Menu
What's new
By:
Advanced search...

Diesel bashing thread! (Only kidding - pros and cons discussion)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Channel Hopper said:
And yet, sleepers, a guilty pleasure after quietly fitting go faster bits into small bikes a few years back. :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaJQNUZdW6U
Click to expand...
get them to do it 100 times, predicted result

Ferrari does it 100 times
souped-up Passat does it 9 times
 
Channel Hopper said:
What would eleven beaten Passats and some mods cost ?
Click to expand...
less than a new Ferrari , but think of the long wait for the recovery truck, or alternatively the train-fare and bus-fare back home, each time the Passat engine blows up
 
Channel Hopper said:
ok, 12 Passats, keep one standard.
Click to expand...
add Jesus in for some miracles

01apostle.jpg
 
36024987840_ea0d0321fc_b.jpg



Albeit it using a space saver and driving 50 mph -_-
 
The big factor for me is the need to reduce our dependence on oil from the middle east. Moving to EV and hybrid vehicles should have a big impact on this and maybe we can get away from the likes of Qatar buying football tournaments and footballers for 9 billion dollars or whatever it is.
 
StuH said:
The big factor for me is the need to reduce our dependence on oil from the middle east. Moving to EV and hybrid vehicles should have a big impact on this and maybe we can get away from the likes of Qatar buying football tournaments and footballers for 9 billion dollars or whatever it is.
Click to expand...
Although the demand for extra electrical energy would then be satisfied by the UK buying Chinese nuclear power stations (run by a French company). Is that much better?
 
Jon_G said:
Although the demand for extra electrical energy would then be satisfied by the UK buying Chinese nuclear power stations (run by a French company). Is that much better?
Click to expand...
that decision was not made in the context of EV Jon

But regarding the Chinese, they are already on the ascent in many key industries in the world.

As an ****ogy, in mobile-phone networks, Ericsson used to be the best supplier of infrastructure, and indeed many networks ended up outsourcing the network management to Ericsson e.g. many sections of operational staff at "3" and Vodafone became Ericsson employees overnight. But Huawei have been slowly eroding Ericsson's position, undercutting them in price in both equipment and staffing costs. Whether this is a good thing or not is impossible to say, but, it makes no difference to the end-user, because very little of the money that we pay for using mobile phones stays in this country.

Viz ....
mobile-phone network infrastructure --> most money spent leaves the country
mobile-phone handsets --> most money spent leaves the country

automotive refuelling --> most money spent leaves the country
automotive vehicles --> most money spent leaves the country

electric power network infrastructure --> AFAIK most money stays in the country

electric power generation --> most money is now leaving the country


Those 3 industries are vital to any country's progress, no political party is doing anything to stop the trend
 
I'd take my chances, at least it's domestic spending and we're not funding obscenely rich nations who in my opinion fund much of the terrorism in the world.
 
Yes, it makes sense when you look at the numbers only, but plants do it for themselves and the figure for solar panelling is an ***umption based on optimum light conditions, with no degradation through time, cloud cover, offset angle, grid reinsertion loss etc.

This is also a commercial enterprise, with the added energy of advance plant construction and forward chemical processes (and the bank loans required), regulation and taxation, along with the corporation/cartel trickledown and shareholder skimming.

In many ways this is not dissimilar to bee-keeping, the current outlook for macromanaging that 'mutual agreement' isn't particularly good.
 
Channel Hopper said:
Yes, it makes sense when you look at the numbers only, but plants do it for themselves and the figure for solar panelling is an ***umption based on optimum light conditions, with no degradation through time, cloud cover, offset angle, grid reinsertion loss etc.

This is also a commercial enterprise, with the added energy of advance plant construction and forward chemical processes (and the bank loans required), regulation and taxation, along with the corporation/cartel trickledown and shareholder skimming.

In many ways this is not dissimilar to bee-keeping, the current outlook for macromanaging that 'mutual agreement' isn't particularly good.
Click to expand...
Is this a new thread ?

