Automotive Air Conditioning Information Forum (Archives)

Provided by www.ACkits.com

We've updated our forums!
Click here to visit the new forum

Archive Home

Search Auto AC Forum Archives

Are Automotive Fuel Cell Powered Vehicles for Real? Pages: 12

NickD on Fri September 14, 2007 2:10 PM User is offline

Yes, according to a recent article by Automotive Engineering, Fuel Cells are Powering UP. Still wondered about the efficiency of fuel cells, at least compared to the direct burning of hydrogen, but I could find on this is this paper.

Fuel Cell Efficiency

Really don't agree with this author on the efficiency of the Carnot cycle, always read it was 50%, not 25%, and even that four story high 200 rpm ship engine that was posted here a few years back claimed 60% efficiency. That was known in the 30's as well when fuel prices were very high, needed a small bore long stroke, low speed engine to get better fuel economy. Too bad they don't teach automotive history in college.

But apparently this is not stopping the majors from spending millions if not billions on this technology, was hoping AE would shed some light on this, but as usual, over optimistic. All the major car manufactures are involved with this technology with Honda as the leader with their FCX. Only thing AE had to say about Honda was that they were brilliant in mounting the fuel cell plates vertically rather than horizontally letting the combined O2 and H molecules drip off rather than freeze up in below freezing weather. Hmmm, why didn't I think of that?

Another factor brought up is cost of the fuel cells, they kind of guessed that the prototype run for pretrial cars would be a half a million bucks per copy. Would hate to call my insurance agent and ask for rates on collision and comprehensive on this car.

The major costs appears to be the platinum required as a catalyst in the fuel cell, they hope to find a cheaper substitute, but wonder if they should be looking for a lead substitute in a lead acid battery instead. All I can say is, good luck.

Just seems crazy they are spending this money without direction, one proposal is to strip hydrogen from natural gas, why not just burn natural gas? And why not develop the turbine engine using natural gas that can be made very efficiently or methane for that matter? They are also dealing with fuel tank pressures of 10,000 psi, that sounds a bit scary in a vehicle driven with tires by idiots.

Believe their efforts are there only to please the greenies without looking deeper into the overall effects. Only thing that is for sure, is that this research will be spread over the cost of even a new conventional vehicle. Just seems like a big waste of money.

2POINTautO on Sat September 15, 2007 4:02 AM User is offlineView users profile

A couple of comments, nothing important, the only reason the US is going this way is because the Japanese are forcing the issue, or should I say the customers buying the better fuel efficient cars like hybrids today. The oil companies had their thumb held firmly on this issue since, like you said, almost a hundred years ago.

10,000 PSI, no problem now, if this was in a heavy steel, wire wound tank like welding guys use or nitrogen tanks then yes, dangerous, but they are using carbon fiber tanks, when it cracks and blows, thats it, it just blows a hole in it and a fast rush of gas, no shrapnel like a metal tank.

Lead acid batteries are a thing of the past with these Rice Tuners, they are using a battery about 1/5 the size and more power capability and much lighter.

What do you think about the Tesla Sports Car (all electric).

-------------------------
Give all the dirty details
and dont forget the LO & HI pressures
Year, Make & Model would be nice too

bohica2xo on Sat September 15, 2007 5:09 AM User is offline

Nick:

You could re-title this thread "fun with crack pipes" - because there is a LOT crack smoking going on there.

None of the people hyping the "hydrogen economy" want to discuss where the hydrogen will come from. Hydrogen is an energy transport choice, not an energy alternative - it will take more actual energy to produce it than you get back.

I like the part about the plates - maybe next year they will stand the plates up in a flooded lead-acid battery and improve it too!


2.0:

You have overloaded your crack pipe as well. Wire wound tanks? antiques. No shrapnel from a wound carbon tank? Yeah sure. CF tanks have strict use & care procedures, and have a short service life - even 3k psi bottles have to be discarded after a few years by law. You do not want to be anywhere near a CF bottle when it fails - it is quite a show when you breach one with a squib. I have handled 6k psi steel nitrogen bottles that were 40 years old & still in service.

So what is the chemistry of this "wonder battery" the ricers are using? What is the charge regulation requirements?

The tesla is a good joke at the expense of hollywood. You can't even test drive one - they take you for a ride (sort of prophetic). They showed up with one to drive at an event, but it developed a problem and could only be driven at low speeds. I smell a ponzi scheme with some old golf cart parts. Sure a LiOn battery sounds great - but a trunkload of laptop batteries in series/parallel? comical.

B.

