Green Cars of the Future

Automakers plan to use advanced nanotechnology to build environmentally friendly cars. Some automakers, that is, at least in concept.

Acura FCX 2020 Le Mans: It looks like the Batmobile, but uses lightweight, recyclable materials. A hydrogen fuel-cell drivetrain propels it to take on a future 24 Hours of Le Mans, while molecular nanotechnology allows lightweight construction.

Volkswagen Nanospyder: It uses billions of spore-like nanobots -- complete with eyeballs, mouths and tiny VW logos -- that bind together to create the vehicle. Impending collisions can be picked up by the lead bots, and the information can be sent elsewhere to bolster certain sections of the vehicle.

We find it interesting that design engineers from Volkswagen and Honda/Acura would submit these futuristic concept cars that might make use of molecular manufacturing. You can see more cars at the Kicking Tires blog, where we learn:

Nine automakers have submitted entries in the upcoming Los Angeles Auto Show’s Design Challenge, a competition aimed at conceiving a futuristic car that’s environmentally friendly, by both design and fuel source, and can be recycled after five years on the road. It’s the third such competition sponsored by the auto show, and all entries are strictly two-dimensional. Judges choose a winner based on originality, environmentalism, safety and how well it reflects Southern California’s “green” lifestyle.

So it looks like advanced nanotechnology means a green future -- and hot cars!

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Comments

[Hal]

I love the car made up of nanotech spores all holding hands. Shades of utility fog. I could well imagine them coming apart and reconfiguring in the event of a crash. Maybe they could surround you with a soft cushion, a sort of all-over airbag. Oh, but then if they were evil they could stay like that, change their appearance to look just like you, and control your movements. Pretty soon you've got Crichton's swarms from Prey.

(It's not science fiction! It's real!)

[Tom Craver]

Or simply flow around, over and through the obstacle, moving the passengers out of the path of collision, assuming it's something smaller than brick wall.

So two cars (with just drivers) collide head on - and pass right through each other. The drivers move past each other in secure bubbles, with any other items in the cars shifted out of their paths.

[Chris Phoenix, CRN]

Tom, that doesn't work very well. Last-minute moves sideways require lots of acceleration.

Likewise, cars won't be able to safely zoom within inches of pedestrians. Suppose a car were coming toward me and I punched my fist sideways at the last minute. The car would have to move sideways as fast as I could throw a punch, just to miss my fist. In effect, I'd be punching the passengers via the car's swerving.

Chris

[Tom Craver]

In about 70% of collisions, the drivers wouldn't have to change velocity (speed, vector). They'd simply miss each other and their cars would get out of the other driver's way - that alone would be worth having.

Assuming the cars aren't able to detect the collision until the last half second (i.e. likely a T-bone collision, not head-on), and are moving at a relative 60mph (88ft/sec), they've got half a second in which to move both passengers about two feet each.

Assuming an average evasive movement velocity of 4 feet/sec (requiring deceleration after the collision avoidance), they'll need to accelerate 8ft/sec^2 - 1/4 G. If you were prepared for it, you could remain standing in an elevator accelerating upward that fast. In the car, the force would be distributed over one side of your body.

(Note that a combination of braking, crumpling, seatbelts and airbags can bring a human being to a complete halt without much harm in a small fraction of that time.)

Head-on collisions would be at twice the relative velocity, but generally would only require about 1 foot of movement by each passenger to them from colliding.

[Chris Phoenix, CRN]

Tom, thanks for the numbers. It appears you're right--if you have half a second to detect collision--though I suspect that it'd be easier simply to stop the car rather than making it interpenetrate.

Reading your description, I had to wonder: If we have a technology that can work at that level, why would we still use cars? Instead, just use the person-moving technology from the safety system to whisk people from place to place. It would be more like seven-league boots than like a car.

If you have to move cargo, put the cargo in a separate transport. That way it can be out of the way until you call for it.

In fact, you could generalize that into a system that would be useful inside buildings as well. Effectively, you'd have telekinesis... and as you moved from place to place, you'd have a cloud of personal objects following you, ready to whisk into sight when called upon.

Other objects would be simulated by utility fog for even faster "appearance."

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. --Arthur C. Clarke

Chris

[Tom Craver]

It probably would be technically easier to stop the car - but it'd require (in the example I used) about 6 G's on the passenger (assuming some of the half second is lost moving nanobots into place around the passenger). Not as bad as hitting an airbag, but not very pleasant either.

Regarding simply transporting bubbles of people and cargo around: Until all streets and roads are converted to 'bubble transport', people would still need personal vehicles to get around on other streets. Also, I suspect it wouldn't be as energy efficient as rolling vehicles.

It might be more energy efficient than moving a massive car around - but I suspect there's a better approach. E.g ultralight short-range electric cars that can hook up to a SkyTran type system for fast metropolitan area transport. Such a system should also be much safer.