There is no confusion on my part, Totally_Lost. AND... I am not necessarily agreeing that parallel hybrdids are the better choice (just mentioned that I figured that out 35 years ago), each has it's advantages for particular circumstances. Your pomposity shows, when you assume you know what I know. I certainly don't need your grade-school anaylsis of H2 (more smoke and mirrors), the facts I have mentioned are neither wrong nor misdirected. Again... I must state that cars kill no one, it is amusing to see you keep stating that they do, while you refuse to even address the fact that many trucks on the road today will flatten any SUV on the market. There are NO safe cars, drivers even die while driving SUVs and 18 wheelers. To make all cars perfectly safe is absurd, but we do have standards, that may need to be improved also. Seems your lack of seeing anything but your own narrow and self-centered side of things will keep you from really seeing (or solving) problems in a Big Picture way.
BTW ... glad we reached agreement about parallel hybrids. You seemed confused on that issue in previous posts where I spent some time explaining that serial hybrids have some serious efficiency issues that parallel hybrids do not have. At the time, you seemed unable to understand the difference between serial and parallel hybrids, and distorted my position in your confusion.
The issue is, that small cars under 2,200lbs continue to kill their occupants in single car accidents and with cars of a similar size, because they lack the necessary crumple zones to safely decelerate their occupants in a collision. When you fix that problem then collisions with larger vehicles becomes less of an issue. Even if, there were NO SUV's or 18 wheeler semi's on the road, today's small cars will continue to kill. This raises EVERYONES insurance costs.
Pure hydrogen and oxygen are not cheap efficient ICE fuels, as they do not exist any where in nature naturally in ways that allow them to be simply harvested as fuels in large volumes. They can be extracted from water, by putting more energy into the conversion process, than can be recovered using the extracted hydrogen and water as an ICE fuel. This is horribly inefficient, when other alternatives exist. Any good engineer, and certainly anyone that understands physics and chemistry, is aware of the bonding energy issues involved in the reaction.
Your lack of understanding of these energy conversion cost issues, is most likely based in your believing the miss-informed rantings of conspiracy theory folks. You are certainly not an engineer as that is basic physics and chemistry from high school and your freshman year in college.
If per chance you know of some magic way to produce pure hydrogen and oxygen, that has a lower conversion cost than the energy extracted from using it as an ICE fuel ... then you have the secret that everyone has missed. Become the expert, and explain that process to this forum ... we ALL would like to know.
The small, clueless, uniformed minds in this discussion, are those that do not understand the basic engineering issues of safety and energy conversion, and are willing to allow the consipiracy folks to push an agenda with CAFE legislation that kills people in smaller unsafe cars .
54% more likely to die in a minicar: http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr051408.html "For vehicles 1-3 years old during 2006, minicars experienced 106 driver deaths per million registered vehicles compared with 69 driver deaths in large cars."
No doubt that stupid IS feeding this troll... It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that parallel hybrid technology is sensible. I figured that out whan I was 12 years old, in 1976. I had no idea that the automobile industry couldn't figure that out for 35 years and that I had figured out the holy grail of hybrid technology! It is is most likely because automotive companies in this country fight the MPG standards and have been sinking countless millions of dollars (maybe billions) over the last 4 decades fighting these laws with the help of small minded individuals. It's all smoke and mirrors actions to try to trick us into thinking it can't be done. When I hear people from the general public opposing such and easy goal, it makes their position suspect. You can not blame CAFE standards if the automotive insustry puts out crappy cars. That is their choice. Start spending more money on good engineers, and less money on fighting the will of the public and concerned citizens that have enough guts to fight the powerful automotive and oil industry. We also have safety standards for vehicles. You can say that a small car is not safe against an SUV, but an SUV is not safe against an 18 wheeler! Americans understand the risk in driving. It is dangerous however you do it. We can't fix the physics issue: bigger vehicles will alwasys be dangerous to smaller vehicles. Let's not make lame excuses for the auto industry, they are good at that all by themselves. Let's not let the automotive industry in this country off the hook again. If we the poeple don't push mpg standards, it will never happen. Gasoline will have a place in this wolrd, airplanes are difficult to run on anything else, and gas generators in hybrids will be there for those who need the extra milage away from electric power sources and in larger vehicles. The less gas we use, the longer it will be around to serve useful purposes. Cavemen of today need to learn to let go of their over-engineered and overly complicated ICE engines, becase hydrogen fuel cells will soon have us pouring water into our electric cars and driving anywhere that water can be found, clean, fast, quiet, powerful. The technology is here today, but the fuel cells are still expensive. BTW, you can run any ICE engine using Hydrogen with minor modifications. The exhaust product is water, not poisonous gasses like gasoline cumbustion.