-------------------------
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
~ Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhi, An Autobiography, M. K. Gandhi, page 446.

NickD on Sat September 15, 2007 8:45 AM User is offline

Not very much detail in this short two page article in AE magizine, Ballard Engineering is a major player in fuel cell development, Dana is setting up for high production for bipolar joined assemblies with special seals using stainless steel and carbon components. Claim electronics to drive the AC motor is critical as the fuel cell voltage deteriorates with life, but they don't give any life figures. Claim there goal to reach government standards is to be able to produce a fuel cell vehicle at only $3,000 than a conventional vehicle.

Mention very little about the Chevy Volt, except it uses two hydrogen tanks, one in the rear like a conventional gas tank, a second smaller under the rear seat as a reserve. An AC motor directly drives the front wheels that must have a differential built in, but not shown with the fuel cell sitting directly in back of it. Gather these vehicles will have a conventional hood.

Ford and Chrysler get mentioned, they are simply working on it, Chevy has the Volt, and Honda has the FXC, Toyota is not even mentioned, but they are already manufacturing planet saving hybrids.

Nothing is said about the infrastructure of hydrogen, my thoughts on this subject have changed drastically over the years, was hot on this in the 70's, but it was dead ended by congress. If the source is going to be stripping away natural gas, has to be just as environmentally unfriendly and a hell of a lot more expensive at the pump. So why not just power with natural gas? We still have a 4,000 year supply of it, if the EPA would let us drill for it.

And why the ICE when we have the turbine? Granted, the turbine for low cost does have material problems, but nothing like the material problems faced with the fuel cell and you can get rid of those super high pressure tanks and a ton of made in China electronics. Just a simple tank with a regulator feeding the turbine, keep it simple, don't even need an overpriced slot car type fuel pump.

Seems like all of the government programs that industry is buying is way too complicated, the fuel cell still has to be heated up to 800*F and perhaps will need a battery so you don't have to wait all day to get moving, and apparently for it's price, has a short lifespan. Turbines in aircraft have over a 25,000 hour life expectancy before an overhaul, if you can only get the guys in charge to look out the window and see what's available.

2POINTautO on Sat September 15, 2007 9:30 AM User is offlineView users profile

I saw the battery on a ricer website that I help fix cars on their forum and the carbon tank was not wire wound, just carbon fiber and they showed one busted open, I am sure a few splinters went flying off but none of them went through the floor board.

If the cars that run on water can seperate H and O, why cant future cars produce their own fuels, even when plugged in at night, wasnt that one of the purposes.

-------------------------
Give all the dirty details
and dont forget the LO & HI pressures
Year, Make & Model would be nice too

NickD on Sat September 15, 2007 12:58 PM User is offline

That would be cool, plug your car into the wall and make hydrogen, then use the FC to make electricity again. Heard also on the news that Jane Fonda should take all the credit for global warming, her campaign and the fear tactics she used back in the 60's and 70's against nuclear power worked, and today, 40% of our electrical needs are produced by burning CO2 loaded coal.

So how much coal would have to be burned so that we can have the convenience of plugging our cars into the wall to make hydrogen? I figure at least eight times as much as directly burning the coal in our vehicles like was done before the turn of the last century. Sure if we put our noses to the grind stone and heads in the think tank, we could figure out better ways to use coal to power our vehicles than they did over a hundred years ago. And would be far more direct, all the current solutions are adding more energy conversions into the loop rather than reducing them, just backwards from common sense.

And think of the safety benefits, if someone rear ends you, just a cloud of black dust, much better than being burned alive as with the current crop of vehicles.

bohica2xo on Sat September 15, 2007 1:59 PM User is offline

Nick:

Gas turbines are great engines, but the application in wheeled vehicles requires both engineering departments ro re-think a few things... the result is usually a big mess.

At one time Garrett had a gas turbine replacement engine on the road in class 8 trucks. The arguments between the turbine folks & the trucking folks was very entertaining. A lot of problems could have been solved by eliminating things like the tach. The diesel boys wanted to see N1 drop by 90%, and would upshift trying to achieve it... Ford's turbine truck was a mechanical success, but not a commercial success.

A gas turbine is best operated at a constant speed & load for efficiency - right in the sweet spot. Not impossible in a vehicle with an automatic transmission - and you can just stall the output spool for a torque convertor. Private individuals have put gas turbines in various vehicles with good results for decades using the engine itself for a torque convertor. They tend to be thirsty in stop & go traffic, but there is an answer.

