Steve Weiss wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 10:45 |
OK please tell me this is a late April fools joke???? |
Rob Timmerman wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 12:39 |
From what I have heard, this does work, and nets about a 10% improvement in fuel economy (at least in diesel engines). The HHO is used as a combustion enhancer, not to power the vehicle itself, and only minute amounts are used Yes, energy is required to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen, but this energy is recouped and more by the more complete combustion of the fuel in the cylinders. An added benefit is reduced particulate emissions. |
Steven Jackson wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 14:54 |
Electrolyzing the water will use more energy than combusting the H2 and O2. So unless you had an alternator that only worked on downhills, you would be wasting fuel straight away. |
Steven Jackson wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 12:54 |
So unless you had an alternator that only worked on downhills, you would be wasting fuel straight away. |
John Roberts {JR} wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 13:39 | ||
No, it's a separate the fools from their money joke. It takes electrical energy to perform electrolysis on the water, the H and O burn, releasing the energy that was put into it, zero sum game. I will wait for Randy's actual gas mileage report, not what he believes will happen. JR |
Randy Frierson wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 15:45 |
Look i don't want to argue just share of what i have seen myself. these guys are serious and very smart, i can't explain the process (YET) but I know it does work, upon initial tests they got 10 to 12 %, and that did not satisfy them, they are working with other such like them across the US and tried a better container, different plates and now they are approaching figures like 40-50 %..the car does not run on water it's more like a process to make it more efficient..Every 2 weeks you open this cannister that holds about a quart maybe less and add water. I'm not asking anyone for money and I was skeptical as well but i seen it and now i'm a believer..like i said i am having the device installed on my Hino truck. I will run the truck on a tank of fuel back and forth to tampa from delray beach, and then check my MPG, i then will run same truck empty as before w device back and forth to tampa (same route) and then check my MPG, then i will report back..I believe my friend next door and he said his truck got on avg 9-12 MPG and after a week he is getting 18-20..Period..If it's Voodoo then I'm now into Voodoo..I'm just reporting do with it what you want...Randy |
Ivan Beaver wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 13:52 |
along with any principals they are applying. |
Charlie Zureki wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 16:25 |
Helium 3 would be a great source for Reactors, nonhazardous waste, controllable, but, there is no one lobbying for it. |
Quote: |
If you really want to save money on gasoline... always purchase your gas in the morning hours 4-6am. Gasoline pumps use volumetric measurements, not by weight. When the Gas temperature is the coolest it is more dense. |
Andy Peters wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 16:59 | ||
The principles are interesting, too -a |
Mac Kerr wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 15:14 |
I admit I know little about modern car engines, but after the battery recharges, isn't there excess electricity available from the alternator? It keeps on spinning whenever the engine is running. If that's the electricity that's used for the electrolyzing, how are wasting fuel? |
Phillip Graham wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 15:08 |
Its actually a little worse than a zero sum game, JR. I just did the thermodynamics out to double-check. The heat extractable to the surroundings from the decrease in entropy caused by the formation of the H2O from combustion of H2 and O2 will always be lower, in the case of a reversible, isothermal process (ie the best case scenario). This is a function of the definition of entropy under these conditions: dS=dQ/T. Since, for irreversible processes dS>dQ/T real processes are worse than in the reversible case. Even if you consider the behavior of the system as reversible, and use an ideal Carnot cycle (ie two isothermal steps linked to two constant entropy steps) The energy from the chemical reaction of combustion of the hydrogen and oxygen (which takes place at the high temperature point of the carnot cycle) has an inherent penalty. Ach, that's still complicated. One more try: 1. Put a fixed Q into the system by a chemical reaction at some high temperature: dQ=T_high(dS), or after integration at constant T: deltaQ=T_high*deltaS That means you get an amount of entropy S for a given Q. 2. Now you cool the system to a lower temperature under constant entropy conditions, so S stays the same. dQ is now: dQ=T_low(dS) or deltaQ=T_low*deltaS. Since S is fixed, and T is smaller, the extractable Q is always less at T_low that the Q you put in at T_high. The difference between the input Q at T_high, and the extracted Q at T_low then represents the total work done by engine during its cycle. It should be clear then that the lower T_low is, the less heat you have to pull from the system to return to the beginning of the Carnot cycle, and the more was converted to (Pressure)*(Volume) work on the surroundings during the isentropic expansion phase. Hence the desire for the largest temperature gradient possible between the Q in (chemical reaction) and Q out (e.g. radiator sending heat into the ambient air). Since T_low is not 0 Kelvin, and dS for a real engine will be greater than dS_ideal for a reversible system, there is always a penalty for the extraction of mechanical work. In a real system, the input Q is fixed per amount of fuel burned, in this case from the electrolysis of water. At a minimum you therefore take the Carnot efficiency penalty, and the efficiency penalty of the battery/alternator combination. The are only two ways the system would seem to come out ahead. First would be with the production of the hydrogen by an external battery, which of course is just passing the buck for input Q. The second way the system might possibly come out ahead would be if the injection of H2 and O2 dramatically increased the T_high for the car's engine (ie increasing the average internal cylinder temperature). The efficiency of a Carnot engine is related to the difference in (T_high-T_low)/Absolute temperature. I give this a remote, at best possibility of happening, but it is at least conceivable. BTW, if anyone reads this and feels just totally confused, don't feel bad! I had two semesters of undergraduate thermodynamics/kinetics, and two semesters of graduate thermo/kinetics, and THEN TA'ed for a graduate level thermodynamics class. It didn't start to make any real sense to me until graduate school and TA'ing. J. W. Gibbs was a genius! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_cycle |
