Electric Turbo: Worth it? - Page 3

944Spec_bound · 10-15-2009, 04:14 PM

Electric Turbo: Worth it?
so...the short answer is no.

Units that might actually provide boost are not worth 1) the expense 2) the weight and/or power drain trade off.

Units that are affordable are a joke, no matter how much they promote them.

wild man · 10-16-2009, 08:59 AM

Let's face it, the electric supercharger has no chance of becoming practical until it can be powered by something other than batteries & alternators - like a fuel cell.

But the issue would then become: "if the ESC is fuel-cell powered, why not just make the whole "engine" fuel-cell powered. At that point, the ESC would no longer be needed.

cvriv.charles · 10-16-2009, 10:12 AM

Just get a 951. Nothing else compares.

Cocacolakidd · Cocacolakidd's Garage

There it is again "Go get a 951". Well pack up all of the fun and tools, imagination, experimentation, and all else and go get a 930 3.8ltr twin turbo (even faster than a 951) so you can throw out the window all of the things that make your car unique. The racers in their back yard garages are what makes the Auto Industry grow, and has for many, many years.

Electric Superchargers do not work - - END

rberry951 · 10-16-2009, 09:45 PM

I don't see the problem here, an electric turbo runs great.

You just need a flux capacitor and a small nuclear reactor... I hear you can buy them in Iran now days...

Cocacolakidd · Cocacolakidd's Garage

those do work great but they are the steam turbin type and require cooling water. The cooling radiator for them is mounted in front of the engine radiator and one can see the green glow from quite a way off.

rberry951 · 10-16-2009, 09:58 PM

I can't see past your avatar.... boing boing boing boing....

wild man · 10-17-2009, 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rberry951

I don't see the problem here, an electric turbo runs great.

You just need a flux capacitor and a small nuclear reactor... I hear you can buy them in Iran now days...

I'm not sure about the "flux" capacitor (flux lines are generated by inductors, NOT capacitors), but the small reactor idea did hit a chord with me. The same logic that applies to a fuel cell, would also apply here though: Instead of using the reactor to power only the ESC, why not just use it to power the whole car?

I have always fantasized about having a nuclear powered car. The only issue would be scaling a reactor down to "microreactor" size, where it will fit under the hood. But that should be possible with today's technology. Remember the russian lunahod? It ran for less then a year, but it was on the moon, and it used 1/2 century old russian nuclear technology .

A nuclear powered car could probably operate for 10 years on a BB-sized chunk of U-235. But since the oil companies need you to continuously feed them your money, they would expend enormous amounts of it, in order to prevent such a product from being developed. But just imagine the though of being able to go wherever you need/want to, without ever having to put all of the money that you now spend on fuel, into the tank.

Cocacolakidd · Cocacolakidd's Garage

They did it to Tucker so they will do it over and over.

Hard to get over the weight of the shielding and the weight of all of the cooling water - maybe some day??

Dantilla · 10-17-2009, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wild man

I have always fantasized about having a nuclear powered car. The only issue would be scaling a reactor down to "microreactor" size, where it will fit under the hood.

What about the liability of a radiation leak following an accident?

wild man · 10-17-2009, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cocacolakidd

They did it to Tucker so they will do it over and over.

Hard to get over the weight of the shielding and the weight of all of the cooling water - maybe some day??

Yea, I guess the rooskiez didn't need to worry about safety issues, such as shielding, for a vehicle that runs on the moon. But they don't appear to be very concerned about those issues here on the earth, either. Plus, the nuclear generator that powered the hod, was not a fully fledg-ed (or, fully blown) nuclear reactor. But fast-forward 40-50 years, to now, and the "technology" to go full nuclear on vehicles smaller than ships and subs, should be attainable.

I don't think it would require, in terms of weight, excessively large amounts of lead and water, for shieldinng and cooling a BB-size piece of uranium. But without doing any research, I don't know that for sure. If, like 12" of lead is needed (on all sides) for shielding, that WOULD put it out of the realm of possibility, for sure. Now I am curious to know what the actual number for that spec is. I'm gonna go look into it, so I'm signing off of here.

wild man · 10-17-2009, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dantilla

What about the liability of a radiation leak following an accident?

That IS a good point. It is not just the fissionable material that would need to be heavily protected, in case of an accident. All of the water in the primary loop also becomes highly radioactive. Unless they can develop stronger and lighter materials, you are now talking about lots of "extra" weight, just to "protect' that.

cvriv.charles · 10-17-2009, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rberry951

I don't see the problem here, an electric turbo runs great.

You just need a flux capacitor and a small nuclear reactor... I hear you can buy them in Iran now days...

LOL. I love the humor. Really do. LOL.

cvriv.charles · 10-17-2009, 08:06 AM

What about antimatter powered vehicles. antimatter is 100% efficient where nuclear power is only,.... 1%! If we ever colonize space, it will be with antimatter. With it would could travel around space the same way our alien friends do. The amount of antimatter needed to power a vehicle forever,... somethin so small you cant even see it without some stupid expensive microscope and even that would still be waaaaaaaay to much. LOL. Cool stuff.

rberry951 · 10-17-2009, 08:26 AM

I hear CERN will be selling anti-matter for 50 cents and ounce next year... But someone has to develop and anti-scale to weigh it...

