that burns fuel as part of moving around.

It could perhaps be claimed that if one plugs a vehicle in and pays for the electricity stored in the batteries that some other sort of measurement would be appropriate if the intent is to define 'immediate cost to drive 500 miles'. Then one would need some sort of KWh/mile or per charge electrical cost measure as well.

I think it is a mistake to try to create some sort of MPGE (miles per gallon equivalent). As fuel and electricity costs are not necessarily correlated, nor necessarily even constant (e.g. assuming you plug in your hybrid overnight the cost of the overnight charge is unlikely to be directly correlated to how many miles you drove the day before.)

Jim

[Carrikature]

I wonder why the article would say "500 miles on 2 gallons of fuel" rather "250 mpg"??

The mpg rating has been under some criticism with the advent of electric-assist. It's misleading to call it a 250mpg car when the gas (in this case diesel) engine is not actually much more efficient than is standard.

Last I heard, there was discussion whether to revise mpg standards or exclude certain cars from posting mpg ratings.

[Sparko]

You're assuming that the engine can't be mass produced for less. Also assuming that the car is a middle-class or lower-class car?

I am not assuming anything - it is a two-seater car, made of lightweight materials to keep the weight down. I am going by the news reports that confirmed it with Volkswagen. Actually I did assume one thing, Gas at $5/gallon. I suppose if gas went up to around $30/gallon it might become cost effective. But at $5/gal prices, you would only save around $14K over 100,000 miles compared to a normal car that gets around 30/gal.

The cost of the volkswagen is supposed to be over $100,000 (I have seen articles that price it at $150,000). The cost of a typical equivalent car is around $20,000. It would cost you over $80,000 to save $14,000 in gas.

You could even do a lot better just buying a motorcycle with a side car.

IF they could get the price down to under $30,000 then it might make sense.

http://jalopnik.com/we-drove-the-261...aus-1482688104

[klaus54]

What hopeless post?

I wonder why the article would say "500 miles on 2 gallons of fuel" rather "250 mpg"??

Anyway for 2-member families who can afford it, it would be an interesting option. But the overall effect is at most a slight pause in the arrival of peak oil.

By "low temperature nuclear reactions", I assume you mean fusion at a temperature that can occur in a controllable manner and that's contained in a reaction vessel that won't melt. (As opposed to the millions Kelvins needed for uncontrollable H --> He fusion.)

K54

[Truthseeker]

Looked it up. It's a 2-passenger 47 hp diesel with an electric assist motor. Not very attractive to middle-class families. Don't have any idea of the cost. But, this is the important point -- conservation of petroleum will effect only a slight delay in the inevitable.

Oh, I forgot -- "Sun Gas".

And what the bee-jeebers does this have to do with "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions"?

http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/f...rst-drive.html

K54

http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/drive-mor...llons-of-fuel/

The reason I mentioned the car was, I'd hoped the news would be somewhat an antidote to that hopeless post.

[klaus54]

Looked it up. It's a 2-passenger 47 hp diesel with an electric assist motor. Not very attractive to middle-class families. Don't have any idea of the cost. But, this is the important point -- conservation of petroleum will effect only a slight delay in the inevitable.

Oh, I forgot -- "Sun Gas".

And what the bee-jeebers does this have to do with "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions"?

http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/f...rst-drive.html

K54