Why Gas Engines Are Far From Dead - Biggest EV Problems

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
7,283
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
And no, Hollywood is not a good source of proof of the dangers of gasoline.
A very good friend of mine is a major Special Effects guy in Hollywood (former Navy EOD and demolitions), and he blows stuff up on a regular basis for the last 50+ years. Movies, TV, rock concerts, airshows.

In order to get a nice big orange typical movie fireball at an airshow (warbird simulated bomb drop) he has a plastic bag filled with gasoline. He has to use one explosive charge to lift the gasoline bag off the ground and vaporize it, and another high temperature charge to ignite it quickly enough to make the big flash and boom. It takes a specific amount of effort to achieve this. A firecracker thrown under a car won't do it in my opinion.
 

bmcj

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
13,354
Location
Fresno, California
A very good friend of mine is a major Special Effects guy in Hollywood (former Navy EOD and demolitions), and he blows stuff up on a regular basis for the last 50+ years. Movies, TV, rock concerts, airshows.
Sounds like an old friend of mine. His name doesn’t happen to be Hank, does it?
 

Elmog

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
99
Location
Anaheim
Electric vehicles are here and will only increase in number in the future. Please enjoy them if you like, just don’t continue to try to convince us that they’re a better option than ICE vehicles. When I can board a 747E and fly 12,000 miles on battery power alone I will no longer need convincing.
 

dog

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
294
Electric vehicles are here and will only increase in number in the future. Please enjoy them if you like, just don’t continue to try to convince us that they’re a better option than ICE vehicles. When I can board a 747E and fly 12,000 miles on battery power alone I will no longer need convincing.
Thats rich.The original post is all about how soda pop is a good analogy to why the very category we
are disscusing under isnt valid.Then any and
every kind of rant ,last few have been about how to
create huge fireballs from gasoline.Wooooohooooo
"convince us" ya no,Gretta go.
 

12notes

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2014
Messages
1,044
Location
Louisville, KY
We might as well give up on electric vehicles. We can build as many dams and windmills as we want and it still won’t cure the greenhouse gas problem.

https://apple.news/ASlQAWtn1QNeVnyw3AvF_XQ

“Humans put out more methane than previously thought”

On the brighter side of the news (and possibly related)... Taco Bell has opened a record number of restaurants.
From the 3rd paragraph of your linked article:

"Most human-caused methane is inadvertently leaked while producing and transporting gas and oil"

I suppose it could be caused by every petroleum worker eating a few dozen bean burritos every day.
 

lr27

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2007
Messages
3,822
Considering the increasing number of electric cars in my area, they must be fairly practical. I've known three satisfied hybrid owners and one satisfied electric car owner. Most people live in places where it NEVER gets to 40 below. Don't you need block heaters then, anyway?

Prius batteries last a long time. In California the warranty is for 150,000 miles. I don't think short battery life is an inevitable problem.

Burning fossil fuels is problematic, or there wouldn't be much point in going for electric vehicles. Making hydrogen from petroleum to use as a fuel is stupid, but it's not the only way to make hydrogen.

Electric powered airplanes are currently only practical in certain niches, but batteries will improve and enlarge those niches.

Renewable electric generating capacity is growing fast. Many sources report that MOST new electrical generating capacity coming on line is renewable. I'll admit that renewable is a misnomer, since the astrophysicists tell us the sun will eventually be used up.
 

pictsidhe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
7,427
Location
North Carolina
A very good friend of mine is a major Special Effects guy in Hollywood (former Navy EOD and demolitions), and he blows stuff up on a regular basis for the last 50+ years. Movies, TV, rock concerts, airshows.

In order to get a nice big orange typical movie fireball at an airshow (warbird simulated bomb drop) he has a plastic bag filled with gasoline. He has to use one explosive charge to lift the gasoline bag off the ground and vaporize it, and another high temperature charge to ignite it quickly enough to make the big flash and boom. It takes a specific amount of effort to achieve this. A firecracker thrown under a car won't do it in my opinion.
Fuel-air bombs are a huge amount of fun.

I was using an improvised flamethrower at work on Monday. Shop-solv is fairly close to gasoline in composition (heptane and toluene etc). Sadly, it wasn't as effective at heating the thing I was working as a blowtorch in each hand, so I stopped after finishing up the can of shop solv...
 

lr27

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2007
Messages
3,822
If you ever see even a small amount of gasoline on water, GET AWAY FROM THERE. It's amazing how big the flames can be. One "experiment" was enough for me.
Also, a fuel air explosion in a confined space isn't improbable. It wasn't my finest hour, but those garden trashing woodchucks never had a chance. Fortunately, I had the sense to stand to the side, because sometimes it was more like a rocket than an explosion.
Then there's the time I lit a barbeque with a match that was still three feet away. Liquid fuels are hazardous.
Sometimes I think it's surprising I'm still alive.
 

pictsidhe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
7,427
Location
North Carolina
I once managed to be inside a fireball. I promptly threw away the running grinder that had sparked it, then patted out the flames in the remains of my hair. Oopsie.
 