Basically, the sentence says that commercially available solar panels [such as thin film or Crystalline silicon] typically only convert 20% of solar energy input, to a usable energy output [electrical].

If their claim is true, that the bio-semiconductors convert 80% to usable energy output, and if it can be developed to something viable, then it would indeed be a leap forward.

Other than that, I didn't see the trajectories that you infer.
 
The article confirms this is one efficient stage in an two (or three ) step process to the 'fuel'. The chemical released still needs refining before it can be used and these would need to be both continuous and autonomous to retain the efficiency.
 
Channel Hopper said:
The article confirms this is one efficient stage in an two (or three ) step process to the 'fuel'. The chemical released still needs refining before it can be used and these would need to be both continuous and autonomous to retain the efficiency.
Click to expand...
You were quoting from the bit about solar panels synopsis .....
"This new approach seeks to improve that efficiency by essentially aiming to equip bacteria with solar panels.
After combing through old microbiology literature, researchers realised that some bugs have a natural defence to cadmium, mercury or lead that lets them turn the heavy metal into a sulphide which the bacteria express as a tiny, crystal semiconductor on their surfaces."
which leads into ....." These newly boosted bacteria produce acetic acid, essentially vinegar, from CO2, water and light. They have an efficiency of around 80%, which is four times the level of commercial solar panels, and more than six times the level of chlorophyll."

Or are we now having a thread within a thread within a thread :lol:
 
The 'bio-semiconductors do not convert to a fuel for transporting humans regardless of their efficiency, their exhaust product requires a secondary process.

Alcohol converts 'naturally' to acetic acid using dehydrogenation (oxidation - improved by use of a copper vessel ), but this is reversible albeit using some energy input.

This reverse process can however be adapted with the correct reagent to produce methanol, creating nirvana for the masses.
 
Channel Hopper said:
The 'bio-semiconductors do not convert to a fuel for transporting humans regardless of their efficiency, their exhaust product requires a secondary process.

Alcohol converts 'naturally' to acetic acid using dehydrogenation (oxidation - improved by use of a copper vessel ), but this is reversible albeit using some energy input.

This reverse process can however be adapted with the correct reagent to produce methanol, creating nirvana for the masses.
Click to expand...
At one level, this just comes down to knowledge-based incremental capability. The problem is that the crystals appear to be inverted, which would cause anomalies in the energy charge. To prevent the acidic accumulation on the fluidic substrate, they'd have to look for an invariance in the hydro-carbon bonds. If they use Chronoadaptable laser inferometry they might be able to overcome this.

But overall, if the research stays on-message about its compatible domains, it might offer balanced logistical options, which will benefit everyone in the medium and long terms.
 
Jon_G said:
argument-clinic.gif
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if it is Jon ;)

Seriously, I hate bickering in threads where I've been trying to help someone, or, if I know I was originally being genuine about something I've put in regards to what an OP said.

In regard to what the OP was saying, I suspect that this thread went off the rails somewhere in page 2 or certainly by page 3.

The thread that I started (now removed) was a genuine attempt by me to start a serious debate, but as was pointed out, it became Jeremy Kyle, and I wouldn't want this thread to go the same way either.

The thread that was deleted, should have entered into the areas of Externalities (the push by the EU Automobile industry drew a blind eye on real-world testing and the impact of NOx ), the fake argument about the extent of CO2 reduction using the technology available at the time, and the recent ***ent of technologies that can, at last, start do the job that was promised.
 
Problem is - whatever the original intention - any type of 'diesel Vs petrol' thread quickly descends into a diesel-bashing crusade suggesting that we diesel owners are polluting thugs... and I will always argue very strongly against such unwarranted demonisation, particularly when petrol itself is also a heavily-polluting fuel. But maybe the heaviest polluting vehicles do need to be kept out of urban areas wherever possible?