The current hybrids on the road are a big joke. Any engineer capable of passing the PE exam can tell you that a parallel hybrid is poor planning. A series hybrid is the only way something like this makes sense, and at first glance it appear that the chebby volt is at least headed in that direction. A series hybrid allows you to run the IC engine at it's most efficient speed & load.

The first series hybrid I ever drove was in 1978 - built by a sharp guy in a small shop. He was trying to sell the idea as a kit. It was a VW kit car, with an electric motor mated to the transaxle. A low frontal area fiberglass body, with about 12 batteries distributed around the vehicle for balance. About 165v dc to keep the current manageable with the controllers available then. It was quick on pure electric, and could do a 10 mile round trip to the market as quiet as a mouse. The "hybrid" side of the house was a small aircooled diesel that ran at a constant speed driving an alternator. It was sized to provide the full cruising power required for 55 mph level ground running. Auto shutdown at full charge on the battery bank.

We drove the vehicle from Pomona, CA to Oakland, CA for a show. It would do double the national speed limit if you pushed it. Running up I5's grades you could watch the battery voltage drop gradually, but the driving feel was that of a V8 car. On the downgrades the generator would catch up quickly. Never was there a lack of sufficient power for the trip. We stopped for lunch, and the generator was shut down when we came back to the car - batteries fully charged.

With current battery technology, and a purpose built engine of some sort this same vehicle would have been a great vehicle. Back then, with a limited budget & deep cycle batteries it was better than the toyo colon is today with all of it's "features".

You will never see the carmakers quote "well-to-wheel" energy figures, or "cradle-to-grave" figures on vehicle production. Big oil is nowhere near as bad for the US car market as the IIHS bastards. You spend thousands on the 6 airbags in a new car, and make it weigh more. It has to withstand a 200 mph crash into a concrete block while flipping end-over-end to get all 5 stars.

What ever happened to "Defensive Driving"? I thought the object of driving a vehicle was to AVOID hitting things. Now they sell cars based on the premise that you WILL hit something, and it will be OK.

Personally I think you should be able to buy a lightweight economy car that is no safer than a motorcycle - no airbags, no ABS junk, etc.


2.0:

The batteries you are seeing ARE lead/acid. The hawker battery has been around for years. Recently they began marketing it to the automotive sector as an "Oddessy" battery. High cranking current in a small package. Just like gas turbines, the aircraft business needed lightweight, reliable, high power, energy sources - so they developed them.

B.

-------------------------
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
~ Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhi, An Autobiography, M. K. Gandhi, page 446.

NickD on Sun September 16, 2007 9:57 AM User is offline

Light twins at the airport have turbine prop engines, with a wide rpm range, seems to work with much better fuel economy than pistons. If they can spend billions on fuel cells, why not millions on solving more simpler problems? And with a much simpler vehicle?

Well, I am off the turbine kick, anyway, finding more excitement in burning coal in my vehicles with a chain pulling a nice loud steam whistle. And that choo choo sound, that was great.

bohica2xo on Sun September 16, 2007 7:10 PM User is offline

No problem with coal in a gas turbine Nick - we did it years ago. Burning solid fuels in a gas turbine was considered at one time for power generation - but GE had (and still has) a pretty firm grip on that market. We even ran one on ground corn waste...

Light twins have a wide RPM range? Prop speed range of what 3:1? Class 8 diesels have a fairly narrow range as well, but it still was hard to convince them that they did not need 32 gears for the turbine. Current passenger car engines seem to have about a 6:1 range.

B.

-------------------------
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
~ Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhi, An Autobiography, M. K. Gandhi, page 446.

NickD on Sun September 16, 2007 8:34 PM User is offline

Guess it depends upon how you drive, seldom if ever go above 3,000 rpm in my 5 speed Cavalier and it idles at 900 rpm, for a 3.3:1 ratio, if I ran it over 3,000 rpm in 5th gear and got caught, they would lock me up, throw the key away and pull my drivers license, would be over 86 mph. Turbine props are drastically geared down, prop rpm is between 600-2,750 rpm.

But if there is problems using a turbine in an automotive application, can't they be analyzed and solved? Would think that would be far simpler than trying to find a substitute for platinum. Ha, no substitute for platinum for my wife's wedding ring set, knew she was a keeper before I married her, and want to keep it that way.

If there ever was a single speed engine, it's got to be the IC, yeah, they got variable ignition and valve timing now, but what about tunable intake and exhaust? That presents some mechanical nightmare problems for the extremely hot exhaust.

I am really curious what that German is using for his compressed air powered vehicle in terms of converting air pressure to mechanical energy efficiently. Recall he was getting quite a range from a tank of charged air. Now that may have possibilities, other ways to emulate compressed air from a heated energy source.

