Electric cars are a pipe dream

[Billy T]

Yes, you did - you quite clearly compared your tank to standard tanks operating at 3600 PSI. ...

Quote my post (and tell number) where I clearly did that. You and Adoucette are reading into my posts that they refer to real world tanks when I only say "... compared to the round tank."

They do not as I now have told ~18 times. I have made a fundamental geometric mathematical model, which makes a comparison between the idealized (end effects neglected) compound tank and the round cross section cylindrical tank. Never discussing real world tanks, which have many more complex considerations than are in my math models.

For example, they need a pressure reduction exit valve, often need a flat bottom so they can stand upright on the floor, must be made from available steel tubes in many cases, or are not homogenous in their materials (inner air tight core with fiber tape wrapped around it) instead of only the one material that my model assumes.

The only connection my math model has ever had to real world is I did use the tensile strength of real world materials (when showing that your guess that a specific tank geometry I described would not be too heavy for car to carry etc.)

Although, within my model, all round tanks have the same efficiency (defined as internal volume to wall volume ratio) that is NOT true of the compound (Many parallel cells) tank. Thus I am forced to assume a particular geometry (length, width, thickness, and space between the separated webs and the web thickness) to compute the efficiency of a particular compound "flat tank."

Why all the defensiveness?...

I am not sure it is correct to call my repeated corrections of false posts about what I have said "defensive" but be that as it may, I must tell that I did not make a comparison to a real world tank when you or adoucette say that I did, but are NOT able to quote a post clearly doing that.

Instead if you or adoucette quote any post of mine it only says "compared to the round tank." Never does it say:
"compared to the round tank in use today" or
"compared to the round tank used to hold CNG" or
"compared to standard tanks operating at 3600 PSI" etc.

These extensions you two make, I have never said! but even after ~18 times telling you I did not say anything about real world tanks, both of you continue to claim I did. - Thus that has now become "INTENTIONAL LYING" not just an accident error in posting.

Please stop putting words in my mouth after I have repeatedly (more than a dozen times) told that I am comparing ONLY to the idealized round tank of my math model, not any real world tank.

You have made this false claim again at the start of your post; i.e. you told what you think / assume / I said, not what I actually said, but according your false assumptions, I must be referring to a real word tank when I say "compared to the round tank." Again for the ~19th time, I am not.

 

[adoucette]

Billy, as I showed in your range calculation (repeated in post 2281) you indeed DID calculate the range of your flat tank as if it held CNG at 3,600 psi.

Indeed the entire discussion started with your claiming the loss of trunk space of the Civic, which had a 3,600 psi round tank, could be alleviated by building the tanks to store the CNG into the vehicle. So from the very first post on this the discussion was about CNG storage.

Not till AFTER you produced a low pressure Propane tank similar in design to yours did you start back-pedaling on the CNG pressure issue. Indeed you stated your tank worked for the same pressure as round tanks many times.


Finally, the MATH formula you used for efficiency (post 2151), that is at the heart of your claims, is not correct.

Your first point is reasonable:

(1) “Efficiency” is defined as the ratio of stored gas to the mass of the tank,

Your fourth one is not (based on your stated definition of efficiency):

(4): Circular pressure tanks ALL have efficiency 1/4t, independent of their diameter.

Because while wall thickness scales linearly with diameter, the volume of the gas of a cylinder scales as length times radius squared.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_vessel

Which means the volume goes up faster than does the diameter which is why, for the same length, larger diameter cylinders are in fact more efficient.

I showed this by linking to a site with real world pressure tanks, where for the same length tank, volume went up ~130% while diameter went up only ~50% and weight by only ~100%.

BIG OOPS

Your tiny 2 cm tubes would not in fact be a good choice for holding CNG.
They would be like the typical Texan put down, "all hat and no cattle".
Your's would be "all tank and no gas".

And then the most glaring error which you refused to fix:

(3) Comparing the efficiency of one square tube, one unit of length on an edge, to a round tube one unit in length in diameter. Note the tension in the walls of the square tube and the round tube is the same so the wall thickness is t for both with the same safety factor and same internal pressure.

Neglects the actual data provided:

Comparison of the Rectangular Vessels with the equivalent Cylindrical (Circular Cross Section) vessels indicates the former are rather inefficient. Cylindrical Vessels will sustain considerably higher pressures for the same wall thickness and size.

http://www.gowelding.com/pv/square.pdf

Which in fact states that

Cylinders can handle 20 to 120 times higher pressure for equivalent wall size of a square tube.

Now you objected to this, because you claimed you were stacking a lot of square tubes next to each other, sharing a common wall, but that does not negate the fact that point 3 as stated is WRONG.

In fact as shown in that link, the wall thickness is NOT t for both square tubes and round cylinders with the same safety factor and same internal pressure.

As I pointed out to you way back then, before you start claiming the savings from stacking these square tubes together you FIRST had to account for the fact that square tubes aren't as efficient at holding pressure. Sure, stacking them might reduce the loss, even reduce it significantly, but doesn't negate it, and your hand waving doesn't make it go away.