Humans are slowly destroying the environment, whatever we do. I've just lit my fairly powerful (11KW) filthy, polluting log-burner because it's a bit cold here up today... I do this simply because it's a free way for me to get warm! Despite being carbon-neutral (I cut down, prune and coppice trees growing on my own land) it's otherwise a pretty dirty way to heat a home, but I'm guessing that several billion humans on the planet do the same thing?

None of us really care, do we?
 
Jon_G said:
Problem is - whatever the original intention - any type of 'diesel Vs petrol' thread quickly descends into a diesel-bashing crusade suggesting that we diesel owners are polluting thugs... and I will always argue very strongly against such unwarranted demonisation, particularly when petrol itself is also a heavily-polluting fuel. But maybe the heaviest polluting vehicles do need to be kept out of urban areas wherever possible?

Humans are slowly destroying the environment, whatever we do. I've just lit my fairly powerful (11KW) filthy, polluting log-burner because it's a bit cold here up today... I do this simply because it's a free way for me to get warm! Despite being carbon-neutral (I cut down, prune and coppice trees growing on my own land) it's otherwise a pretty dirty way to heat a home, but I'm guessing that several billion humans on the planet do the same thing?

None of us really care, do we?
Click to expand...
I will only resort to "diesel-bashing" when pre-Euro 6 diesel-owners gloat about their money-saving without taking on board the Externality ignored by that gloating.

If petrol is a heavily polluting fuel, in what way is it heavily polluting, where is the scientific information stating that emissions from petrol cars are deadly, as readily found as entering "NOx emissions" into Google (without quotes) which immediately finds references to the effects of NOx from pre-Euro 6 diesel cars.

A log-burner in a rural environment is not the same thing at all Jon and if you're being serious you should know that.

The 1952 smog of London is a good example of how air pollution in an urban area can kill people --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London

Not everyone can live in a rural environment, which is why there is more and more legislation to keep on reducing the air pollution in urban areas. If you know of a timeline that is going to ban Euro 4 and later petrol cars from urban environments due to their "heavy polluting fuel", then reference it.
 
Just a reminder (in light of comments made here and elsewhere that are now removed for being off topic), the ***le of this thread is tongue in cheek, but the motives are very honest and balanced. Here's the OP's thread opener...

Goodluckmonkey said:
A place to let it all out....

This debate regularly crops up, and having been both side of the fence I can appreciate the pros and cons with both vehicles.

In our little fleet we currently have

2005 FRV 2.0 V-tec (150hp)
2004 Accord 2.2 I-CDTI (190ish hp)

For me, the pros and cons aren't what internet folklore would have me expect, and they're both great engines, just that they excel in very different situations.

Both cars are from the same era and manufacturer, have manual gearboxes and are of similar weight.
Of course, the diesel started off with almost the same hp output too, with both engines being made with economy and refinement as priorities, so if I initially compare to the accords pre-mapped state we've a reasonably level footing to pass judgement upon.


I'll explain all shortly....
Click to expand...
Anyone interpreting this as hating on diesels or stirring up arguments needs to wind their neck in. I'd suggest they could be looking for agro where there's simply no agro to be had.

Please, everybody be cool, leave egos at the door and let's just discuss the matter based on facts and personal experiences.

Or better still, as it's Friday night, lighten up, stop worrying about what people on the internet think about cars and go catch up with friends, watch a movie, read a book, listen to some music... give yourself the night off from the internet, or at least forums ;) .
 
Jon_G said:
Enjoy the diesel-bashing.
Click to expand...
Other than someone who used to goad you a lot (and is not on here so much) , more recently things have become convoluted in several threads over several weeks Jon, it's not as simple as you believe, there certainly is no "diesel-bashing" per se.
 
Jon_G said:
suggesting that we diesel owners are polluting thugs... and I will always argue very strongly against such unwarranted demonisation
Click to expand...
No need to take it personally - the thread is about the engines, not their owners.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top