Monthly Archives: September 2015

Improving Efficiency of Vehicles

1 Reply

Since the introduction of Obama’s 54.5 mpg Fuel Efficiency Standards in 2012 the automotive industry has begun to experience the pressure of innovating newer technology that can yield greater fuel efficiency. Through the cooperation between the US Department of Transportation and the US Environmental Protection Agency they have finalized standards that will require automakers to create vehicles that have a 54.5 mpg rating by the year 2025. There are several technologies that are currently in the works and some that have already been developed that can help in achieving the 54.5 mpg by the next 10 years. I will explore both the general and technical advancements that automakers use to increase gas mileage.

 

One of the methods that automakers are using to create more fuel efficient vehicles is by developing newer manufacturing practices than can lower weight. Decreasing the weight of an automobile can be done by manufacturing parts that weight less but still are efficient and reliable. The more a car weighs the more work an engine has to do in order to accommodate for the additional weight thus decreasing the fuel efficiency.

 

Untitled
Untitled2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Automakers are also designing more aerodynamic cars that can both save mileage but also be physically appealing to consumers. Vehicles that are more aerodynamic can ‘cut’ through the air more smoothly with less drag resulting in more gas saved. These two techniques apply to both the traditional combustion engine car and to hybrids and all-electric cars like Tesla. A less technical approach that automakers are using is by promoting their hybrid vehicles which are capable of reaching very high gas mileage although they are slightly more expensive to their combustion engine counterparts.
Untitled3

 

Now that we have discussed some of the general ways that the automotive industry is increasing gas mileage lets open the hood of the car and explore more technical-based improvements that automakers are doing to raise gas mileage. Many newer cars are currently being equipped with a variable valve system. Variable valve timing alters the timing of the intake and exhaust valve opening in order to maximize efficiency and performance. Also, automakers are currently developing transmissions that have more gears inside. Adding more gears results in the car running at peak performance across a spectrum of different speeds while also saving fuel consumption. While focusing on maximizing the transmission of cars there has also been more emphasis on improving engine techniques as well. The majority of automakers are gradually implanting direct injection technology into their engines. Direct injection delivers precise amounts of fuel directly into the combustion engine which results in better mileage and more engine power. Another technology that automakers continue to sophisticate is the automatic engine shutdown. When a car is no longer in motion, for example a red light, the car’s engine will shutdown automatically in order to save fuel and turn back on once the car needs to be put in motion. Closely related to the automatic engine shutdown is the cylinder deactivation system. The cylinder deactivation system shuts down one or more cylinders inside an engine while a car is cruising in the highway or a light road by closing the intake and exhaust valve of that particular cylinder. This action results in gas being stopped from entering that cylinder, thus saving fuel. For all of these mechanical innovations there is a constant development in enhanced lubricants for cars, such as oil, that can increase the mechanical efficiency of engines and transmissions and also reduce the effects of friction and wear on the vehicle which will result in better fuel efficiency.

 

References:

Brooke, Lindsay. “Beyond the 6-Speed: More Ratios for Automatic Transmissions.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 29 Sept. 2012. Web. 30 Sept. 2015.

Leiser, Ken. “Auto Industry Makes Strides toward Improving Fuel Economy : Business.” Stltoday.com. N.p., 24 Jan. 2014. Web. 30 Sept. 2015.

Plumer, Brad. “Cars in the U.S. Are More Fuel-efficient than Ever. Here’s How It Happened.” The Washington Post. N.p., 13 Dec. 2013. Web. 30 Sept. 2015.

“Obama Administration Finalizes Historic 54.5 MPG Fuel Efficiency Standards.” The White House. The White House, 28 Aug. 2012. Web. 30 Sept. 2015.

“VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES OFFICE: FUEL EFFICIENCY AND EMISSIONS.”  Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2015.

Introduction to Lego Mindstorm

Leave a reply

FullSizeRenderRobots have numerous functionalities that vary based on the objectives that the robot is trying to accomplish. Robots can either be a simple design with a drive train and motors or they can be very complex systems that implement the usage of sensors to take digital/analog data and use it to better complete the task. During our last 2 seminar classes we built a basic car with a Lego Mindstorm set. We began building our robot on 9/9/15 by using the different parts in our kits and following the instructions from an online manual. Building the robot was not as obvious as you might have thought! You needed to make sure that pieces were connecting into the proper holes and that the orientation of different pieces was actually correct. It was a little bit tedious but the satisfaction of seeing the final result was definitely rewarding! After we successfully built the robot, we proceeded to test the robot by using prewritten code through a programming language called Labview. The first code made the robot drive move depending on the power output of each motor. On our second class on 9/16/15 we used another prewritten code to test how far the car would travel in 1 second at different power outputs. For any technical readers, the code looked this:

Front PanelUntitled 2

We used a ruler that was placed parallel to the robot to observe how far the robot moved in the allotted time. We compared our human measurement to the distance that the program in Labview calculated. We tested the robot at different power outputs and calculated our margin of error.

