Hydraulic Hybrid systems are an exciting development in automotive technology which would allow for easy conversions of "gas only" systems on existing vehicles to get as much as 60 mpg.

Unlike electric-hybrids, there's no bulky equipment or heavy (and expensive) batteries to work with.

So why isnt' this technology being fast-tracked and put into the market?

Well, Bowa, how are terrorist middle eastern nations supposed to make a living then?

Well, Bowa, how are terrorist middle eastern nations supposed to make a living then?

They won't. Or more specifically they won't while holding the US hostage to their oil

Isn't that the point.

Well, Bowa, how are terrorist middle eastern nations supposed to make a living then?

Posted by member2586

You're forgetting our poor deprived oil companies, how will they make record profits? It'd be a shame if a CEO had to take a salary cut of say oh 5 million or so.

If the idea is so great, nobody is stopping Boa or anybody else from getting the venture capital to develop the technology. That is what a market economy is for. Or maybe the idea has flaws. You still need a power source to drive the pumps - an internal combustion engine? Hydraulic systems, the accumulator and the pumps add friction and weight to the system. The high pressure accumulators are potential bombs in a collision. I suspect that the auto manufacturers looked into it and came to the conclusion that the economics was not there. But the idea is open to anyone who wants to try.

Ray,


Boa???

Yes Jeff. As in snake.

.....


Oh.

Boa is a derivative of "Bowa".


Got it.

"a Mrs. Peel lookalike."

Posted by TedBaxter

Dammit Ted.
Now I'm all excited.
She was sooooooooo hot.

Boa???

no "Bowa" as in Larry Bowa the former Phillies shortstop

Or maybe the idea has flaws. You still need a power source to drive the pumps - an internal combustion engine?

Ray, That's why its called a hybrid -- but the pumps can also be driven by an electric engine.

The high pressure accumulators are potential bombs in a collision.

Unlike a gas tank of course

I suspect that the auto manufacturers looked into it and came to the conclusion that the economics was not there. But the idea is open to anyone who wants to try.

That's right. You just suspect. I would love to see a link citing where manufacturers looked into and rejected this technology and the reasons why.

In my research it seems like hydraulic hybrids and the conversion kits have far less negatives then electric vehicles or hybrids -- they offer a relatively inexpensive and quick way to greatly increase gas mileage on existing vehicles.

There are some companies looking into making a commercially viable hydraulic car or hydraulic-hybrid conversion kits a reality -- if they had the number of lobbyists in DC that the electric car and hybrids proponents have -- they would no doubt have an easier time.

Ray, Why are you so quick to dismiss this technology just because it hasn't been developed commercially yet?

"Madman Muntz's 4 track cartridge"

Of course Lear made it into an 8 track. He also invented the cassette. Lear invented the radio direction finder. Hell, he invented the car radio. Bill and his buddy Paul Galvin called it a motorized victrola, or Motorola, for short. Bill was the first chief engineer at Moto.

If the EPA funded it for UPS, then can consumer vehicles be far behind?

Hydraulic accumulators have been used in aircraft applications for years.

It's sometimes useful to unfeather a prop with the engine stopped.

Hydraulics is an excellent source when you need a lot of power in a small space; The heavy equipment industry could not do without it. I question if it has a reasonable acceleration capacity that makes it useful for cars. 0 to 60 in 3 minutes?

I suspect that Boa thinks there is some conspiracy to maintain the status quo when he knows almost nothing about the subject.

Correction; I question whether it has a reasonable acceleration capacity that makes it useful for cars. 0 to 60 in 3 minutes?

I suspect that Boa thinks there is some conspiracy to maintain the status quo when he knows almost nothing about the subject.

No conspiracy. I just think that in politics, like just about anything else, the "squeaky wheel gets the oil" and in the case of hybrid vehicles, the lobby (and media attention) for electric vehicles is a lot more squeaky then that of hydraulic hybrids.

So consider this thread one small "squeak" in the right direction to help get the word out on this exciting "Green" technology.