And finally, after Trippy's comment about why the flat tops on the rectangles wouldn't be a good ided, you put rounded tops on your many little rectangular tanks but never refigured out how much more mass that added to the entire tank, as those humps, which are necessary, appear to be a much greater increase in additional wall area then they are an increase in volume.

Arthur

 

[Billy T]

...
Finally, the MATH formula you used for efficiency (post 2151), that is at the heart of your claims, is not correct.

Your first point is reasonable:

(1) “Efficiency” is defined as the ratio of stored gas to the mass of the tank,

Your fourth one is not (based on your stated definition of efficiency):

(4): Circular pressure tanks ALL have efficiency 1/4t, independent of their diameter.

Because while wall thickness scales linearly with diameter, the volume of the gas of a cylinder scales as length times radius squared. ...

Which means the volume goes up faster than does the diameter which is why, for the same length, larger diameter cylinders are in fact more efficient.
Arthur

But you are forgetting the circumference also scales linearly with the diameter. The wall volume thus scales as the square of the diameter, same as the volume contained. Still ignoring end effects, what I said is true. Your correction of me is false.

I do admit that before I "invented" (not the first unfortunately) the "flat multi-cellular tank" and understood it could be more efficient as each of the adjoining cells has only 3, not four, sides, I did (like all posting here) post about existing EV cars, their batteries, recharges limitations, etc. I also admit that many of my quick early calculations had errors which exaggerated the superiority of the flat tank. Also admit I did not until prompted (by Trippy?) consider the concentration of stress problem where the vertical tension web meets the horizontal flat surface. Fixing this with "filets" did reduce the advantage of the flat tank over the round tank as the filet volume ADDs to the wall volume and SUBTRACTS from the contained volume.

 

[Billy T]

Billy, as I showed in your range calculation (repeated in post 2281) you indeed DID calculate the range of your flat tank as if it held CNG at 3,600 psi. ... Arthur

2281 is your post, not mine. Please give number of my post where I stated what you are claiming I did - namely "calculate the range of your flat tank as if it held CNG at 3,600 psi."

As you do not give my post number, I can only guess what you are referring to:

I did calculate the VOLUME of the same particular tank that Billvon GUESSED would be too heavy for the car to carry if it held (his number) 3,600 psi as being 80 liters. As most have little feeling for an 80 liter volume, I continued to give it in gallons, and then realizing that many still have little felling even for that volume expressed in gallons, I did compare it to the VOLUME OF some small car's gas tank volume.

If that is what you are referring to that is NOT a calculation of range. Again Please tell what I said (BY ACTUALLY QUOTING ME, MY POST) that justifies you putting the following words in my mouth:

"...you indeed DID calculate the range of your flat tank as if it held CNG at 3,600 psi. ..."

I am really growing tired of having words stuffed in my mouth (by Billvon also) and then when I protest (~18 times now) that I did not say those words and ask for you to actually QUOTE ME saying those words, giving my post number, you never do so - instead you usually (many times ~12) call me a liar!

 

[adoucette]

But you are forgetting the circumference also scales linearly with the diameter. The wall volume thus scales as the square of the diameter, same as the volume contained. Still ignoring end effects, what I said is true. Your correction of me is false.

Apparently the CNG tank makers didn't read your post Billy.

http://www.cng.us.com/pdfs/CNGci_Type1.pdf

Compare these two tanks of roughly the same length (within 3%) but with different diameters:

Volume	GGE	Dia.	Length	Weight
75	6.7	10.75	61.81	187.6

To this tank:

Volume    GGE     Dia.    Length    Weight
170	15.2	15.98	59.96	377.4

127%	127%	49%	-3%	101%

The volume efficiency goes up roughly 30% faster than the weight (indicative of the increase in wall thickness X area) and much faster than the diameter.
Which is why we don't see many real small diameter CNG tanks.

I do admit that before I "invented" (not the first unfortunately) the "flat multi-cellular tank" and understood it could be more efficient as each of the adjoining cells has only 3, not four, sides, I did (like all posting here) post about existing EV cars, their batteries, recharges limitations, etc. I also admit that many of my quick early calculations had errors which exaggerated the superiority of the flat tank. Also admit I did not until prompted (by Trippy?) consider the concentration of stress problem where the vertical tension web meets the horizontal flat surface. Fixing this with "filets" did reduce the advantage of the flat tank over the round tank as the filet volume ADDs to the wall volume and SUBTRACTS from the contained volume.

Billy, regardless of what you think, your flat tank is NOT more efficient.

You can't do better than a Sphere and the next best is the cylinder.

A Flat tank like you describe could only be thought of as more efficient than a cylinder in reference to amount of gas you could store in a rectangular or square space. Which can be an issue, but still, since a CNG tank stores more than twice as much an a 500 psi ANG flat tank, there still isn't any savings in space.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

2281 is your post, not mine. Please give number of my post where I stated what you are claiming I did - namely "calculate the range of your flat tank as if it held CNG at 3,600 psi."

