New Device Turns Waste Heat into Electricity

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

I'm not convinced of either being the case. It's just my firm belief, nothing more, others no doubt will have differing views and that's their prerogative and regardless of what may seem to be achievable, to actually achieve you at the very least have to believe. There are plenty of good ideas going around on all sorts of matters that are technically feasible, but if nobody believes in them, they may never be developed further nor see the light of day. I remember some reference to an article someone posted that mentioned something along the lines of politicians don't get things done in comparison to engineers regarding sustainable transport. The reality is that we are all politicians and technicians to varying degrees in varying ways and nobody or no classification of persons has a mortgage on good ideas. I don't subscribe to the type of institutional elitism that says if one is not of this or that ilk, then ones ideas have no merit. The art of appeal, can be seen in some ways as part of the art of politics. There have been great minds in history that have made great discoveries and contributions to this world, who have not been recognised by formality of institution prior to their greatness. I thus declare, perhaps it's sometimes the institutionalised boundaries that govern thinking beyond acknowledgement of technical realities, that are sometimes limited and not necessarily the notion of thought itself. Fortunately I suspect there are sufficient persons of many cloths, working together to help solve the worlds new challenges as they emerge.

With all that said and done, In the context of waste heat recovery and application, proven or otherwise, my view, yes my view, being a view not necessarily reflective of others, remains the same. i.e. I hold absolutely no doubt that researchers and developers will succeed in utilising waste internal combustion engine heat effectively, to such an extent as to help significantly improve the overall energy efficiency of motor vehicles. No doubt whatsoever and that remains my view until I find sufficiently compelling reason to believe otherwise.

Lots of words adding little.
"I'm certain it will happen" would have made your point much more succintly and saved you a whole lot of typing.
But it's your choice to be verbose without materially contributing to the topic.
As I posted earlier, in the context of a motor vehicle, sourcing it is't an issue. Sinking it is.
I guess that producing numbers will get glazed over eyes and deaf ears but let me at least try with a practical example.
The car I currently drive consumes about one gallon of fuel per hour at sixty miles at 60 mph. One hour for easy calculation.
Fuel combustion rate gives about 44kW
Propulsion at 60mph requires about 10kW.
o, if you could recover just one third of lost energy and use it for propulsion, you could completely negate the propulsion requirement from the IC engine. But then you would have no waste heat to recover.
Clear as mud, I'm sre.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Lots of words adding little.
"I'm certain it will happen" would have made your point much more succintly and saved you a whole lot of typing. But it's your choice to be verbose without materially contributing to the topic. As I posted earlier, in the context of a motor vehicle, sourcing it is't an issue. Sinking it is. I guess that producing numbers will get glazed over eyes and deaf ears but let me at least try with a practical example.

You seem to have only thus far detracted from the topic. Your views and beliefs are not reflected by the researchers developing the technology, so your views on the matter are largely mute in that regard. In relation to contributing to the topic, you have offered nothing, but that's not a problem because plenty of others have the ability to source their own subject matter relating to the topic at will and form their own opinions, without the requirement of your destructive input.

Originally Posted by Besoeker

The car I currently drive consumes about one gallon of fuel per hour at sixty miles at 60 mph. One hour for easy calculation. Fuel combustion rate gives about 44kW Propulsion at 60mph requires about 10kW. o, if you could recover just one third of lost energy and use it for propulsion, you could completely negate the propulsion requirement from the IC engine. But then you would have no waste heat to recover. Clear as mud, I'm sre.

You seem to love to throw a few numbers around that largely mean nothing, are typically as in this case applied inappropriately, are deceptive and misleading as well as mixed up with inferences about things people have not said and support nothing other than the very limited scope that typically defines the very weak arguments you tend to raise. Keep dreaming up your little scenarios whilst the world marches on by and proves you wrong. These are your numbers, nobody else's and for what they're worth, I doubt anyone would want to own them. Your crude example is not representative of the researchers and developers work. I tend to have more faith in what developments are occurring, rather than your opinions based on what you have served up thus far. Your arguments are far from convincing.


As such and in combination with what's being developed, I hold absolutely no doubt that researchers and developers will succeed in utilising waste internal combustion engine heat effectively, to such an extent as to help significantly improve the overall energy efficiency of motor vehicles. No doubt whatsoever and that remains my view until I find sufficiently compelling reason to believe otherwise.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Of course weight among many other technical and operational in maintenance aspects, all impacting on overall cost and hence affordability. Sacrifices can be made in other less important areas if required, as at the end of the day, cost models are largely driven by consumer affordability and consumer preferences and priorities. If cost is the highest consumer priority, then this will predominantly dictate the priority of implemented features. Obviously in evaluating any vehicle energy saving technology, the weight is a natural consideration in terms of net return. I mean really that goes without saying, it's a given.

Where cost is not an issue, obviously cost won't have the same impact on features. Obviously for most, cost is a key factor. Where cost is a high priority, so long as any such device returns a worth while net cost saving over it's operational life, other factors considered, then such device can be viewed as contributing to reducing overall vehicle operating costs in a meaningful and hence significant way. Generally speaking, this would tend to imply the vehicle is operating more efficiently, if it's costing less to operate due to the addition of such energy saving technologies.

There are many limiting factors all of which I believe will be overcome. At this stage however I retain my view that I hold absolutely no doubt that researchers and developers will succeed in utilising waste internal combustion engine heat effectively, to such an extent as to help significantly improve the overall energy efficiency of motor vehicles No doubt whatsoever and that remains my view until I find sufficiently compelling reason to believe otherwise.