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
4,839
Location
US
My fuel air explosion was a pile of raked-up leaves (back when burning leaves was the preferred disposal method.).
Oops, no kerosene left. "This'll be sporty, but I'll just use a tiny bit of gasoline and light it fast before the vapors get far."
Wrong. WHHOOOMMFFF. I flicked the match from a long way off, but still singed the hair off my arms, eyelashes, etc. My "seen everything" bride heard/felt the pressure wave and came out of the house to see me stomping out the widely spread burning debris.
Yep, I cheated Darwin that time. Dumb.
 

dog

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
294
Breaking it down further:Energy density of any fuels,gas/diesel or any hydrocarbon are fixed,the energy density goes up with weight,a bit.It is never going to get better than it is.Which raises the question of what exactly is the theoretical limit
for batteryies,including solid state.
Next is efficiency of the motors,here electric motors are getting maxed out at what? 80/90 %
exact ISNT relevant because the one saving grace
(no body mentioned) is that with a materials science breakthrough ICE engines with compression ratios of (rabbit /hat) 45 to 1,change
the game,and there has been some movement on
that front.
Currently electric power is gaining momentum,tecnicaly,and has the public's attention.
ICE is going to have to make a huge jump in efficiency to stay in the game.
Any new material science breakthrough that helps
an ICE will also help electric propulsion.....at a lesser wieght/cost penalty.
Bottom line is ICE gota step up with something big
soon,game changer or out of the game.
Anybody care to mention the material science that I am aluding to?
Hope your feeling Greta.
Buh bye
 

PMD

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2015
Messages
236
Location
Martensville SK
1. Next is efficiency of the motors,here electric motors are getting maxed out at what? 80/90 %
exact ISNT relevant because the one saving grace

2.(no body mentioned) is that with a materials science breakthrough ICE engines with compression ratios of (rabbit /hat) 45 to 1,change
the game,and there has been some movement on
that front.

3. Hope you are feeling Greta
1. Electric motors on their own can be between 90 and 98" thermal efficiency, but you need to factor in all of the rest of the system that delivers the power to the terminal...thus net maybe overall 70ish.
2. Of course, the limit for SI engines is that the aspirated charge will detonate. This is the #1 reason why diesels are the ONLY way forward - there is no such issue as cylinder pressure is not limited (no aspirated charge) only mechanical strength limits possibilities.
3. That would be child molestation.
 

Dan Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
5,285
. A firecracker thrown under a car won't do it in my opinion.
You'd need fuel leaking from the tank fast enough to create a cloud of fuel vapor under that car. Very rare, and even then any breeze carries it away.

In boats it's another matter entirely. Fuel leaks are deadly. Gasoline fumes are heavier than air.
 

Dan Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
5,285
Breaking it down further:Energy density of any fuels,gas/diesel or any hydrocarbon are fixed,the energy density goes up with weight,a bit.It is never going to get better than it is.Which raises the question of what exactly is the theoretical limit
for batteryies,including solid state.
Next is efficiency of the motors,here electric motors are getting maxed out at what? 80/90 %
exact ISNT relevant because the one saving grace
(no body mentioned) is that with a materials science breakthrough ICE engines with compression ratios of (rabbit /hat) 45 to 1,change
the game,and there has been some movement on
that front.
Currently electric power is gaining momentum,tecnicaly,and has the public's attention.
ICE is going to have to make a huge jump in efficiency to stay in the game.
Any new material science breakthrough that helps
an ICE will also help electric propulsion.....at a lesser wieght/cost penalty.
Bottom line is ICE gota step up with something big
soon,game changer or out of the game.
Anybody care to mention the material science that I am aluding to?
Hope your feeling Greta.
Buh bye
All batteries produce electricity by converting chemicals from one to another. Some of those processes are reversible, and those are rechargeable batteries. In a lead-acid battery, for instance, lead and lead peroxide plates are immersed in sulfuric acid and react to produce lead sulfate on both plates, the acid turns to water, and electrons are given off. Once the acid is sufficiently weakened and the plates are all sulfated, that battery is dead and has to be recharged, which drives the sulfate back into the water, making acid and leaving the lead and lead peroxide on the
plates. To do that we force electrons through it in a reverse direction.

So, better batteries have to be made of light materials like lithium or aluminum instead of lead and have to use electrolytes lighter than acids or alkalines. The amount of electrons they can generate will be dependent on their size and the number of electrons their atoms will be willing to release as molecules break down and form other molecules. Chances are that the best batteries will be made of some rather rare elements (lithium is already scarce enough) or some other chemical magic will have to be found to free up more electrons. And in inventing such a battery, it has to also be reversible (rechargeable) or it's next to useless, like the old carbon-zinc batteries, where the zinc was permanently consumed.

All of this won't likely be developed by someobody in his garage. It will be by some smart chemical engineer, or more likely a team of smart chemical engineers, or maybe some quantum physicists that think way outside the traditional chemical boundaries.
 

Pops

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
8,047
Location
USA.
Remember (young folks, realize) that the first sort-of-practical motorcars appeared in the 1880s, but horses and wagons or buggies were still evident in rural areas in the 1930s. Fifty years. It took a LONG time for the infrastructure to make economic sense.
Yes, a lot of people in fly-over county in the 30's were still using horses and wagons or buggies. My Grandfather was one. Died in 1959 and never drove an auto in his life. Always went in his horse and buggie. We had a mailman that rode a horse until about 1950, then he got a WW-2 surplus jeep. Remember, gasoline was rationed in WW-2 at 5 gal a week. Lot of people had to park their autos and go back to the horse to get to town. I remember shortly after WW-2 going to the closest town over 20 miles away and there was more horses and wagons and buggies than autos.

Today if people just could buy 5 gal of gasoline a week. They would lose it.
 
Last edited:

Pops

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
8,047
Location
USA.
That's the only thing that would get me to buy one of today's electric cars. Or a horse...
I will take a horse. They eat grass and hay. Love to have Old Joe back. A 1700 lb wild 2 year old wild stallion horse that adopted me when I was 8 years old. He took care of me.
 
2
Top