As you do not give my post number, I can only guess what you are referring to:

Billy, Post 2281 that I referenced has all your relevant posts in it and each one has its post number.

ONCE AGAIN

Finally, in this post, you computed your CAPACITY of your tank:

Thus, the average volume of one tube would be: 1x4x160 = 640cc or 0.64 liters. If the width of the car is 1.4 meters, then there could be about 125 parallel tubes. So the flat tank's total volume could be: 125x0.64= 80 liters, which is 21.134 gallons, bigger than most gasoline tanks, yet making the floor less than two inches thick. ”

But when I called you on it, that CNG didn't have nearly the same energy per gallon as Gasoline did:

And if only CNG had the energy density of gasoline.
It takes 728 cubic inches of CNG to equal 1 gallon of Gasoline.
Your supposed revolutionary engineered flat tank doesn't have the equiv of 21 gallons of gasoline Billy, only 6.7 gallons. ”

and

Because the Gasoline Equivalent Volume is less than 7 Gallons which is much less than the quite small 12 gallon tank in the Prius. ”

These posts make it clear that we are talking about the GGE of CNG, but still you replied and used the Gallons of Gas Equivalent for CNG as your metric, thus you were implicitly stating that you were computing the range of your flat tank at the same pressure as CNG.

but 7 gallons of gas at 35 or 40 mpg fuel efficiency will take you up to 280 miles between fill ups. I.e. at least twice what most even pure electric cars can do, and at less than $1/gallon equvillent cost per mile. ”

Unless you have some OTHER (so far undisclosed) manner of getting 7 GGE of CNG into an 80 liter space BESIDES compressing it to 3,600 psi?

Its OOPS (again and again and again)


Arthur

 

[Billy T]

{2192}... Your supposed revolutionary engineered flat tank doesn't have the equiv of 21 gallons of gasoline Billy, only 6.7 gallons. ... Arthur

Reply:

{2194}You are again putting words in my mouth. I never said the flat tank had the "equiv of 21 gallons of gasoline." ... I calculated the tank volume as 80 liters and then I converted 80L to 21+ gallons.)

{2199}The Unobtainium Flat Tank will never be built Billy because it has been shown to be impossible to build to your specifications. ... they don't build flat tanks because no one has thought of them, they don't because the physics behind the flat tank makes it unworkable.

Reply: by showing photo one (in post 2219 and also 5 separate insulting posts by Adoucete QUOTED) and link to another source selling them (both unfortunately too close to my specs to permit me getting a patent on a multi-cellular “flat tank”).

{2214} ... I did refute your BS about your Unobtanium tank. ...

{2215}Not my math proof - just by noting irrelevant things like isolated tanks are round or, with picture no less, that large airplanes are round. ...

{2229}... And the pressure in the round tanks we were discussing is 3,600 psi ... Arthur

Reply:

{2232}... I did not speak of any specific pressure. I spoke of tank volume to wall volume ratios. As it is possible to hold {At 500psi.} 180 times more CNG than the cheap filler volume placed in the tanks, that is what is important.

and 2nd Reply:

{2235}Nonsense! "same pressure" is not any specific pressure. Again it is only you falsely assuming compressed NG tanks must operate at 36,000 psi. ...

{2236}Now you are just LYING Billy. ... when you computed the capacity of your tank you did so in liters of CNG and absolutely did not mention the capacity as if it had an ANG filler. Arthur

Reply: Tank VOLUME (80 liters) was what I calculated. I never said it was CNG at 3,600psi, but did note that it could hold the “corn cob” Adsorbed (on surface as liquid) Natural Gas, ANG, filler at 500psi for much greater effective VOLUME.

{2236}... Well the Round Tank in the CNG vehicles today, you know the ones we were talking about like the Civic GX, operate at 3,600 psi. ...Arthur

Reply:

{2238}I obviously am not speaking of today's round tanks or pressures. I am speaking of flat tanks and the future. Again I NEVER said the tank operated at 36,000 psi - I said if the flat tank held THE SAME pressure as the round tank it could have less wall material per unit of storage capacity (That does tacitly assume the tanks both tanks are both of the same homogeneous material, not one is steel and the other is aluminum) …

{2239} Quit LYING. You plainly said your tanks operated at the SAME pressure of the round tanks in use today Billy. ... Arthur

(after making part red) Reply:

{2241}No, I said the text in black. You added the part in red. Putting words in my mouth AGAIN! Doing that is lying. ...

and 2nd Reply:

{2243}Nonsense. That {My calculation to reply to Billvon did used his specified pressure and “real world” tensile strengths}is only explaining why I assumed tensile strength of 10% the max demonstrated. Not even speaking of any pressure. Yes you should quit lying. Quit putting words in my mouth, etc.

and 3d Reply:

{2247}Yes that was a direct response to BILLVON who had said my 0.1cm webs 1 cm apart would not hold the pressure HE ASSUMED - My reply only showed him it would hold, even at that high pressure. AGAIN I HAVE NEVER ASSUMED ANY PRESSURE.

