Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile Recent Messages

Advanced

Interesting design

Posted by rkj 
rkj
March 24, 2014 01:44PM
It might be a little late, but untill better batteries come out this might be a reasonable way of powering up things

Rick
March 24, 2014 06:02PM
If these engines can be run on Hydrogen then maybe they have a future.
March 25, 2014 08:00AM
Innovation is always good!

The key here is fewer moving parts, smaller end lighter engine, higher compression ratios.

Hidrogen, like electricity, can't be found in nature and are always more complex to produce and store than burning some sort of fuel.
Gasoline (while there is some), Alcohol, or LPG, natural gas, etc there are a number of choices out there to exploit, and better engines will be needed.
Alcohol can be produced out of sugar cane grown in farms, those compete with food crops for space.
Electricity is good for trains and mass transit, where an overhead wire can be used to feed the vehicles, avoiding the need for heavy and expensive batteries.
There is not an easy solution, the more options the better!

:cool2:
March 25, 2014 12:37PM
Sadly, there is only so much energy that can be harvested from a gas/air mixture and technology has just about reached that with any kind of internal combustion engine.
The claims of potential 100mpg are a long way from reality yet and I doubt they will be achieveable with the current regulations making cars so heavy because of all the idiot proofing safety measures legislated into them.

The engine looks cool but the car companies aren't likely to switch over to something like this until it is proven and they can see a real bottom line improvement in profits.

If the same time and effort had been put into battery technologies, we would have all been driving electric cars a long time ago...big oil doesn't want that to happen though :-(
March 25, 2014 12:43PM
Quote
Jose Pinto
Innovation is always good!

The key here is fewer moving parts, smaller end lighter engine, higher compression ratios.

Hidrogen, like electricity, can't be found in nature and are always more complex to produce and store than burning some sort of fuel.
Gasoline (while there is some), Alcohol, or LPG, natural gas, etc there are a number of choices out there to exploit, and better engines will be needed.
Alcohol can be produced out of sugar cane grown in farms, those compete with food crops for space.
Electricity is good for trains and mass transit, where an overhead wire can be used to feed the vehicles, avoiding the need for heavy and expensive batteries.
There is not an easy solution, the more options the better!

:cool2:

Jose,

The problem with all those fuels(except hydrogen) is that no matter what engine you use; they all produce CO2 and other pollutants.

Hydrogen production is becoming easier and less expensive. It's not there yet but if the money is spent to do the research and roll out the infrastructure, hydrogen will be viable as a fuel. Of course then it will make more sense to use it in generating electricity via fuelll cells than burining it in internal combustion engines ;-)
March 25, 2014 05:02PM
Quote
Archeo-peteriX
The problem with all those fuels(except hydrogen) is that no matter what engine you use; they all produce CO2 and other pollutants.

Hydrogen production is becoming easier and less expensive. It's not there yet but if the money is spent to do the research and roll out the infrastructure, hydrogen will be viable as a fuel. Of course then it will make more sense to use it in generating electricity via fuelll cells than burining it in internal combustion engines ;-)

The problem with the fuel cell generating electricity is that the cells must be extremely large to produce the same amount of energy that 'burning' hydrogen does.

Salut, Bob P.
March 26, 2014 09:21AM
Untill you have hidrogen produced out of inexpensive nuclear fusion electricity, H2 will be the most expensive fuel there is.

Today, producing H2 will leave CO2 and other pollution, just as burning wood or gas or anything else.
There is no such thing as "clean energy". There is cleaner options than others, and technology must address the problems and bring better solutions for the future.
March 26, 2014 01:36PM
Quote
Bob P 325is 88
Quote
Archeo-peteriX
The problem with all those fuels(except hydrogen) is that no matter what engine you use; they all produce CO2 and other pollutants.

Hydrogen production is becoming easier and less expensive. It's not there yet but if the money is spent to do the research and roll out the infrastructure, hydrogen will be viable as a fuel. Of course then it will make more sense to use it in generating electricity via fuelll cells than burining it in internal combustion engines ;-)

The problem with the fuel cell generating electricity is that the cells must be extremely large to produce the same amount of energy that 'burning' hydrogen does.

Salut, Bob P.

Having worked extensively in fuel cell technology over the past 8 years, I can tell you that today's fuel cells are much more efficient.
The fuel cells that are used in city busses don't take up much more room then the diesel engines they replace. The ones being developed for auto motive use are also no larger than the 4 and 6 cylinder engines they are intended to replace.
The standalone generators used to power emergency communications during disasters are housed in enclosures not much bigger than a full sized suit case.

For the automotive uses, no where near as much power is required when the vehicles are propelled by electric motors. We have to stop thinking in terms of huge amounts of horse power for cars that is rarely if ever used.
March 26, 2014 01:39PM
Quote
Jose Pinto
Untill you have hidrogen produced out of inexpensive nuclear fusion electricity, H2 will be the most expensive fuel there is.

Today, producing H2 will leave CO2 and other pollution, just as burning wood or gas or anything else.
There is no such thing as "clean energy". There is cleaner options than others, and technology must address the problems and bring better solutions for the future.

There are so many methods and materials that can be used to produce hydrogen that CO2 need not be a byproduct of it's production.

