mclaren111 wrote: ↑03 Jan 2022, 11:24That would be Fantastic... I'm sooo Tired of this EV Nonsense...
Don't dream too hard. The wake-up will be painful.
Those are assumptions made with the notion that ICE will never evolve. A part of going carbon neutral is electrification, but doesn't necessarily mean fully electric for all cars. Battery resources too are finite and ever evolving. Carbon capture and absorbing methods too will evolve.mzso wrote: ↑03 Jan 2022, 15:16mclaren111 wrote: ↑03 Jan 2022, 11:24That would be Fantastic... I'm sooo Tired of this EV Nonsense...Don't dream too hard. The wake-up will be painful.
With the amount of effort put into battery and EV tech the way is set for ever increasing electrification. Not to mention various state deadlines.
Also the traditional manufacturers are not in a really good state:
Like the bypass tubes on the J58 That no one is protesting likely means everyone else is already doing this. It shouldn't be banned anyway, lowering turbine gas temperature would likely limit NOx. Green creds n' all.KAIZEN wrote: ↑03 Jan 2022, 14:40https://f1-motorsports-gp.com/wp-conten ... RA621H.jpg
CAC Bypass 2(Charge Air Cooler Bypass 2)
The POV was between CAC and Surge Turk, releasing unnecessary boost pressure to the induction pod.
It means that the work that the compressor was doing was abandoned.
By adding a bypass valve between the compressor and the turbine, the CB2 merges the released intake air with the exhaust and uses it to drive the turbine.
Hold your horses, Tex.ispano6 wrote: ↑03 Jan 2022, 07:34After watching the NHK 2021 Honda special they make clear that what Honda has come up with is a new innovation so I wouldn't say that Honda's technology is "commercially" available, yet.
Looks like I was right after all (I mentioned this possibility in August of last year). As shown in the NHK BS1 2021 Special program, Honda did in fact incorporate carbon nanotubes into their upgraded battery!PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑20 Aug 2020, 20:11Carbon nanotubes are far from ready for use yet. Still a pie in the sky application. The contacts of carbon nantoube to metal is your problem... And actually making the nanotube without defects....
Lithium metal batteries should be ready in a few years. About a 30% improvement in density can be expected.
This innovation was finally brought to the track during the 2021 mid-season after a decade of testing and development. It's awesome to see that it went into Formula 1 and now will be one of the core technologies that future Honda vehicles will use. In the documentary, Asaki is immensely proud and pleased and mentions that there will be an impact "for the rest of his life" in how much of what was learned in F1 will go toward road cars. We may even see a production car with Honda HCCI engines running on biofuels and without the entire line-up going all electric.
My original post was that Honda was researching carbon nanotubes as a material to improve battery efficiency and performance and they did indeed use exactly the research from 2009 in their latest battery upgrade. It ain't no marketing shpiel like you want it to be. It's a real innovation that was put to use AND will be used in future Honda electrified products!PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑04 Jan 2022, 03:58
Hold your horses, Tex.
There are Carbon Nanotube batteries and then are "Carbon Nanotube batteries."
One of them is marketing schpiel for added carbon nanotube dust/cuttings/sprinkles etc which has been around for years. You can buy those sort of lithium batteries for your RC car or plane or whatever. That nanotube additive gives some small gain like better current stability or life or something, but nothing eath shattering. This is likley what Honda has and other manufactuers too.
Now my original post is refering to a superconducting battery using full crystal carbon-nantoubes... Not nanotube dust. Huuge difference. We won't see those until someone figures out how to grow them long enough consistently enough and to put them into a battery that can take the bumps and bruises in an F1 car.
What do you mean by that? You don't burn batteries so all the precious material will remain there. And as battery usage increases it will only be cheaper to recycle old worn out batteries.
This is a tad contradictory. Ethanol is bio-fuel. It's the only way we produce it. Albeit very costly.
ICE has little room for improvement at this point IMO, and that at great cost. Besides it can't match the potential of even fuel-cell EVs. By far the most significant improvement it had in practice in recent times was hybridization.
Can you add something more? First time to hear, and quick search gave me only several hits, all of them ~10+ years oldPlatinumZealot wrote: ↑04 Jan 2022, 03:58Now my original post is refering to a superconducting battery using full crystal carbon-nantoubes...