I like to ask questions like what would I put in a cubic foot box with no moving parts connected to a 20 pound bottle of LP gas to get electricity? Any suggestions?

Chevy Volt sounds like a GM diesel electromotive locomotive, not exactly a new concept. We need new concepts. Or maybe one that is 200 years old that just didn't work back then.

steve325is on Sun September 16, 2007 10:30 PM User is offline

Us whacky folks here in California have a huge development center right near the capitol!

California Fuel Cell Partnership

I visited about a year ago and rode in the MBz A-Class, the Focus, and the Highlander. Got a good look at two versions of the Honda FCX, but they weren't giving rides that day. Mostly-silent torquey electric car acceleration and water out the exhaust pipe.

Is this technology perfected? No. Is hydrogen currently economical to use as a fuel? No. Maybe someday it will be if they keep working on it. Who knows? Even if it doesn't work, the research may pay off in other ways.







Sorry for the crappy pics. I forgot my camera, so I used my phone.

-- Steve

NickD on Mon September 17, 2007 5:30 AM User is offline

I often wondered why my digital camera doesn't have a phone in it, my phone also has a digital camera and my wife's phone has that and an MP3 player and she can download games. History channel had an interesting program on It Came From Outer Space, referring to the products that came from NASA, interesting enough, NASA mostly developed private inventions, and the really great stuff came from the private inventors. Like the O-ring for example, but NASA didn't adapt that very well. Was getting the NASA magazine for years for new ideas, nothing in it, and the engineers I knew that worked for them were tied up in a heavy political bureaucracy. Was never very interested in working for them, have a rope in my home where I can tie my hands as a DIY project, don't need to go anywhere to have that done for me. But they sure like to take credit for our technology.

Guys like Burt Rutan proved he can put a guy in outer space for well under a million bucks and working for large corporations, only two major interests, making the stock holders happy and designing for limiting product liability suits, then there are the thousands of government agency rules and regulations to deal with loaded with negative contradictions it takes an army of lawyers to interpret, that coupled with a huge advertising budget, doesn't leave much money for pure research nor time. So much for innovation.

Another area completely overlooked that came out in the 70's is energy transformation, but we see this everyday in the highly EPA controlled air conditioning field that dictates what you can and cannot do rather than dealing with pure science. If you take say 100 watts of energy and apply it to a resistance from of heater, you get out the equivalent of 100 watts of heat. But if you use a hundred watts of energy to run a compressor in a well designed refrigeration system, can get as much as 1,600 watts of heat. That is because you are not creating heat, but transforming the heat that is already there in the atmosphere to more ideal temperatures.

While -30*F may seem damned cold outside, still 429.67 °F above absolute zero which is a lot of energy, and rather than digging a hole in the ground to get fuel and burn it for a millisecond, use this energy to transform this heat energy with AC means to do essentially the same thing to push a piston or whatever. Ideally, a vehicle burning gasoline may get 30 mpg, but by using heat transformation means, that same vehicle could get over 500 mpg. This is scientifically accurate, work was started in the 70's on this, but dropped in favor of burning more gasoline.

Ford and Edison spent over ten years and ten million bucks trying to develop the electric car over a hundred years ago and got literally no where and we are doing the same thing today with fuel cells and hybrid cars. Seems a waste of time and money, is this so because we have a powerful force that still wants us to dig a hole in the ground? Even if it takes fighting for that hole? Makes a guy wonder.

Edited: Mon September 17, 2007 at 6:23 AM by NickD

graeme on Mon September 17, 2007 5:40 PM User is offline

Making a more efficient gasoline engine or any other engine that combusts fossil fuels isnt going to solve the increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere, it will just reduce the rate of increase. We need a method that will prevent CO2 emissions entirely. Research needs to be done, typically it takes money and as most of us know 99% of research ends up in a dead end..........that is unfortunately how we make progress. Making fuel cell cars and hydrogen powered cars work is the 1st step, setting up an infrastructure to produce the hydrogen etc without producing CO2 by burning fossil fuels is the 2nd step.....but it can be done and sure its going to cost more than the oil we buy now. But what are the alternatives, proceed at the present rate on the route to extreme climate change. Perhaps you need to live in an area where small changes in climate already have severe effects. Australians have now resigned themselves to the fact that we are not experiencing a temporary drought, but a change in climate.......farms are closing down, water is rationed the country over etc

NickD on Mon September 17, 2007 10:43 PM User is offline

Still on the CO2 kick? Suggest you clean up your own backyard first as Australia per capita is the number one coal burner in the world. And burning coal is the number one CO2 generator.