They (them, those people who build things) actually have come a long way in nuclear reactor technology. Latest developments for portable reactors use a different fuel type which is 10% enriched U235 core and U238 ceramic coated fuel pellets that are much safer. They are also helium cooled which drasticsally reduce the coolant footprint. But, even the most modern designs are still bigger than a car. But I think nuclear power trains could be a reality in the next 15 years.

Since the process of fission is based on the fuel's mass, there's no way you'd ever be able to attain fission from a BB size piece of anything. However, I have done some research on materials that may react with radiation emitting materials, similar to the way voltiac (solar cells) work with sunlight. Imagine a small chamber in your trunk that housed a very small amount of radioactive material lined with a material that converted gamma radiation directly to DC current... Might not power the car, but I bet it could run a hair dryer...

Naturally it will be intended for off-road use and shouldn't be used for time travel...

wild man · 10-17-2009, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cvriv.charles

LOL. I love the humor. Really do. LOL.

Unfortunately, for the the techy (geeky? - no, wait) and literal minded "idoiots" like me, the first part never "rang" right with me, ever since the movies first came out. Most of the people like me (if there are any) would have already known that "flux" is created by a magnetic field (inductor), not an electric field (capacitor). So it always sounded kind of stupid.

The next part sounds bass-akwards, unless THAT IS the humor. Of the countries that are known to be producing, or otherwise have, fissionable material, I think iran would be the LEAST likely to be willing to offer any of it up for sale. I perceive the "flow" to be in the opposite direction of what is implied. Maybe I have a (mental) issue with semantics, or something though.

Dantilla · 10-17-2009, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cvriv.charles

What about antimatter powered vehicles.

What about the liability of a collision between a "matter" vehicle and an "antimatter" vehicle?

Awful hard for law enforcement to investigate when all the evidence disappears in a nanosecond!

wild man · 10-17-2009, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cvriv.charles

What about antimatter powered vehicles. antimatter is 100% efficient where nuclear power is only,.... 1%! If we ever colonize space, it will be with antimatter. With it would could travel around space the same way our alien friends do. The amount of antimatter needed to power a vehicle forever,... somethin so small you cant even see it without some stupid expensive microscope and even that would still be waaaaaaaay to much. LOL. Cool stuff.

Now we're talking! But currently there is a problem. That form of power requires the use of "element 115" (it has not yet been publicly named), and hasn't hasn't been officially discovered (or should I say created, since it does not occur naturally on the earth?) yet. There are rumors that the govt has some (didn't "create" it, though). But do you think they would ever let a material with that kink of "potential", out of their deepest, darkest places. Probably not in our lifetimes. I better get out of here now, before their "web crawlers" pick up on some of the words that I am using. If they think I know too much, my life might be in danger!

wild man · 10-17-2009, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rberry951

I hear CERN will be selling anti-matter for 50 cents and ounce next year... But someone has to develop and anti-scale to weigh it...

They (them, those people who build things) actually have come a long way in nuclear reactor technology. Latest developments for portable reactors use a different fuel type which is 10% enriched U235 core and U238 ceramic coated fuel pellets that are much safer. They are also helium cooled which drasticsally reduce the coolant footprint. But, even the most modern designs are still bigger than a car. But I think nuclear power trains could be a reality in the next 15 years.

Since the process of fission is based on the fuel's mass, there's no way you'd ever be able to attain fission from a BB size piece of anything. However, I have done some research on materials that may react with radiation emitting materials, similar to the way voltiac (solar cells) work with sunlight. Imagine a small chamber in your trunk that housed a very small amount of radioactive material lined with a material that converted gamma radiation directly to DC current... Might not power the car, but I bet it could run a hair dryer...

Naturally it will be intended for off-road use and shouldn't be used for time travel...

That's all very interesting. It looks like shielding 235 with some 238 would also drastically reduce the thickness/weight of lead (otherwise 6") needed to contain the radiation.

If a BB is too small, how big would one of these pellets be? Also, the unit that converts radiation directly into electrical power, without the need for having tho convert it to mechanical energy first, sounds eerily like what the lunahod, would have used for electrical power. And, that was STRICTLY off-road. Off of what we know as terra-firma, in fact.

cvriv.charles · 10-17-2009, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wild man

That's all very interesting. It looks like shielding 235 with some 238 would also drastically reduce the thickness/weight of lead (otherwise 6") needed to contain the radiation.

If a BB is too small, how big would one of these pellets be? Also, the unit that converts radiation directly into electrical power, without the need for having tho convert it to mechanical energy first, sounds eerily like what the lunahod, would have used for electrical power. And, that was STRICTLY off-road. Off of what we know as terra-firma, in fact.

Yea whatever. Electric turbo's still suck,...