Marjan Milosevic(MarjanM) wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 18:21 |
I dont know about the device in question but... My very close friend is a real "nut", and for more than a year he is working on some kind of device that will convert the normal petrol engine to run on water. As he explained to me there is a way to separate HH form O with some different electrolyze (combining 4 different frequencies applied to the steel plates) and he already succeeded in achieving this. According to some science literature hydrogen has more calories when burning than petrol and he made some calculation that with 2 liters of distiled water you can run around 100 kilometers. He is now working on the injector part where hydrogen will be injected to the cylinder. Knowing him, either he will do that or he will blow up his garage Regards Marjan |
Charlie Zureki wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 14:25 |
We burn stuff because currently it's cheaper, more efficient, and that it is the technology afforded to us at the moment. |
Charlie Zureki wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 14:25 |
The "grid for distributing it electrically", the majority of power from this grid is from burning. (some from hydro, wind and solar, but a very small percentage) |
Charlie Zureki wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 14:25 |
The laws of Physics are quite clear, you cannot create or destroy matter, all that you can do is change it's form. That the changing of it's form is where we get our "energy". We can only create energy through, Chemical, Mechanical, or Thermal methods. |
Marjan Milosevic(MarjanM) wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 17:21 |
I dont know about the device in question but... My very close friend is a real "nut", and for more than a year he is working on some kind of device that will convert the normal petrol engine to run on water. As he explained to me there is a way to separate HH form O with some different electrolyze (combining 4 different frequencies applied to the steel plates) and he already succeeded in achieving this. According to some science literature hydrogen has more calories when burning than petrol and he made some calculation that with 2 liters of distiled water you can run around 100 kilometers. He is now working on the injector part where hydrogen will be injected to the cylinder. Knowing him, either he will do that or he will blow up his garage Regards Marjan |
Mac Kerr wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 15:14 |
I admit I know little about modern car engines, but after the battery recharges, isn't there excess electricity available from the alternator? It keeps on spinning whenever the engine is running. If that's the electricity that's used for the electrolyzing, how are wasting fuel? Of course you are wasting fuel by hauling around the extra weight of the water and associated gear. I don't buy that this will have a net gain. |
Phillip Graham wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 18:34 | ||
The direct electrolysis of water is very inefficient, there are better ways to "thermochemically crack" water. Also, the volumetric energy density of gasoline is much much better than hydrogen, so your friend had better revisit his calculations. Gasoline is about 35MJoule/Liter, and highly compressed hydrogen (600+ ATM pressure) is about 5MJoule/liter. That is a seven-fold difference... |
Patrick Tracy wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 17:45 |
Is it more efficient when braking to dump momentum as heat or to regenerate it as electricity? |
Quote: |
The reasons that we don't have electric vehicles are political, economic and social, not technical. |
Quote: |
Afforded to us by whom? There are other technologies in existence, but many have the potential for decentralized production which may not benefit those who currently control our energy. |
Quote: |
Umm, yeah, but my point is that the grid is there if we decide to find other sources of energy. There's no real reason that the source must be combustion other than the substantial economic momentum for doing it that way. There is energy everywhere and all we really have to do is be creative about extracting it. The grid can even make decentralized generation like home photovoltaic more efficient by allowing those generating excess to supply those with a shortfall. |
Quote: |
Yes, the laws of Newtonian physics are clear, but in the quantum world what you say isn't necessarily so. Even within your constraints there are lots of other ways to use the energy all around us. I'm not talking about cold fusion or anything equally questionable, I'm talking about leveraging our solar thermal, photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, tidal etc. technologies into a practical system of generation. I think it can be done on a technical level but it's the political and economic forces that resist the change. |
E. Lee Dickinson wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 19:40 |
Yeah, but Phil, he's not talking about compressed hydrogen, he's talking about hydrogen electrolyzed from water. When I spent a semester soldering (without understanding) the voltage monitoring systems for a fuel cell in Virginia Tech's hybrid vehicle team, I often overheard the engineers around me lamenting that "There's more hydrogen in a cup of water than in a cup of compressed hydrogen." |
Charlie Zureki wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 19:32 |