While hydrogen sounds great as a fuel, it is not present in nature, using coal in an electrical power plant has a 40% loss in the conversion process to convert that into electricity, and using electricity in electrolysis to produce hydrogen loses another 35% of the energy in that conversion process. So the total energy loss from producing hydrogen from coal is 61%. In the fuel cell another 70% is lost to convert that hydrogen back to electricity, and another assuming they use the very finest electronic technology known today is another 10% loss. But that will be the day, figure more like a 25% lost reducing the total loss figure to 80%. But this does not consider distribution loss and leaks so let's assume and be conservation and increase those losses to 85% meaning about 15% of the coal energy will power your car.

If we throw in the energy to manufacture that fuel cell, it's short life and reduced performance, at 10% usages sounds more reasonable.

Slight gains will be made in stripping the carbon out of natural gas, but in the stripping process about 20% of the stripped carbon ends up as CO2. Fuel cells sound great as long as there is a free supply of hydrogen, okay, we can use geothermal, wind, and solar energy to produce it, but why isn't Australia doing that now in lieu of producing electricity for other needs? Is it because it is not practical?

Did anyone talk to the Aboriginal tribes about the history of droughts in your country? The British described Australia as a God forsaken place, what shall we do with this hell hole. I got it, let's send all of our undesirable subjects here. So apparently your droughts cannot be related to more recent technology.

No, let's not blame nature when we can blame CO2 or in other cases, a can of R-12, and let's not blame ourselves for these problems, let's blame other countries. Or maybe the British explorers were correct, you live in a God forsaken hell hole. How are the crocodiles doing? Do they still like it down there? They have been there for millions of years now.

mk378 on Tue September 18, 2007 9:00 AM User is offline

Conceivably, hydrogen could be made from coal using the old "water gas" process where coal and water (steam) are reacted in a closed chamber at high temperature:

H2O + C --> H2 + CO

This reaction is endothermic (it is necessary to supply heat to keep it going). This was typically done by cyclically stopping the flow of steam and admitting air to the chamber to burn some of the coal and reheat itself.

Now the problem is to seperate the CO from the H2. Both have fuel value, so previously the mixed H2 and CO was just sold as it was and sent thru pipelines to houses and other consumers. The CO being of course poisonous, it was easy to kill yourself either intentionally or accidentally by inhaling unburned gas.

NickD on Tue September 18, 2007 11:27 AM User is offline

It's difficult to remain optimistic when we had a major energy crisis 45 years ago with all new kinds of ideas that never materialized. Here we are 45 years later driving even more fuel inefficient way over sized vehicles and the same old fuel crisis goes on. But at least now, the oil companies can charge whatever they feel and fuel is plentiful as long as you have the cash to pay for it. So what will the next 45 years bring?

With any new technology, it's only criteria for success is the cost compared of energy generation compared to fossil fuels. Like the wildcatters of the 70's drilling for more expensive shell oil losing a huge fortune when the big guys decided to bring the price down a few cents.

GE recently announced a more economical means to generate hydrogen, efficiencies have not been improved, but the cost of the machinery has by using plastic, Noryl, and using some exclusive metalization spray on the plastic for the electrodes. Reducing the cost of manufacture from "thousands of dollars per KW to hundreds of dollar." Not very precise in their cost figures. Water is mixed with potassium hydroxide electrolyte and made to flow over the electrodes where the H2 and O bubble off.

Still a question where the electricity, green type, is going to come from, tidal energy seems the most promising for all the coastal cities, if these damns can be built cheaper than mining coal.

It's ironic that energy costs is never based on what it costs to mine and distribute it, strictly supply and demand, and if the cost of oil goes up, even the domestic supplies of energy go up with it. Making Bush's buddy rethink opening that abandoned unsafe Utah mine that recently killed a half a dozen miners. Before this recent rise in oil prices, that mine was considered not profitable.

So much for the dreams of different clean energy sources, it's all politics. The EPA can say, can't drill for our own 4,000 year supply of natural gas because of the environment, but just let us have enough of it for over twice the price it was a couple of years ago.

bohica2xo on Tue September 18, 2007 1:48 PM User is offline

Nick:

To get away from very dead carbon horse for a bit, I thought you might like to know you already have all it takes to build your own gas turbine in your garage...

Homebuilt gas turbine

This guy actually made his own power turbine. When you see what he made the turbine from, you will be amazed. Other links on his page show it mounted in a small vehicle that he has driven - there is even video.