Hydraulics is an excellent source when you need a lot of power in a small space;

Where hydrualic hybrid would be most effective is in "stop and go" traffic since the source of the hydraulic power comes from braking.

When it comes to mechanical engineering, Ray, I'll be happy to listen to you.

Folks who study this, as I have pointed out referencing the JASON study on fuels, think a simple diesel is the best if you burn hydrocarbons. Hybrids are too complex.
Honda has some new diesels coming soon.
Fuel cells are best, of course. Zero emissions. If you use nukes to separate the hydrogen from water, there are zero total emissions. Of course the nukes have their own issues.

when he knows almost nothing about the subject.

Ray, you are an expert on hydraulic hybrids?

Your comment that one of the major drawbacks to the technology is that it is a bomb waiting to happen has never been mentioned once in the 15 or so articles I've read on the subject. So how much do you know?

You can be among the first to own a hydraulic car if it ever gets to market. When I see the EPA getting involved, that tells me that potential investors see it as a loser.

Hybrids are too complex.

Zat, don't you think that hybrids represent an intermediary step in moving us from gas driven economy to the fuel of the future whatever that might be.

I like hydraulics because they are less complex then other hybrids, the conversion kits can be used on almost all existing combustion engine vehicles, and they improve gas mileage where it is needed most -- in the stop and go traffic millions of amricans face during rush hours and in cities all over this country.

When I see the EPA getting involved, that tells me that potential investors see it as a loser.

Ray, The EPA is involved in funding and supporting research on all types of different "green" technologies. Does that mean they are all losers? And if so, does that mean the EPA is a waste of taxpayer money and should ended?

Boa
I design machinery so I'm familiar with hydraulics in manufacturing. Any high pressure container is a potential bomb in a sudden impact. The designers would have to take the precautions to make sure that can't happen by where they put it and how they encase it. This is not critical in heavy off road equipment, but it is with high speed cars. All this adds weight.

No Bowa.
I think little diesels, like are all over Europe, are the interim solution but fuel cells are the way to go. That and efficient electric mass transit, which a lot of Europe has. I took the TGV train from Paris to Milan. Damn thing went 175 MPH according to my pilot's GPS. It was electric. In more ways than one. Of course as soon as we hit Italy it slowed to 45 MPH. Something about the tracks.

Does that mean they are all losers?

Yes. The EPA is spending other people's money. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain while they cast unfounded suspicions on the market process.
If hydraulic cars were economically viable, I'm sure the profit motive would attract investors.

And if so, does that mean the EPA is a waste of taxpayer money and should ended?

Cut it by 80%. The EPA has gone far beyond it's original mandate to cut down air pollution. To keep the agency alive, they have to find other bogymen. I've read too many stories where they raised alarms where there was none, often at great expense to taxpayers.

"All this adds weight."

Posted by Ray

Which in a car is a much larger fraction of the total weight, I might add. Keep it simple.

"All this adds weight."

not as much weight as batteries do.

If hydraulic cars were economically viable, I'm sure the profit motive would attract investors.

It's hydraulic-hybrid cars-- as the hydraulic system is secondary to the main propulsion engine (electric or combustion)

And there are investors, and major companies who are developing the technology.

My point for posting this thread was in response to the news that the Congress may pass a law requiring all cars to get 35 mpg.

Considering the potential for hyrdaulic-hybrids to improve fuel economy way beyond that in even city traffic, it would be nice to see as many government incentives as possible to make this technology a commercial reality.

more

Now Honda is trying to take it back. Its technology of choice: the stinky old diesel engine. Or make that a not-so-stinky new diesel. By 2009, Honda plans to sell "clean diesels" in the U.S. These cars will likely go some 30% farther per gallon than gasoline models. The 2.2CTDi diesel-powered Honda Civic, sold now in Britain, delivers 43 miles per gallon in town and 55.4 mpg in combined city-highway driving. The hybrid Civic manages only 50 mpg in combined driving, while a gas Civic averages 33 mpg. "We're leading the way to cleaner diesel engines," says Honda Chief Executive Takeo Fukui.