Totally_Lost: Instead of disputing what I say, you again attack. A sure sign of a weak case. As I said, I will give my opinion, and if you don't like it, I don't care. I will not stop thinking critically and using facts and logic to determine my opinions. All the facts, not just the ones that support my opinion, which can only be changed by other facts. You seem to be fighting the things that will only help your line of work and our society, and that is counter-productive.
I read you insulting others in the other CAFE article forum without provocation, questioning their credientials, and making clueless statements about what can and should be done. Who gave you the right to assert that others are either not engineers, or poor ones? Who gave you the right to be the final judge and jury to declare that others posts are false? Who gave you the right to be openly disgustingly insulting, and violate your own stated rules of conduct?
And when asked, you neither provide credientials, or experience, or even a well reasoned technical response when you simply declare others as wrong without a clue, as you have in this forum repeatedly.
Frankly ... if you can not debate these issues, with well reasoned and supported technical responses, you are simply being a troll as you insult other that are.
You imply you are an engineer with direct experience in this field ... as you insult others ... you know where I went to school, what some of my experience is that is directly relevant, what is yours?
Show some common sense ... you haven't so far.
Or just leave, ... and hopefully leave ALL these forums, because as you insult others, I hope that others are around to call your hand as you troll these forums with insults.
and BTW, the collision avoidance systems available today are ineffective preventing deaths and injuries for most high speed crashes in smaller and micro cars because of the limitations of the sensor techology and the AI behind it. They can save a few dollars in insurance claims for minor fender benders, but as they are implemented today, they are not going to save a significant number of lives in small and micro car crashes at higher speeds. And it's these low end, inexpensive cars, that are the least likely to be installed with a robust sensor array and AI to prevent high speed crashes that cause deaths and injury.
Totally_Lost: I will waste no more time arguing common sense with you. You do have some points in there, but I have better things to do with my day, than argue with a mad guy with a chip on his shoulder. I suggest you spend more time programming and less time talking about it, sounds like you could help make some breakthroughs, if you spent less time arguing and insulting people, and trying to prevent government regulations, which is the only way to real progress, because companies only care about improving their products if they HAVE to improve them, by either market pressure or government regulations. Market pressure is not enough in most cases to make significant process. Humans need to be pushed, because as a general rule... people are lazy and not self-motivated. I can see that you are neither, and cudos to you. I don't need you to state the obvious, and in a way that makes everything sound impossible. Here's some things for other readers, you obviously know everything already. This is just a simple google search, but yes, I have done plenty of reasearch on the subject. Enough to know that 100% autonomy in automobiles is a way off for some of the common sense reasons that you mentioned. Yes, some of that Jetson's tech IS here today, and installed on millions of automobiles. Personally, I would rather the computer stop my car when it detects a kid behind my car, than rely on distracted humans to manually hit the brake when they hear a 'chime'. OH YEA... that technology is here now! Oh yea, and collision avoidance and some other of this technology is available ... now... get this... IT'S AVAILABLE ON A PRIUS!!!
@akwaman writes "work harder to make cars drive themselves, collision avoidance systems,"
Do you have any credentials in this field other that watching the Jetsons on Saturday mornings?
Do you have any competency processing sensor arrays to handle fog, dust, rain, snow, ice, mud, and other environments while still being able to detect small children in the cross walk, or darting out behind a car?
Did I get a chance to meet you and your team at the DARPA Autonomous Vehicle Grand Challenge? http://archive.darpa.mil/grandchallenge04/conference/attendance.xls
Have you actually done ANY work in this field????
When I said this is at least two decades out, I was probably being a wee bit optimistic. It is another area of research that I've been doing since 1999 that isn't on my old resume.
This is a really hard problem when safety includes residential streets, and pedestrian access to the streets.
There are lots of things we can work harder at, that just will not be happening very soon ... faster than light drives, human colonies on Mars, a journey to the center of the earth, are a few others.
DOD will deploy semi-autonomous fleets in various theaters, but it's going to be a while before that technology is safe for civilian residential neighborhoods in the US for every day use. There are some significant break thru's in sensor array technology and processing that will have to happen first -- and many more Moore's Law cycles to do it in real time as a commodity product in every car.
Truchard will be presented the award at the 2014 Golden Mousetrap Awards ceremony during the co-located events Pacific Design & Manufacturing, MD&M West, WestPack, PLASTEC West, Electronics West, ATX West, and AeroCon.
In a bid to boost the viability of lithium-based electric car batteries, a team at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has developed a chemistry that could possibly double an EV’s driving range while cutting its battery cost in half.
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This discussion will examine what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.