Amazing that he has only had one turbine wheel failure (overspeed), and fixed it with scrap material. Will we be seeing a gas turbine lawnmower at your place next spring?

B.

-------------------------
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
~ Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhi, An Autobiography, M. K. Gandhi, page 446.

graeme on Tue September 18, 2007 2:42 PM User is offline

Quote
Originally posted by: NickD
Still on the CO2 kick? Suggest you clean up your own backyard first as Australia per capita is the number one coal burner in the world. And burning coal is the number one CO2 generator.



While hydrogen sounds great as a fuel, it is not present in nature, using coal in an electrical power plant has a 40% loss in the conversion process to convert that into electricity.............


If we throw in the energy to manufacture that fuel cell, it's short life and reduced performance, at 10% usages sounds more reasonable.



Slight gains will be made in stripping the carbon out of natural gas, but in the stripping process about 20% of the stripped carbon ends up as CO2. Fuel cells sound great as long as there is a free supply of hydrogen, okay, we can use geothermal, wind, and solar energy to produce it, but why isn't Australia doing that now in lieu of producing electricity for other needs? Is it because it is not practical?
No, let's not blame nature when we can blame CO2 or in other cases, a can of R-12, and let's not blame ourselves for these problems, let's blame other countries. Or maybe the British explorers were correct, you live in a God forsaken hell hole. How are the crocodiles doing? Do they still like it down there? They have been there for millions of years now.



Clean up my own backyard first? If my actions alone could do this I would!(ride my bike to work etc(but all that happens is I choke on the fumes), unfortunately Australia at present takes it cue from another large country across the pacific! We could debate this point, however, it is irrelevant to the world wide problem of increasing CO2 emissions. Your dismissive "still on the CO2 kick" is really indicative of a significant minority of people who still have their heads in the sand on this matter and cling to any "expert"(pushed up by groups with vested interests) who offer contradictory thinking. I am all too familiar with the problems of producing hydrogen efficiently without producing CO2 etc, my post was to emphasise that a lot more has to be put into research to overcome/find new ways and that finding a solution is going to cost serious dollars. At the moment governments dont want to commit to this as "life is still going on" and they are still in office getting a good salary and retirement package. They dont want to do anything thats going to cost/change the way of life of their average constituent who cares more for their hip pocket than the long term future of the planet(its really short term now) because they will be voted out, western democracy really is a problem when the average person doesnt understand the big picture . The Australian prime minister is sort of getting the message now acknowledging that climate change is real(rather than the head in the sand denial still prevalent elsewhere)(despite our own government research organisation, CSIRO, telling them this for the last 20 years!), however, the government response is to plan for climate change rather than prevent it!, ie desalination plants that effectively produce more CO2 to add to the problem. Its not going to be until we cant grow enough food to feed as all that they will feel there is a problem.......by then it will be too late.
Everyday you can find evidence everywhere that the effects are real and that beyond reasonable scientific doubt the cause is CO2. Today I was hearing about how that sea levels on the northern australian cost had already risen above the conservative predictions of warming models(7mm). 7mm doesnt sound much and no coastal towns have been flooded, but already there is a change in the immediate ecosystem due to increases in salinity of coastal wetlands and river entrances. Already vegetation in some of these areas has died off and has turned several areas into waste lands and coastal bird populations have been reduced significantly. This may be of little significance to someone who is shovelling snow off their driveway in North America, however, it is a powerful indication of just how much a little change can completely change a local eco system and what is in store for all of us in the future.

bohica2xo on Tue September 18, 2007 3:13 PM User is offline

Nick:

I always wondered why the mining industry is "stuck on stupid". There is plenty of mining here in NV, as well as the coal mine you mentioned in UT.

We have been doing dangerous jobs by remote control for decades now - heck we fly drones over battle from half way around the globe. It is not like the coal miners are following a thin vein of gold ore, coal deposits are massive. If a cave in destroys a million dollar machine, the insurance picks up a million dollar tab. If two miners get trapped for a couple of days, they spend much more with heroic rescues, media recovery, investigations...

You can crash a race car at 300 mph these days and be reading a book the same evening. If manned digging is the only answer, use one man in a big machine that can live on it's own for a couple of weeks. we manage to keep a sub under the sea for much longer periods.

B.


-------------------------
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
~ Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhi, An Autobiography, M. K. Gandhi, page 446.