That effort will get a boost from the U.S. introduction of a cleaner diesel fuel this fall. The new government-mandated blend has 15 parts per million of sulfur, down from 500. Honda's engines have a catalytic converter that filters out enough nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions to meet California's new standards -- the most stringent in the nation -- due to come into effect in the state next year and nationwide in 2009. Unlike other diesels that will meet California's standards, such as a Mercedes-Benz (DCX ) BlueTec expected to go on sale in late 2007, Honda's doesn't require a separate tank of urea, an organic compound that helps absorb NOx but needs to be replenished occasionally. Instead, its diesel converts some of the NOx into ammonia, then recombines that with what's left of the NOx to make relatively harmless nitrogen. Honda says the technology will reduce exhaust emissions to levels on a par with gasoline engines. "The Honda system is quite elegant," says Christopher Richter, a Tokyo analyst at CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets.

Elegant or not, diesel may prove to be a tough sell to Americans. Diesels represent more than 40% of new car sales in Europe, where the cleaner brand of the fuel has been available since 1997. But stateside, diesel still conjures up images of smoke-belching 18-wheelers. Americans of a certain age haven't forgotten Detroit's flirtation with diesel during the 1970s, which left behind a trail of lemons such as an ill-fated version of the Oldsmobile Cutlass. To clean up diesel's reputation, industry executives have advocated infusing the fuel with botanicals to make it more aromatic and even dropping the name "diesel" in favor of something along the lines of "compression ignition engines." Price will also be a key factor in getting U.S. drivers to make the switch. Honda hasn't said how much it plans to charge for the new vehicles, but a hefty premium would undoubtedly dampen interest.

"dropping the name "diesel" "

Reminds me of the change from NMR to MRI.
Americans are so stupid, they worried because NMR is Nuclear Magnetic Resonance. Of course the fact that every atom in the body has a nucleus seems to have escaped the argument.

Yes. The EPA is spending other people's money. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain while they cast unfounded suspicions on the market process.

I don't have the negative view of government funded research and development as you do. Especially in areas where the government has to work closely with businesses because so many legal conditions must be met, restrictions exist, and governemnt approval is needed at many points in the process - the drug industry, "green" technologies, and the defense industry are a few examples.

"requiring all cars to get 35 mpg."

"The 2.2CTDi diesel-powered Honda Civic, sold now in Britain, delivers 43 miles per gallon in town and 55.4 mpg in combined city-highway driving. The hybrid Civic manages only 50 mpg in combined driving, while a gas Civic averages 33 mpg."

Hello?

Yes batteries add weight and they are costly to replace too. Which is why I won't buy a hybrid.

Seals are the weakest link in fluid systems; sometimes they leak. At high pressures, the fluid comes out pretty fast. The system has to be designed so it is failsafe. All this adds cost. Even brake systems have two reservoirs.

The drug industry? Don't get me going. Over a hundred thousand people die every year from prescription medicine. That shit is toxic. Fucks your body up. Big money for the pharmaceuticals.

Boa - No matter what we discuss, you live in Wonderland.

Looks like Ray has strayed from mechanical engineering back into horseshit country.

Over a hundred thousand people die every year from prescription medicine.

and how many are saved and had their lives prolonged by it?

last I checked, life expectany is going up not down.

No matter what we discuss, you live in Wonderland.

Why would you say that? If the government wants to place heavy restrictions on certain industries, then it is only right that they share the cost in helping those industries develop products which meet the government standards that they set.

If government is going to make private companies jump through all kinds of hoops to bring their products to market, then they should bear some of the cost of those hoops.

Looks like Ray has strayed from mechanical engineering back into horseshit country.

and how many are saved and had their lives prolonged by it?

It's too big of a topic to go into here. If you two think the FDA is protecting you from unsafe medicine, you're fools.

Especially in areas where the government has to work closely with businesses because so many legal conditions must be met, restrictions exist, and governemnt approval is needed at many points in the process

Wait wait wait so because of all the government restrictions the government needs to be in on the development of new technology.

Wow we are so screwed.

Zat don't care if they call in NMR or MRI just tell me if I have brain leisions. Heck while your at it power it with a nuke reactor.