My analysis is general FOR ALL PRESSURES. It compares the flat tank to round tank (tacitly assumed to be made of the same materials) and shows less material needed with the same safety factor and SAME PRESSURE per unit of storage capacity.

See also post 2259 for more detail discussion that I am only replying to Billvon when I did a calculation with 3,600psi.

{2249}Billy, as I showed in your range calculation (repeated in post 2281) you indeed DID calculate the range of your flat tank as if it held CNG at 3,600 psi.... Arthur

Reply: I never did any range calculation- Adoucette is just putting more words in my mouth.

{2252}... So you EXPLICITLY stated your flat tank operated at the same pressure as current round tanks, and that is 3,600 psi. Trying to now claim you weren't is simply LYING. ... Arthur

Reply: As already stated (see blue text above), the only time I used 3,600psi was to show that billvon’s claim my tank would explode or need webs “insanely thick” if it held 3,600psi (HIS NUMBER, not mine) etc. was to show Billvon’s guesses were wrong, as he agreed with one word reply (“Nope”) in post 2189 when asked by me: “I would not call 1.2mm thick webs, with a 20% safety factor and half the weight of Aluminum, “insanely thick” would you?”

2nd Reply:

{2253}... Again you are putting words in my mouth. I never assumed 36,000psi, if I have even mentioned 36,000psi, I am quoting someone else. I have never discussed current round tanks.

Yes my model does compare a circular tanks to the flat tank with no specific pressure assume for either. It calculates ONLY their tank storage VOLUMES vs their wall material volume ratios when both operate at the same pressure with the same safety factor and then compares these ratios.

You have been repeatedly told this, yet you continue to falsely report me as saying something entirely different from what I have said - that is repeated lying... When I get time to, I will collect together many examples of this dishonest policy of yours, many will be examples where you have done that to others in other threads, and ask James R if he agrees that for that and your many personnel attacks you don't need a cooling off holiday from posting activity. ...

About this last paragraph of mine, Adoucette said:

{2255}BS. You need to either back that up or retract it Billy.

My post here is the start of the documentation promised in my last paragraph above, but I have not yet had time to collect examples of you doing the same to others.

Here is one example of when you were not in error or lying but have accurately told what I have actually calculated and said:

{2288}... you computed your CAPACITY of your tank. ... Arthur

Yes, I have mainly been calculating tank capacity (Volume) to wall material volume (tank efficiency) in my math models and comparing to the diameter independent circular cylinder tank’s efficiency (neglecting end effects) of 0.25/t where t is the thickness of the wall required to withstand the max pressure safely used .

Note after post 2255, Adocette, mainly continues to “refute” my claim that the compound “flat tank” can be more efficient by posting data on isolated circular tanks, except for post 2262 which is only another personnel attack against me, my qualifications, instead of my posts, and our dispute continues with more focus on ANG fillers, etc.

 

[adoucette]

Reply: I never did any range calculation- Adoucette is just putting more words in my mouth. .

Originally Posted by Billy T in post 2198 (note we were discussing Gallons of Gas Equiv of CNG)

but 7 gallons of gas at 35 or 40 mpg fuel efficiency will take you up to 280 miles between fill ups. I.e. at least twice what most even pure electric cars can do, and at less than $1/gallon equvillent cost per mile. ”

LOL give it up Billy, you have no more credibility to lose.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

Reply: I never did any range calculation- Adoucette is just putting more words in my mouth. .

Of course you did:

Thus, the average volume of one tube would be: 1x4x160 = 640cc or 0.64 liters. If the width of the car is 1.4 meters, then there could be about 125 parallel tubes. So the flat tank's total volume could be: 125x0.64= 80 liters, which is 21.134 gallons, bigger than most gasoline tanks, yet making the floor less than two inches thick. ”

But when I called you on it, that CNG didn't have nearly the same energy per gallon as Gasoline did:

And if only CNG had the energy density of gasoline.
It takes 728 cubic inches of CNG to equal 1 gallon of Gasoline.
Your supposed revolutionary engineered flat tank doesn't have the equiv of 21 gallons of gasoline Billy, only 6.7 gallons. ”

and

Because the Gasoline Equivalent Volume is less than 7 Gallons which is much less than the quite small 12 gallon tank in the Prius. ”

These posts make it clear that we are talking about the GGE of CNG, but still you replied and used the Gallons of Gas Equivalent for CNG as your metric, thus you were implicitly stating that you were computing the range of your flat tank at the same pressure as CNG.

but 7 gallons of gas at 35 or 40 mpg fuel efficiency will take you up to 280 miles between fill ups. I.e. at least twice what most even pure electric cars can do, and at less than $1/gallon equvillent cost per mile. ”

Unless you have some OTHER (so far undisclosed) manner of getting 7 GGE of CNG into an 80 liter space BESIDES compressing it to 3,600 psi?


LOL give it up Billy, you have no more credibility to lose.