NickD on Tue September 18, 2007 6:21 PM User is offline

RCdon may have proved to himself or even to the world, that he can make an operational turbine engine, and my hat is off to him as it appears he on his small lath, without prints, just kind of carved out parts and got something to work. But the turbine principle was already proven back in 1933. The turbine I had in mind is super efficient with multiple inlet impellers forcing all the air to flow through the blades and not around it, and multiple impellers increasing in size as the pressure decreases to squeeze out the last bit of heat energy before it's blown back into the air. And to make it cheap in mass production.

Heck, even an IC engine is a small high pressure cylinder that feeds a progressively larger cylinder directly with it's exhaust gases to squeeze out more heat energy. May not work, but at least it should prevent Hamilton's exhaust manifolds from warping, it's ridiculous the amount of heat that is kicked out of the present engines. And graeme can put a sail on his bike rather than wasting 90% of the energy to make hydrogen so it can drive a little electric motor.

That mine owner in Utah where those miners were killed is a long complicated story, but bottom line is that his major interest was not minor safety, but making a couple of extra bucks with the rising cost of coal.

bohica2xo on Wed September 19, 2007 2:48 AM User is offline

Actually Nick, RC Don's project relates to your quest...

I have made a few turbines over the past 3 decades. The engineers on each project have always had a bent to use the most costly, difficult to work material that they could find. If the turbine wheels were small enough they insisted on casting or machining from billet. On larger units, the blade attachment was always some complicated, hideously close tolerance affair to hang onto the blades.

Don managed to build a working turbine from scrap galvanized electrical conduit, welding on the turbine blades with a process I would not use to fix a lawn chair. The result was a turbine that held up better than expected.

Your dream of a multistage, volume produced cheap turbine needs input like this. If you leave it up to the people that produce aircraft turbines, a 200 hp car engine will be far too costly to ever see market. Someplace between the solid inconel 718 wheel, and Don's welded EMT lies the parts for your cheap, mass produced turbine.

I actually have a working Tesla steam turbine I built hanging around the shop. Quite an interesting piece. Too bad GE was able to manipulate Tesla into other avenues. You could build one on your lathe in an afternoon. No blades.

Of course, this guy already put a turbine in his car - in 1962

1932 Ford with turbine power


B.

-------------------------
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
~ Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhi, An Autobiography, M. K. Gandhi, page 446.

NickD on Wed September 19, 2007 6:35 AM User is offline

Quote
Fuel consumption, the turbine is a fuel hog. Part load fuel consumption is almost as high as at full power. I was getting about 3 to4 miles per gallon around town and 5 to 6 mpg on the open road. And that’s in a 1900-pound car. Check out the fuel tank in the back where the rumble seat use to be. It’s big.

Bet Don has the same problem and for similar, almost, but after kicking it around, didn't buy a Wankel RX-7, was a cool sounding engine with two problems, the geometry of the the rotor had a very limited compressor ratio, and the leverage of the fuel pressure against that highly angled rotor was poor. Think about 15 mpg was tops for that tiny little car, but the engine did sound cool. Have to give Mazda credit though, quite a challenge in designing a high reliability engine with a major rotor seal problem to solve, but performance was severely lacking after all that work. Again going back to basics.

Molded ceramics was discussed and does the turbine really have to rotate at 30,000 rpm? No doubt, it's a challenge, but what about finding a substitute for platinum in a fuel cell?

With gas hitting 4 bucks per gallon, a 200K mile vehicle getting 20mpg will have a life operating cost of gas alone around $40,000.00 that becomes a substantial amount of money. It's over twice that cost if you drive daily on the Dan Ryan creeping along at 3 mph. Turbines have proven themselves in aircraft giving 4-5 times the range than IC engines and using a lower grade fuel as a plus. But the question remains, can they be made cheap?

Dang, it raining again, 18 of our counties are eligible for federal aid due to flooding. The price for water front property has become astronomical along with the property taxes and flood insurance is also astronomical. A lot of money to pay just to get sewage backup in your basement. Seems like they should give waterfront property away. Global warming is not caused by methane, even though it's levels are about seven times greater, has to be CO2 that is insignificant to start with that barely doubled. Four billion years ago, our earth was just like the sun with fusion reaction taking place, but not enough mass to sustain it. Would have been uncomfortable to walk barefoot here, they call this a changing planet.

If you read the Old Testament, God is punishing those with droughts and foul weather for being naughty, if you are having drought problems, quit being naughty.

bohica2xo on Wed September 19, 2007 1:55 PM User is offline

Nick:

Funny you should mention the Wankel - it too needs to run heavily loaded for decent BSFC.