I'm quite sure nanotubes are not supercoducting by the meaning of the term, only highly conductive.PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑04 Jan 2022, 03:58Now my original post is refering to a superconducting battery using full crystal carbon-nantoubes...
You havent been reading research papers I see. Ispano is correct on a number of things there.mzso wrote: ↑06 Jan 2022, 14:00What do you mean by that? You don't burn batteries so all the precious material will remain there. And as battery usage increases it will only be cheaper to recycle old worn out batteries.
This is a tad contradictory. Ethanol is bio-fuel. It's the only way we produce it. Albeit very costly.
Hydrogen is not really a fuel in the traditional sense. There's none just lying around to be used, and it's not even bio-produced by anone. You need to synthesize it. It's a very problematic power storage medium. Inefficient to produce store and use, compared to batteries.
ICE has little room for improvement at this point IMO, and that at great cost. Besides it can't match the potential of even fuel-cell EVs. By far the most significant improvement it had in practice in recent times was hybridization.
They can be made superconducting mind you. But lets say because of practicallity (temperatures mostly) we are achieveing less than that level... My point still stands though.mzso wrote: ↑06 Jan 2022, 14:39I'm quite sure nanotubes are not supercoducting by the meaning of the term, only highly conductive.PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑04 Jan 2022, 03:58Now my original post is refering to a superconducting battery using full crystal carbon-nantoubes...
By the looks of it only in a lab setting in flawless condition.
I think doing that would be illegal. That Idea was floated around here quite a bit when these engines came to be in 2014. But the rules said all air going through the compressor must pass through the engine.KAIZEN wrote: ↑03 Jan 2022, 14:40https://f1-motorsports-gp.com/wp-conten ... RA621H.jpg
CAC Bypass 2(Charge Air Cooler Bypass 2)
The POV was between CAC and Surge Turk, releasing unnecessary boost pressure to the induction pod.
It means that the work that the compressor was doing was abandoned.
By adding a bypass valve between the compressor and the turbine, the CB2 merges the released intake air with the exhaust and uses it to drive the turbine.
(Cant get the vid, but) Carbon neutral of course does not mean not producing any carbon, just not more carbon than goes into production of it. A fuel that produces carbon (at use) can still be carbon neutral or even carbon negative.PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑06 Jan 2022, 15:13You havent been reading research papers I see. Ispano is correct on a number of things there.mzso wrote: ↑06 Jan 2022, 14:00What do you mean by that? You don't burn batteries so all the precious material will remain there. And as battery usage increases it will only be cheaper to recycle old worn out batteries.
This is a tad contradictory. Ethanol is bio-fuel. It's the only way we produce it. Albeit very costly.
Hydrogen is not really a fuel in the traditional sense. There's none just lying around to be used, and it's not even bio-produced by anone. You need to synthesize it. It's a very problematic power storage medium. Inefficient to produce store and use, compared to batteries.
ICE has little room for improvement at this point IMO, and that at great cost. Besides it can't match the potential of even fuel-cell EVs. By far the most significant improvement it had in practice in recent times was hybridization.
Lead researchers consider green-fuels to be the next stage for mobility because of the challenges and limitations with battery technology. Mining of the raw materials posion the environment just as much as oil if not more. Some mines are not ethicaly operated. Current batteries are extremely expensive to recycle. The Lithium is limited and in a few countries and will be another strained Geo-political resource in due time. Battery obseletion is an issue too, among other issues.
This has been discussed at length on here already but basically no major automaker is putting their eggs into one basket.
Jump to fifty seconds in the video below where a Professor in engineer does a way better explanation than I can do.
https://www.wusa9.com/video/entertainme ... wsource=cl
The mystical "lead researchers". Naturally people working one one thing are pushing that thing.PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑06 Jan 2022, 15:13You havent been reading research papers I see. Ispano is correct on a number of things there.
Lead researchers consider green-fuels to be the next stage for mobility because of the challenges and limitations with battery technology.
All of this is unfounded propaganda. (Except the "ethical" stuff, which no-one actually cares about.)PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑06 Jan 2022, 15:13Mining of the raw materials posion the environment just as much as oil if not more. Some mines are not ethicaly operated. Current batteries are extremely expensive to recycle. The Lithium is limited and in a few countries and will be another strained Geo-political resource in due time. Battery obseletion is an issue too, among other issues.