Arthur

 

[Billy T]

{2249}Billy, as I showed in your range calculation (repeated in post 2281) you indeed DID calculate the range of your flat tank …

(Note 2281 is adoucette’s post, not mine) I replied:

{2289}... I never did any range calculation- Adoucette is just putting more words in my mouth. ...

Now Adoucette replies to 2289:

{post 2291} Of course you did:... Arthur

To which I reply: More lies.
Trying to justify his recent post 2291, Adoucette claimed that my old post 2175 is where I computed a range. All you find calculated there is the VOLUME of the tank; first given in the MKS system of units I calculated in as 80 Liters, then as many Americans have little felling for how large 80L is, I converted that to 21.134 gallons, which many still have little feeling for so I crudely compared to a car’s fuel tank volume, telling 21+ gallons was larger. Here is the relevant part of post 2175:

So the flat tank's total volume could be: 125x0.64= 80 liters, which is 21.134 gallons, bigger than most gasoline tanks, yet making the floor less than two inches thick.

Note I am only speaking of VOLUME, not range, not gallons of gasoline. The car’s “gas tank” could be full of alcohol (and when I was kid in WV, it sometimes was full of moonshine alcohol being safely moved to another county). Gallons are VOLUME, NOT gasoline, not honey, not water, etc. but a measure of VOLUME!

Post 2175 is mainly concerned with a car DESIGNED for CNG, not existing car modified for CNG. In it I am saying that a car deigned (from scratch) for CNG would probably have something like this 21+ gallon fuel tank integrated into it as the less than 2 inch thick floor board and/or as stated in 2175: “If you want approximately 400 miles range between fill ups, make the roof a ‘flat tank’ also - nice thing about NG is the tank does not need to be lower than the fill point connection as a gasoline tank does.”
If we call “approximately 400 miles” 380 miles and assume the total fuel tank volume is 40 gallons, (less than 19 in the roof tank and any body-integrated side wall tanks) then the CNG car is being assume to get only 9.5 miles to the gallon of CNG (at 3,600PSI, which post 2188 reply to Billvon showed the described tank could hold, and not explode or be too heavy for the car to carry etc.). I think 9.5 mpg is a reasonable mpg for future cars designed for CNG (perhaps they already do?).

As you can see below, post 2291 was not the first time Adoucette made this same error: Telling that I had said tank held the “equiv of 21 gallons of gasoline” etc. (and was corrected for it) but back then I only complained he was “putting words in my mouth I never said” (Back then, I did not call them lies about what I had said but that is what they have become when he keeps repeating them after corrections.):

{2192}... Your supposed revolutionary engineered flat tank doesn't have the equiv of 21 gallons of gasoline Billy, only 6.7 gallons. ... Arthur

Reply:

{2194}You are again putting words in my mouth. I never said the flat tank had the "equiv of 21 gallons of gasoline." ... I calculated the tank volume as 80 liters and then I converted 80L to 21+ gallons.)

 

[adoucette]

BS, you posted your flat tank's volume data and compared it to the volume of a gasoline tank.

So the flat tank's total volume could be: 125x0.64= 80 liters, which is 21.134 gallons, bigger than most gasoline tanks

I explained why that was invalid, since CNG has much less energy per gallon.
You accepted that correction and then this was your range calculation based on the Gallons of Gas Equiv of CNG:

but 7 gallons of gas at 35 or 40 mpg fuel efficiency will take you up to 280 miles between fill ups. I.e. at least twice what most even pure electric cars can do, and at less than $1/gallon equvillent cost per mile. ”

The 7 gallons of gas you refer to was the Gallons of Gas Equiv of CNG at 3,600 psi equal to the volume of CNG in your 80 liter tank.

Unless you have some OTHER (so far undisclosed) manner of getting 7 GGE of CNG into an 80 liter space BESIDES compressing it to 3,600 psi?

Arthur

 

[Billy T]

BS, you posted your flat tank's volume data and compared it to the volume of a gasoline tank.

That is true, but not to any specific gas tank. I noted 80L was larger than most gas tanks to give people a better feeling for how big 80L is.

...You accepted that correction and then this was your range calculation based on the Gallons of Gas Equiv of CNG

Nonsense! I accepted nothing! I calculated no range! I did not even say what you "corrected"!

Here are the documented historical facts of what happened:

{2192}

{2175}…If the width of the car is 1.4 meters, then there could be about 125 parallel tubes. So the flat tank's total volume could be: 125x0.64= 80 liters, which is 21.134 gallons, bigger than most gasoline tanks, yet making the floor less than two inches thick.

And if only CNG had the energy density of gasoline.
It takes 728 cubic inches of CNG to equal 1 gallon of Gasoline.
Your supposed revolutionary engineered flat tank doesn't have the equiv of 21 gallons of gasoline Billy, only 6.7 gallons….