The gas turbines in class 8 truck service made sense because they were heavily loaded most of the time. The roadster shows the turbine's failing for straight motive power - poor part throttle economy.

The series hybrid car with a small (8 to 12 kw) turbine driving an alternator would be a better choice - and more user friendly. Run the turbine at maximum BSFC. Use the power to turn the A/C compressor, and charge the LiOn batteries.

There are small turbines in use in model aircraft already. 4 inch OD units that are actually flying. Some of them were built in home shops, but most are now commercial products. They tend to be loud - the other hurdle for a gas turbine in a vehicle. Using a smaller turbine would keep the noise management problem on a much smaller scale.

B.

-------------------------
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
~ Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhi, An Autobiography, M. K. Gandhi, page 446.

NickD on Thu September 20, 2007 8:14 AM User is offline

My Supra has a turbine engine in it, well kind of, has the air compressing inlet impellers, and the hot gas driven outlet impellers. Only difference is instead of using a combustion chamber between the two sets of impellers, they stuck in an IC engine.

Manual claims that these impellers are rotating in excess of 100,000 rpm, seems awfully fast, could be a misprint, haven't figured out how to measure that yet, well could make a sensor on the intake side, but I only hear a slight whine when I pour on the coals. Manual also says the common shaft for the inlet and outlet uses air bearings. Wonder how I am suppose to change those? Drive in different parts of the country, I guess. Engine oil is pumped through this thing in large quantities, but the manual says that is for cooling only.

EPA says this turbine or turbo engine gets 2.1 mpg more than the non-turbo model, that's 39 free miles per tank of gas! I never bothered to figure out of the extra cost of the turbo was cost effective with a return on my investment for fuel savings, just drove the non-turbo car, and it wasn't any fun, the turbo is fun. But isn't there just tons of stuff put in our vehicles for other kinds of fun?

Seems like with any kind of engine, uses heat to expand gases that react against something to make it move. An electric motor uses magnetics to make it move, but you got to find someplace to plug it in, and what you plug it into uses heat to expand gases to make it work. Even the most optimistic calculations of fuel cells generate a lot more wasted heat than electricity.

One while thought was to emulate the human arm turning a crank, leave out the taste buds, feed it high protein soybeans, digest it, with some kind of emulated blood to carry this energy. No brain, so that arm doesn't get bored, just electrical stimulation to make it work faster. Yeah, and wayside stations so your vehicle can take a crap. Ha, just a wild thought, but the efficiency of animal muscles is orders of magnitude greater than any of our machines. Ha, when teased at work about eating something, like a banana or a candy bar, just replied, I am a machine that converts this food into incredible designs, no food, no designs, that kept them quiet.

Using the reverse of AC is also intriguing, we use mechanical energy to get heat or cold, why not work it in reverse and use heat or cold to get mechanical energy? Heat can be obtained just like a modern water heater that converts 90+% of the input gas into hot water with closed combustion and insulation. If our hot water heaters were as inefficient as our automobiles, many of us will be taking cold showers. Just seems to be many good ideas, so why are we screwing around with fuel cells?

bohica2xo on Thu September 20, 2007 4:15 PM User is offline

Nick:

Your turbocharger can indeed spin 100k. So called "air" bearings are actually oil foam. Some newer turbos run ball bearings, but the older type simply ran a shaft in an aluminum bearing, flooded with oil. At 30k plus rpm, the oil turns to a low friction froth and the bubbles cushion the shaft.

Recapturing the waste heat from the exhaust has always been a good idea. I worked with both Rajay & Garrett on turbocharging systems in the 1970's. I have always liked the idea of turbocharging IC engines, and have owned several turbocharged vehicles. Unfortunately, detroit (and osaka) always want to cut the corner on the engine they bolt the turbo to...

No argument from me, fuel cell research is money tossed down the drain when it comes to automobiles.

I like the bio-engine. Make sure to do the research with stem cells so it will get a lot of press.

I suspect your co-workers were less impressed with your conversion of that food to methane & hydrogen sulfide than designs.

If I was faced with electrically heating my home, I would be using a heat pump of one kind or another. Natural gas is the heat source I am stuck with for right now. so I just go with it. I have looked at using my swimming pool for a heatsink on the refrigeration cycle though. With an aftercooler on the condensed liquid, I can probably drop the head pressure a bit more...

B.

-------------------------
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
~ Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhi, An Autobiography, M. K. Gandhi, page 446.

Back to Off Topic Chat

We've updated our forums!
Click here to visit the new forum

Archive Home

Copyright © 2016 Arizona Mobile Air Inc.