Excel

  1. We measured the diameter of wheel and resulted with 5.5 cm or 0.055 meters. We calculated the circumference and got 0.172788 meters.
  1. The relationship between the degrees the wheel rotated and the number of turns of wheel is that the degree the wheel rotated is equal to the product of number of turns times 360.
  1. Seconds are related to milliseconds because 0.001 seconds is equal to one millisecond or 1000 milliseconds are equal to 1 second.
  1. The distance is related to the number of turns because the distance is the product of the circumference times the number of turns.
  1. At a power level of 75 we measured a distance of 0.275 meters and Labview calculated a distance of 0.2736. The margin of error could be calculated by using the formula: ME = 100 x (dmeasured – dlabview)/daverage. Our margin of error was 0.52%.

 

There are two things that I believe could account for these discrepancies. The first one is the braking of the robot once the allotted time passed. The robot would accelerate and just come to a stop after one second. As a result of this abrupt stop the robot would break so aggressively it would jolt back slightly. I think this effect could definitely account for the difference in the measurement. In addition, I noticed throughout all trials the robot would never drive forward in a perfect straight line. It would always sway towards one side even though the power outputs were equal for both motors. As a result, the distance calculated by Labview differs from the distance we measured since we assumed it traveled in a near perfect line.

 

In my opinion this activity connected to the idea of energy consumption and how it can apply to real vehicles. As we observed during the activity, the higher the power output the more distance the  robot travelled in that one second period. In actual vehicles the same idea occurs. The greater the power, the faster the vehicle travels thus covering more distance. But unlike robotics which don’t release any greenhouse gases, real vehicles actually produce them. This presents the idea of how can we be more energy efficient as a society. We must develop cars that release little to no Carbon Dioxide regardless the power output of the engine. We as a society must look for alternative ways to power cars such as with electricity, which can prove to be advantageous.

President Obama dealing with Climate Change

1 Reply

In recent years, there has been a gradual growth in environmental concerns from citizens, which has led many political figures to take a stand on the subject. Our current president, Barack Obama, has received the responsibility to deal with the problem of climate change. President Obama has started various initiatives to begin to tackle climate change. Collaboration between President Obama and the Environmental Protecting Agency has resulted in the development of a final version of the “Clean Power Plan”. With the implementation of this plan the federal government would “require states to meet specific carbon emission reduction standards” (Malloy). Under this plan, there would be limitations as to how much CO2 each state can emit into the atmosphere. In addition to the restriction of CO2 pollution, the plan strongly encouraged states to look into renewable energy sources and ways to use energy-efficient technology. Obama doesn’t just see this as a positive step for the US but he also hopes that he can inspire “other countries to commit to deep reductions in their own carbon emissions” (Davenport/Gardiner). If he can convince other big nations such as China, India, and Russia to cut their emissions, then thousands of metric tons of CO2 will be removed from the atmosphere annually.

 

Also, President Obama announced that he would “create jobs and cut carbon pollution by advancing solar deployment and energy efficiency” (U.S. Department of Energy). Making solar panels more available to the private and pubic sector is an ideal way of reducing carbon emissions gradually. Obama plans to focus on the industry first before strongly encouraging the people to become eco-friendly. After all, the source of most CO2 emissions comes from the industrial field such as power plants, factories, and etc. Reducing CO2 emissions in the industrial field will without a doubt have a profound impact that we will and future generations benefit from.

 

Furthermore, Obama isn’t only asking power plants to improve their efficiency. He is also demanding the automotive industry to improve the gas mileage of their respective vehicles. Obama “commits to developing fuel economy standards for heavy-duty vehicles” (The Washington Post). Heavy-Duty vehicles are not the most energy efficient because they take in so much gas and don’t seem to output a reasonable amount of driving distance in return. Heavy-Duty vehicles “account for about a quarter of U.S. on-road fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions from transportation” (Automotive News). Cars and light-trucks are not out of the vision either. Obama has also worked with his administration to finalize new efficiency standards that will require automakers to produce vehicles with a “fuel economy to the equivalent of 54.5 mpg for cars and light-duty trucks by Model Year 2025” (The White House). By increasing gas mileage standards it will help cars to become more efficient and travel further with less gas. I like to see this new standard as a mutualistic relationship between the environment and car consumers. While consumers get to consume more gas for their buck, the environment receives more relief as a result of less CO2 emissions.

 

President Obama’s strategy is definitely a challenging task, which is still doable. These plans will only work if everyone, private and public sectors, cooperates with one another in achieving these new standards and also promoting alternative green energy. We are at a perfect time where the older generation can pave the road for green energy and pass the torch to our current young generation that will keep the flame burning vibrantly.

 

References:

Davenport, Coral, and Gardiner Harris. “Obama to Unveil Tougher Environmental Plan With His Legacy in Mind.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 01 Aug. 2015. Web. 21 Sept. 2015.