{2196}... Because the Gasoline Equivalent Volume is less than 7 Gallons which is much less than the quite small 12 gallon tank in the Prius. ... Arthur

I noted in my 2198 reply below to your 2196 that the thread is about EVs, not gasoline car and pointed out that even only 7 gallons of gasoline beats the hell out of EV ranges. That is not me stating my tank has equivalent of 21+ gallons or gasoline or even agreeing that your 6.7 is the correct equivalent of 21+ gallons of CNG (but as I did not check, I assume it is.):

{2198}... but 7 gallons of gas at 35 or 40 mpg fuel efficiency will take you up to 280 miles between fill ups. I.e. at least twice what most even pure electric cars can do, and at less than $1/gallon equivalent cost per mile.

Again, this thread is about Electric cars and their competitive alternatives, not about the efficiency of gas cars like the Prius, but what MPG does it give? (is my 35 to 40, mpg a reasonable guess?) If the cost of CNG keeps falling and the cost of gasoline keeps rising, then someday a DESIGNED FOR CNG car will be made - I won't live to see it -I'm too old.

SUMMARY
After I tell in 2175 the 80L volume and remark that it is “bigger than most gas tanks”
Your first post 2192 false assumption is to think my statement in 2175 is about CNG instead of telling the tank volume.
Then your second error is to think I was erroneously claiming in 2175 than I had the equivalent of 21 gallons of gasoline in my tank.
Then as your third post 2192 error, you “correct” something I never said by saying the tank holds the equivalent of only 6.7 gallons of gasoline, not 21+ gallons of gasoline.

For what must now be the 20th time: I made a math model, that neglecting end effects, compared a multi-cellular compound tank to a cylindrical tank. I did not:
(1) compare to tanks in use today,
(2) calculate a range for my tank (or any other)
(3) tell what would be in my tanks, except that it was compressed gas, but quite possibly could be the Natural Gas which you, trippy and billvon were focused on.
(4) tell at what pressure my tank would operate, although when Billvon guessed it would explode if it held CNG at 3.600 psi I did calculate with that pressure to show it would not explode or be too heavy for the car to carry, etc.

Your common, if not standard, post is to put some words in my mouth I never said and then tell that they are wrong. or to make personnel attack on my qualifications, telling I am not and engineer, don't know what I am talking about, etc.

 

[adoucette]

You most definitely calculated a range Billy:

7 gallons of gas at 35 or 40 mpg fuel efficiency will take you up to 280 miles between fill ups

But your tank held 21 gallons, not 7 gallons.

You used 7 gallons when you computed the range because you based the range on the capacity based on Gasoline Equiv of CNG compressed to 3,600 psi.

Your 21 gallon CNG tank = 6.7 gallons gas equiv. (you rounded up)

QUIT LYING

Arthur

 

[Billy T]

(1)You most definitely calculated a range Billy:
(2)But your tank held 21 gallons, not 7 gallons.
(3)You used 7 gallons when you computed the range because you based the range on the capacity based on Gasoline Equiv of CNG compressed to 3,600 psi.
(4)Your 21 gallon CNG tank = 6.7 gallons gas equiv. (you rounded up)
… Arthur

On (1) Yes during my life I have calculated ranges several dozen times, but NEVER for my flat tank.
That would be impossible as:

(A) I have never stated what fuel is in the tank. There are more than a dozen possibilities, including among the gases: Methane, Propane, Butane, Hexane, Acetylene, and of course the currently used liquids, gasoline & several different alcohols, plus peanut and soy oil, etc. for diesel engines. I will not look it up, but I am quite sure Butane and Hexane become liquids at much lower pressure than CH4 does so the tank holding them as liquids would have much lighter weight when empty. (Use much less wall material and by my definition of "efficiency" be much more efficient than a CH4 tank.)

(B) If the fuel is gaseous, the flat tank must be designed for high pressure. I achieved that with multitude of “tension webs” stretching from one large rectangular flat side to the other, BUT NEVER STATED ANY OPERATIONAL PRESSURE for my flat tank. The max pressure would depend upon the tensile strength of the material used, but I have only told the tank geometry (except once when replying to Billvon* I was forced to specify a tensile strength. I assumed it could be 10% of the best that has been achieved.)

(C) My posts, except when I am protesting the words, which I never said, you have put in my mouth have been about my new concept for a more efficient (Better contained to wall volume ratio) tank. TANKS DO NOT HAVE A RANGE – FUELS DO, when one also assumes a particular vehicle.

So since it is impossible for me to have calculated a range for my tank what was I calculating in post 2198, which is replying to your post 2196? I have already told you in post 2294:

{2294}... I noted in my 2198 reply below to your 2196 that the thread is about EVs, not gasoline car but did point out that even only 7 gallons of gasoline beats the hell out of EV ranges. That is not me stating my tank has equivalent of 21+ gallons of gasoline or even agreeing that your 6.7 is the correct equivalent of 21+ gallons of CNG (but as I did not check, I assume it is.)...