It may well still be an expensive fuel but that is only because research and developement haven't reached critical mass yet. As soon as the oil companies stop spending billions of dollars to fight the inevitable then and only then will progress be made.
March 26, 2014 05:25PM
Quote
Archeo-peteriX
Quote
Bob P 325is 88
Quote
Archeo-peteriX
For the automotive uses, no where near as much power is required when the vehicles are propelled by electric motors. We have to stop thinking in terms of huge amounts of horse power for cars that is rarely if ever used.

Yes, and when we do that we can use highly efficient 50HP internal combustion engines and cut out the middle 'electric motor'. The reason that the fuel cells are not much larger than the size of a 4-6 cylinder engine is because the fuel cell's effective 'HP' is only about 50HP. Why not just install a 50 HP gasoline engine instead, since we are willing to take the 'cut' in performance because it is a fuel cell, or battery operated electric motor.

Electricity is really only an energy transfer system. Batteries don't 'store' electricity nor energy - they are a source of potential chemical energy which is manufactured through a chemical reaction process and transfered into electricity to be used in a device. This Just in Time manufacuring rate is not very fast, thus the low outputs of batteries.
Re-charging the battery isn't like replacing the energy, it is reversing the chemical process by consuming energy. This has to be taken into account when looking at the total energy spent to finally power the driving device.

Hydrogen is one of the most abundant elements existant - unfortunately it is combined with everything to form compounds, the two most common are water and Hydrocarbons. You need energy to release the H2 - where does that energy come from?

Presently the H2 that is produced comes predominantly from Hydrocarbons, even fuel cells, so where is the logic in separating the H2 from the hydrocarbon and then 'burning' only the H2. Might as well burn the hydrocarbon - albeit better and more efficiently than we are doing now.

Peter, all of this is moot, if, as you said, we are ready to accept lower power demands from all our devices - we don't need all of that wasted energy.

Salut, Bob P.

Salut,

Bob P.
March 26, 2014 09:30PM
Quote
Bob P 325is 88
Quote
Archeo-peteriX
Quote
Bob P 325is 88
Quote
Archeo-peteriX
For the automotive uses, no where near as much power is required when the vehicles are propelled by electric motors. We have to stop thinking in terms of huge amounts of horse power for cars that is rarely if ever used.

Yes, and when we do that we can use highly efficient 50HP internal combustion engines and cut out the middle 'electric motor'. The reason that the fuel cells are not much larger than the size of a 4-6 cylinder engine is because the fuel cell's effective 'HP' is only about 50HP. Why not just install a 50 HP gasoline engine instead, since we are willing to take the 'cut' in performance because it is a fuel cell, or battery operated electric motor.

Electricity is really only an energy transfer system. Batteries don't 'store' electricity nor energy - they are a source of potential chemical energy which is manufactured through a chemical reaction process and transfered into electricity to be used in a device. This Just in Time manufacuring rate is not very fast, thus the low outputs of batteries.
Re-charging the battery isn't like replacing the energy, it is reversing the chemical process by consuming energy. This has to be taken into account when looking at the total energy spent to finally power the driving device.

Hydrogen is one of the most abundant elements existant - unfortunately it is combined with everything to form compounds, the two most common are water and Hydrocarbons. You need energy to release the H2 - where does that energy come from?

Presently the H2 that is produced comes predominantly from Hydrocarbons, even fuel cells, so where is the logic in separating the H2 from the hydrocarbon and then 'burning' only the H2. Might as well burn the hydrocarbon - albeit better and more efficiently than we are doing now.

Peter, all of this is moot, if, as you said, we are ready to accept lower power demands from all our devices - we don't need all of that wasted energy.

Salut, Bob P.

Some good points Bob.

But fuel cells are not motors and thus don't produce output horsepower, only electricity to be used by a conventional electric motor.
My point was that that lower hp electric motor has gobs of torque, starting at zero rpm, that the internal combustion engine just doesn't have until it is revving and sucking in fuel.

We've seen over and over how electric powered cars blow the doors off of monster internal combustion engines on the 1/4 mile drag strip. This is all done at a fraction of the hp that the fuel bruning engines waste trying to catch up. It makes no difference that the internal combustion powered cars eventually catch up and pass the electric vehicles...real world driving is not about jack rabbit fast and terminal speeds; it's about getting comfortably from point A to point B at the least cost and the most fun.

Granted, a Toyota Prius is not a sprinter but there are cars like the Tesla for those who have to feel the G-forces. Once the car companies unhitch their wagons from the oil companies there will be a whole selection of electric vehicles with similar ranges to current fossil fueled cars.

I don't particularly care if it takes the same amount of fossil fuel to produce that electricity because it will be produced at a central location and any hydrocarbon outfall can easily be managed...unlike 100s of millions of hydrocarbon fueled engines spewing uncontrolled all over the globe.

Since energy can neither be created nor destroyed, the same amount of oil would be required to produce the electricity as powering the cars directly. Why not produce the electricity in one place(or several) as opposed to the alternative? The oil companies still win; unless the utilities don't put up with the same crap that consumers do :stickpoke:
March 28, 2014 05:39AM
[youtu.be]

"it´s how you drive"

Is true we don't need so big heavy cars, and we could live with much smaller and less powewrfull engines.
But still, we need to get more alternatives as fuel!
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 6
Record Number of Users: 3 on September 29, 2015
Record Number of Guests: 116 on November 11, 2017