Malloy, Allie, and Sunlen Serfaty. “Obama Unveils Major Climate Change Proposal.” CNN Politics. CNN, 3 Aug. 2015. Web. 21 Sept. 2015.

“Commit to Solar.” Commit to Solar. Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, n.d. Web. 21 Sept. 2015.

“Highlights of Obama’s Plan to Cut Carbon.” Washington Post. The Washington Post, n.d. Web. 21 Sept. 2015.

“Obama Administration Finalizes Historic 54.5 MPG Fuel Efficiency Standards.” The White House. The White House, 28 Aug. 2012. Web. 22 Sept. 2015.

“Obama Sets March 2016 Goal for Truck Fuel Efficiency Rules.” Automotive News. N.p., 18 Feb. 2014. Web. 22 Sept. 2015.

A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops

Leave a reply

In Amy Harmon’s article “A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops” (2014) she explores the perspectives of two different activists regarding the GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) bill that was introduced in May 2013 in Hawaii. The GMO bill that was introduced would of banned the use of genetically engineered crops in Hawaii, except for corn and papaya. The head of the GMO bill, Margaret Wille, believed that the health risks of GMOs have not been thoroughly investigated. She also elucidated that introducing GMOs into Hawaii would disturb the natural ecosystem that the island holds. The counter-arguer of the bill, Greggor Ilagan, believed that GMOs were economically advantageous to the island and to farmers as well. During one of the public hearings of the bill, various people expressed their resentment towards GMOs as a result of “cancer in rats, a rise in childhood allergies, out-of-control superweeds” (Harmon). It is evident that the public community saw GMOs as a threat to the environment due to the negative effects listed by those individuals. However, while the public community had a negative connotation of GMOs, local farmers express their support towards the use of GMOs. Local farmers saw GMOs as beneficial to their crops since it increases the livelihood to survive attacks from pesticide. This argument by the farmers was definitely a good point because their crops have received genes with attributes that can help them (the crop) to become immune to natural diseases and pests. Farmers also explicated how economically important GMOs are, such as Papaya, because it allowed them to maintain a smooth income without being too dependent on the health of their crops. One argument that the farmers could have definitely used to strengthen their point was that with GMOs, they don’t need to rely so heavily on chemicals to use on the land, which is harmful. GMOs allow most of the land to be “recycled” and not be exhausted with excessive chemicals.

 

Mr. Ilagan saw the use of GMOs as a positive step towards the agricultural success of crops on the island. In contrast, Ms. Wille saw many things wrong regarding the usage of GMOs. Ms. Wille also took an economical view on the matter and concluded differently to Mr. Ilagan. The idea of having GMO Corporations in the island was seen as a nonviolent threat to the people. Ms. Wille has an environmentalist mindset and her ultimate goal is to protect and conserve the natural ecosystem of the island. Introducing GMOs into the environment will only hurt habitats. She also believes their is a more economical advantage to non-GMO products which can be marketed. Corporations are thought to be more interested in the economic income of GMOs rather than the health of the community. Another problem that Ms. Wille noticed with GMOs was the cost of the seeds. GMO seeds are more expensive than conventional seeds. It is almost as if the disadvantageous cancels out the benefits of GMOs. Very poor farmers find themselves buying expensive bioengineered seeds that they can barely afford. As cited by Ms. Wille, GMOs caused “suicides among farmers in India, purportedly driven into debt by the high cost of patented, genetically modified cotton seeds” (Harmon).

 

As stated by Amy Harmon, President Obama reassured the Hawaiian community that he would take a stance in all issues. Although with his perspective of GMOs and its implementation, he seems to find himself stuck in a weird position where he cannot take a definite stance. This just comes to show the complexity of GMOs. It is a technology that has not been researched enough and more unanswered questions are piling up rather than answered questions with scientific research to back up the claims.

 

In my personal opinion, I only support the availability and the usage of GMOs that are already distributed in our current agricultural market. Most of us have been consuming GMOs for the majority of our lives; these include soy, canola, and sugar. These common GMOs are proven to be safe for consumption and are not known to have any side effects. However, I do not support the use of untested GMOs that have not been fully researched. Without enough scientific research we are dealing with something that even we don’t fully understand. The drawbacks of such technology still is not clear to the science community so it shouldn’t be fully accessible to the public. Instead, I think research laboratories should conduct studies with a variation of participants who are willing to test different GMOs and observations should be taken regarding the health of the participants. We must understand how GMOs can directly impact the human body rather then rat labs. After GMOs are tested and are found safe for consumption then I will support the use of all GMOs. After all, GMOs are a great way to help fight malnutrition in 3rd world countries and could possibly help sustain the world in the future due to the rapid population growth.

 

References:

Harmon, Amy. “A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 04 Jan. 2014. Web. 16 Sept. 2015.