I.e. YOU ASSUMED my 80 liter tank was filled with methane (at 3,600psi, I assume, but you did not tell the pressure you assumed.) and then you stated 80L of CH4 was the gasoline equivalent of 80L is 6.7 gallons, not me. (I have never told the gasoline equivalent of any of the gaseous fuels my tank could hold under pressure, which I have also never specified.) The point I was making in this part of 2198, was even only 6.7 gallons of gasoline would be about twice the range of current EVs and telling you that the tread was about EVs and their competitors for replacing gasoline fuel. I.e. IF my tank contained CH4 at 3,600psi, AS YOU ASSUMED, it would "beat the hell" out of current EVs in range.

*In one reply to Billvon who had guessed my tank would explode or be too heavy for a car to carry, if it contained CNG at 3,600 psi I assumed a tensile strength and calculated with HIS, not my, specified pressure.

On (2) Yes. 21+ gallons is the volume I computed for my 80L tank but the “7 gallons equivalent” part is yours, not mine, under YOUR ASSUMPTION that the tank is filled with CH4.

On (3) Again, I did not compute any range for my tank. Tanks do not have a range, they have a volume and that is what I computed. Actually I computed two different tank volumes: the contained volume and the wall material volume and defined tank efficiency in terms of their ratio. And again I NEVER specified the tank contained CH4 at 3,600 psi. These are all YOUR assumptions, which you then use to put words in my mouth I never said.

(4) Yes my 80L tank could have the 6.7 gallons gasoline equiv IF it held Natural Gas at 3,600psi (assuming you did that calculation correctly). I will not look up other fuel’s gasoline equivalent, but happen to know one as I live in Brazil where all the filling stations offer both sugar cane alcohol and “gasoline.” If the 21 gallon tank held ethanol, then that is the equivalent of 0.7x21 = 14.7 gallons of gasoline. (Gasoline is in quotes as it is really a mix with up to 25% alcohol. The government periodically adjusts the percentage to use up surplus alcohol production as they do not want a bumper crop of sugar cane making the price of alcohol so low that the producers go bankrupt. (In average crop years it is about 15%, I think.)

I'll close as you often do: STOP LYING ABOUT WHAT I SAID - quote me instead of putting words in my mouth!

 

[Billy T]

Post 2296 caused me to mention Acetylene (C2H2) which has a triple bond between the two carbons, so I assume it is more energetic fuel, molecule for molecule, than even gasoline (I'm only guessing, not asserting). It is easy to ship as calcium carbide (a solid, made from very cheap materials) and generate Acetylene as needed with water addition.* (Growing up in WV I knew about, even had, an Acetylene Lamp. Most coal miners did.) Acetylene is often burned, but perhaps would explode in an IC engine as it is compressed? (I tend to doubt it would as those three bonds must make it stable even if heated by the compression - again I'm just guessing based on what I know.)

Acetylene would no doubt be a greater source of CO2 if used as a car fuel (Iso-octane is C8H18) as Acetylene has a carbon for every hydrogen converted to H2O but Acetylene would have less pressure trouble than other gaseous fuels and could be shipped long distances (as CaC2) in covered, atmospheric pressure, railroad cars.

It is not used for car fuel, and I am not sure it could be economical competitive, but it is an interesting idea (to me at least). Perhaps even my flat tank cold be filled with calcium carbide, which was replaced at the filling station and have water injected at the average rate the Acetylene was being used. - I.e. have an internal pressure of only about 100psi.

*All those ads you have seen telling that for X dollars, they would tell you how to run your car on water may not have been entirely crazy scams. Could our car fuel be made from coal and the huge deposits of calcium (not the "white cliffs of Dover" however. When other natural deposits have been used up, use sea shells. )?

 

[adoucette]

The point I was making in this part of 2198, was even 6.7 gallons of gasoline would be about twice the range of current EVs and telling you that the tread was about EVs and their competitors for replacing gasoline fuel.

More LIES Billy.

Your post makes it clear that you were not talking about 8 gallons of gasoline but in fact were talking about Gallons of Gas Equiv of CNG.

but 7 gallons of gas at 35 or 40 mpg fuel efficiency will take you up to 280 miles between fill ups. I.e. at least twice what most even pure electric cars can do, and at less than $1/gallon equivalent cost per mile.

Arthur

 

[Billy T]

... Your post makes it clear that you were not talking about 8 gallons of gasoline but in fact were talking about Gallons of Gas Equiv of CNG. ... Arthur

Yes that part of 2198 is talking about YOUR ASSUMED CNG fill for my tank tank and Your ASSUMED PRESSURE and then YOUR saying it was 6.7 gallons equivalent.

So I noted YOUR 7 gallons of gasoline equivalent would still beat the hell out of current EVs. So what? I am not telling anything about my tank's range, not calculating a range for any tank. It certainly is NOT me calculating anything about my tank's range as you asserted I did. TANKS DO NOT HAVE RANGES. FUELS DO, if some particular vehicle is assumed.