Boa
After dealing with you in the past, I'm not wasting my time trying to explain why and how our political system is destroying this country.

"Over a hundred thousand people die every year from prescription medicine. That shit is toxic. Fucks your body up. Big money for the pharmaceuticals."

Yeah, just think how many lives would be saved if prescription medicines were banned!

That's the kind of "alternative health" industry crap that causes people to spend billions on worthless snake oil, while that industry takes it to the bank.

Why I do declare. Groucho is defending the big corporations.

April 15, 1998. The New York Times reports, as did many other news agencies, that "Reactions to Prescribed Drugs Kill Thousands Annually, Study Finds." The study appeared in Journal of the American Medical Association. The news will no doubt bring smiles to the "alternative" medicine folks. To say the least, the news is misleading. Dr. Bruce Pomeranz, professor of neuroscience at the University of Toronto, claims that more than 100,000 people a year die in American hospitals from adverse reactions to medication. His conclusion is not an inference from a large prospective study, but rather is based on a meta-study, a method which lumps together a number of studies whose samples are small and whose significance varies. The authors of the study emphasized that its conclusions should be viewed with caution, but caution is a word the mass media no longer seems to recognize. The study did not examine a representative cross section of the hospital patient population. Most of those in the study came from large teaching hospitals with the sickest patients, where there is more drug use and where higher rates of drug reactions would be expected than in smaller community hospitals, according to Dr. David Bates, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard University who wrote an editorial in the journal about the study. The average person who is taking prescription drugs should not be frightened by the results of this study.

"Why I do declare. Groucho is defending the big corporations."

I'm defending common sense; you're defending quackery, fear mongering, and big corporations that produce snake oil.

ROFLMAO

I wish you were my age so you could tell me all about your aches and pains and how drug reactions make you feel lousy.

There is plenty of pharmaceutical industry propaganda out there. You certainly know where to find it. A=A. Poison is poison.

I don't promote quackery, Mr. Colloidal Silver.

I must have worked you over badly yesterday. You seem so frustrated.

what a ridiculous turn this thread has taken.

Modern medicine is truly a miracle that helps to save millions of lives per year.

"I must have worked you over badly yesterday. "

LOL. Dreams aren't reality, Ray.

Modern medicine is truly a miracle that helps to save millions of lives per year.

And George Bush doesn't lie.

Modern medicine is truly a miracle that helps to save millions of lives per year.


Posted by Bowa at 2007-06-10 02:22 PM


Against the Will of God.

Against the Will of God.

no.

with the lord's blessing --just like evolution.

with the lord's blessing --just like evolution.


Posted by Bowa at 2007-06-11 08:04 PM


I don't think so. I doubt God would have gone to all that trouble giving life to and creating that little syphilis bug or that black plague bug or that smallpox bug if he had wanted it cured. He keeps trying though--now we have E coli Mad Cow and AIDS.

If you believe in evolution, you must believe that man is not the end---we too will change over millions of years. It makes you wonder why god waited almost 4 billion years after creating the Universe to create humanity, and so many people think that he is going to destroy his greatest creation after only a few millenia with his armeggon or rapture or second coming.

If you believe in evolution, you must believe that man is not the end---we too will change over millions of years. It makes you wonder why god waited almost 4 billion years after creating the Universe to create humanity, and so many people think that he is going to destroy his greatest creation after only a few millenia with his armeggon or rapture or second coming.

I believe that God created evolution.

As for His overall plan for the universe? He knows, I don't.

I doubt God would have gone to all that trouble giving life to and creating that little syphilis bug or that black plague bug or that smallpox bug if he had wanted it cured.

God gave man free will -- the ability to choose, to decide, to even reject and hate God if we want or to love Him if we want --that is our nature -- and anything which reflects that nature, does so to the greater glory of God whether we know it or not, whether we believe it or not.

Even in choosing to hate God we are expressing our nature -- and our "free will" that greatest gift from God a gift He gave to us and none of his other creations.

It makes us master of God's domain on earth -- with His blessing - as we are created in His image.