I just love your predictability.
I ask a simple question and you fail to answer it. When I tell you the answer you say its "obvious".

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

You seem to have only thus far detracted from the topic. Your views and beliefs are not reflected by the researchers developing the technology, so your views on the matter are largely mute in that regard. In relation to contributing to the topic, you have offered nothing, but that's not a problem because plenty of others have the ability to source their own subject matter relating to the topic at will and form their own opinions, without the requirement of your destructive input.

You seem to love to throw a few numbers around that largely mean nothing, are typically as in this case applied inappropriately, are deceptive and misleading as well as mixed up with inferences about things people have not said and support nothing other than the very limited scope that typically defines the very weak arguments you tend to raise. Keep dreaming up your little scenarios whilst the world marches on by and proves you wrong. These are your numbers, nobody else's and for what they're worth, I doubt anyone would want to own them. Your crude example is not representative of the researchers and developers work. I tend to have more faith in what developments are occurring, rather than your opinions based on what you have served up thus far. Your arguments are far from convincing.

[/font]

Copper, kettle, black.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

I just love your predictability. I ask a simple question and you fail to answer it. When I tell you the answer you say it's "obvious".

You never seem to give answers, because you don't seem to have any and yes most of the points you do raise are obvious. Clearly you have nothing constructive to offer in this instance that's on topic. Your remarks have nothing to do with this thread, so I reiterate my views that pertain to this topic.

I hold absolutely no doubt that researchers and developers will succeed in utilising waste internal combustion engine heat effectively, to such an extent as to help significantly improve the overall energy efficiency of motor vehicles No doubt whatsoever and that remains my view until I find sufficiently compelling reason to believe otherwise.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Copper, kettle, black.

As usual your lack of constructive contribution to the topic persists.

I will at this stage only re-iterate my view. I hold absolutely no doubt that researchers and developers will succeed in utilising waste internal combustion engine heat effectively, to such an extent as to help significantly improve the overall energy efficiency of motor vehicles No doubt whatsoever and that remains my view until I find sufficiently compelling reason to believe otherwise.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

You never seem to give answers, because you don't seem to have any and yes most of the points you do raise are obvious. Clearly you have nothing constructive to offer in this instance that's on topic. Your remarks have nothing to do with this thread, so I reiterate my views that pertain to this topic.

This is further evidence of your inability to engage in debate. Your adversarial attitude is not good for this forum.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

As usual your lack of constructive contribution to the topic persists.

Could it be because we know how pointless it is to discuss things with you?

Do you even know what I meant?

When you said:

You seem to have only thus far detracted from the topic. Your views and beliefs are not reflected by the researchers developing the technology, so your views on the matter are largely mute in that regard.

This is what you do. You claim something that is not based upon actual evidence. You ignore anything that doesn't fit your world view.

In relation to contributing to the topic, you have offered nothing, but that's not a problem because plenty of others have the ability to source their own subject matter relating to the topic at will and form their own opinions, without the requirement of your destructive input.

And you have offered what? A "belief", a repeated opinion that has no value.

But yes, we are capabale of forming our own opinon, without your baseless statements.

You seem to love to throw a few numbers around that largely mean nothing, are typically as in this case applied inappropriately, are deceptive and misleading as well as mixed up with inferences about things people have not said and support nothing other than the very limited scope that typically defines the very weak arguments you tend to raise. Keep dreaming up your little scenarios whilst the world marches on by and proves you wrong. These are your numbers, nobody else's and for what they're worth, I doubt anyone would want to own them. Your crude example is not representative of the researchers and developers work. I tend to have more faith in what developments are occurring, rather than your opinions based on what you have served up thus far. Your arguments are far from convincing.

Classic Elmagico. Accuse someone of pulling numbers out of thin air, when that's precisely what you often do.

Copper, kettle, black.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Could it be because we know how pointless it is to discuss things with you?

Then don't discuss and then sound like a hypocrite because you don't like what you hear.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Do you even know what I meant?

Can it be that important ?

Originally Posted by Wobs

When you said: This is what you do. You claim something that is not based upon actual evidence. You ignore anything that doesn't fit your world view.

Most of what I claim is based on clear evidence. On the contrary to most of what you post, based on opinion.

Originally Posted by Wobs

And you have offered what? A "belief", a repeated opinion that has no value. But yes, we are capable of forming our own opinion, without your baseless statements.

More irrelevancy and off topic as usual.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Classic Elmagico. Accuse someone of pulling numbers out of thin air, when that's precisely what you often do.

More lies and deception. Numbers I present are typically published elsewhere. It's just that you don't agree with them that causes you issues. Anything you present typically has no basis of reference.

Thus clearly in your case Copper, kettle, black. As well as petty and boring ElWobbles.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

This is further evidence of your inability to engage in debate. Your adversarial attitude is not good for this forum.

Coper Kettle Black.

There is nothing worth debating. Clearly you seem to have a craving to debate with someone so go find someone who wants to waste their debating with you. I doubt you will find many though. My main interest is simply sharing information and allowing others to make up their own minds. Debate is not required for that. I would not waste too much of my time debating because, I'm not interested in proving anyone wrong. Each to their own view in the chat forum world. Unfortunately there are those not unlike yourself that seem to get a fix out of asserting a view to be above all others. This demonstrates your extremely adversarial attitude which is clearly not good for this forum.