As I pointed out for three separate reason: (A), (B) & (C), given in post 2196, it is IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO HAVE BEEN CALCULATING ABOUT MY TANK as you claimed I did. - Again in 2198 I am only commenting / noting that even with YOUR ASSUMPTION about what was in my tank and YOUR ASSUMPTION about what the pressure was and then YOU concluding that with your assumptions, my tank held the gas equivalent of 6.7 gallons, that still beat the hell out of current EVs.

I have have said what is the VOLUME of my tank (80L) but NEVER said:
(1) What is the fuel in my tank
(2) What is the pressure in my tank

Without me telling / specifying (1) & (2) it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to have calculated (as you said I did) my tank's range.

Don't tell people what my posts "clearly say." Quote my posts instead, of putting words in my mouth.

 

[adoucette]

I have have said what is the VOLUME of my tank (80L) but NEVER said:
(1) What is the fuel in my tank
(2) What is the pressure in my tank

Without me telling / specifying (1) & (2) it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to have calculated (as you said I did) my tank's range.

And yet you did

but 7 gallons of gas at 35 or 40 mpg fuel efficiency will take you up to 280 miles between fill ups. I.e. at least twice what most even pure electric cars can do, and at less than $1/gallon equivalent cost per mile.

And you priced it at $1 gallon equivalent.

Which is as we all know the price of CNG, at 3,600 psi.

LOL

Arthur

 

[Billy T]

And yet you did ... Arthur

No I can't do the impossible. For the third time:

... So since it is impossible for me to have calculated a range for my tank what was I calculating in post 2198, which is replying to your post 2196? I have already told you in post 2294: I.e. YOU ASSUMED my 80 liter tank was filled with methane (at 3,600psi, I assume, but you did not tell the pressure you assumed.) and then you stated 80L of CH4 was the gasoline equivalent of 80L is 6.7 gallons, not me. (I have never told the gasoline equivalent of any of the gaseous fuels my tank could hold under pressure, which I have also never specified.) The point I was making in this part of 2198, was even only 6.7 gallons of gasoline would be about twice the range of current EVs and telling you that the tread was about EVs and their competitors for replacing gasoline fuel. I.e. IF my tank contained CH4 at 3,600psi, AS YOU ASSUMED, it would "beat the hell" out of current EVs in range....

There is big difference between me agreeing with what you said after YOU made several assumptions about my tank pressure, what was in it, etc. and me saying those things, which I never did. I only calculated the tank volume.

If you had assumed the 21 gallon tank was filled with alcohol and then stated that was only the equivalent of 14.7 gallons of gasoline I would agree with that too, but I would protest if you said I had said the tank was full of alcohol, especially if you continue to falsely tell I said that after being told 19 times I did not; after being told that I only made a math model of a new tank geometry which compares the efficiency (stored volume to wall volume used) of the model's two tanks. After I had asked you 19 times to re-post my post saying it was fulled with alcohol instead of only repetedly asserting that I had said that. After 19 times I had told you that I never said any particular fuel was used in my tank. (In recent post, I drove that point home by listing more than a dozen fuels that could be.) After I never told the pressure my tank would use, but about dozen times later you still told that I had said it would be 3,600psi.

If you want to comment on something I said, re-post my post and do so, put do not but words I never said in my mouth and then comment on those words. I have repeatedly asked you to do this, told you I never specified what was in the tank, or told what pressure it operates at, or that the round tank I compared to was the one in use today for storing CNG. (Not every one of the 19 times includes all of these, but 19 times you have been told with one or two of these "I never said X ...." or I request that you stop telling I said X but re-post my post saying X etc..

Fact that after all these 19 requests for you to stop putting words in my mouth has been ignored and you continue to do so, and of course can not re-post where I said X (as I did not), can only be considered intentional lying about what I said.

{2186}... If you have a (relatively) flat surface that is 1.4 by 1.6 meters, and you pressurize it to a standard 3600 PSI, the flat surface will have to withstand a lateral force of 12 million pounds. This would require insanely thick walls, and would likely be so heavy that cars could not carry it. ...

Note billvon does not claim I said the tank held CNG pressurized at 3,600psi. He never put those words in my mouth.

 

[adoucette]

Billy

You DID compute the range of your 21 gallon tank based on only 7 gallons of fuel.

Why?

Because the ONLY fuel that we have been discussing that has that relationship of ~3 to 1 Gas Equivalent is CNG at 3,600 psi. (ANG is ~6 to 1)

You then, in that same post, stated that the cost of that 7 gallons of fuel was less than $1 gallon "equvillent", so your 7 gallons of gas equivalent fuel couldn't be anything BUT CNG at 3,600 psi.

If not, then what other fuel were you referring to that has a 3.5 to 1 volume ratio to a gallon of gasoline and also costs less than $1/gallon?

WHAT FUEL BILLY?

Note billvon does not claim I said the tank held CNG pressurized at 3,600psi. He never put those words in my mouth.

Yeah Billy, he did:

you quite clearly compared your tank to standard tanks operating at 3600 PSI

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2855837&postcount=2282

I must say, as a moderator of this site, your recent posts in this tread are really pathetic Billy.

Arthur