Phil, We could debate Fuels for Fusion or Fission till the cows come home, the only point that I was trying to make was that one of the biggest users of petroleum products is to generate Electricity; Which could be generated by other sources. Regarding Gasoline Pumps, I worked on a side project for a company that made meters years ago. The meter was a Coriolis meter, which measured mass-flow, it had no internal moving parts like turbine, displacement, piston,etc... and could be used(when calibrated) to measure liquid/ slurry mixture,low density to high, high to low viscosity. Extremely more accurate than even vortex shedders. That is when I realized that Gasoline Pumps were measuring volume and not mass. Some Tankers (probably all now) were converting their fleet to Mass Flow meters to get more accurate reading when selling to the retailer Retail pumps did not have mass flow meters, pretty certain they still don't. Volumetric expansions : V= V sub0(1 plus B[delta t]) Do the math and see if there couldn't be a substantial difference. Cheers Hammer |
Charlie Zureki wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 17:54 |
Patrick, I thought my comments were self explainitory, not to upset or anger anyone... I understand the politics involved in the fuel debate, I was only answering as to the question, why we've used petroleum... Because until recently, it has been a cheap source of energy, and frankly, other than Nuclear, it has been one of the few sources of energy we could put into the practice of using. I understand solar energy and the products used to capture it. I am all for using it, and the other sources as well, Nuclear, Wind, etc... But again, Solar has been cost inefficient until recently. And, I understand the concept of one's selling the surplus to the Utility... I corrected someones Math equation from the previous Thread, explaining that their Math was flawed in the Amount of energy their system would produce. And, finally the Laws of Physics do not change... whether I discuss them or anyone else.... Quote:"I talking about leveraging our Solar thermal, photovoltaic, wind, etc...." All of the above make energy from: Mechanical, Chemical or Thermal. Yes, things will have to change, but...maybe they're raping us on fuel costs to afford the ability to provide Energy derived from other forms when the Petrol runs out. Hammer |
John Roberts {JR} wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 23:13 |
I would not be surprised if gasoline pumps were not temperature compensated, in all states (like where I live). I would be surprised if there was a big difference with time of day. How much does the temperature change for a liquid stored underground? The volume changes about 1% for every 15' variation so perhaps it could make a bigger difference than one of those water thingys.... JR |
Charlie Zureki wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 20:32 |
Phil, We could debate Fuels for Fusion or Fission till the cows come home, the only point that I was trying to make was that one of the biggest users of petroleum products is to generate Electricity; Which could be generated by other sources. |
Quote: |
That is when I realized that Gasoline Pumps were measuring volume and not mass. Some Tankers (probably all now) were converting their fleet to Mass Flow meters to get more accurate reading when selling to the retailer Retail pumps did not have mass flow meters, pretty certain they still don't. Volumetric expansions : V= V sub0(1 plus B[delta t]) Do the math and see if there couldn't be a substantial difference. Cheers Hammer |
Phillip Graham wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 19:44 |
Petroleum's big plus as an energy source is that it is already here. If we had to directly synthesize petroleum, it would be embroiled in just as much debate as any other technology. As soon as you exhaust the inherent supplies of any energy source (eg petroleum) you are faced with manufacturing a replacement, and potentially on a global scale. Hopefully this makes sense... |
John Roberts {JR} wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 20:59 | ||
If it made sense to most people we wouldn't have threads like this. |
Quote: |
FWIW Petroleum will stop getting burned for energy long before we run out, when plastic becomes more valuable than the energy source du jour. |
Quote: |
I am optimistic we will come up with more effective ways to harness all the kinetic energy around us, not to mention that significant heat/light source some 93 million miles away, which BTW was the original source of energy in all that fossil fuel we're just now harvesting. |
Phillip Graham wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 20:05 |
Point taken. I suppose since I have interest in working in this area it is just as well that people are misinformed, will give me something to do |
Quote: |
Plastic and airplanes, two technologies enabled by oil (especially air travel!). The energy density of any alternative doesn't cut it. Of course the economic question there is what will the incredible increase in cost of air travel from fuel do to the industry, which should be a factor long before the ultimate oil supply runs out. Zeppelins anyone? |
Quote: |
As I have said before, the fact that we do not directly obtain all of our energy from nuclear sources (including the Sun) makes us the exception, rather than the rule, in the Universe. |
Patrick Tracy wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 19:36 |
I guess I was reacting to what seemed to be an attitude that "it can't be done." Probably overreacting. I do appreciate my less logical expressions being pointed out. I would say that there seems to be a viable battery technology that has been left out of most conversations of this sort, flywheels developed by Jack Bitterly and others. They circumvent the whole issue of chemistry as energy storage. They don't need replacing every couple of years. They charge as fast as they discharge making regenerative braking efficient. Even if that particular technology doesn't pan out there are endless ways of manipulating energy. It's our willingness to accept the status quo that is the biggest obstacle to a better solution than simply burning stuff that's been laying around. I don't accept that the only reasonable energy sourced is fossil fuel. |
Charlie Zureki wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 16:25 |
If you really want to save money on gasoline... always purchase your gas in the morning hours 4-6am. Gasoline pumps use volumetric measurements, not by weight. When the Gas temperature is the coolest it is more dense. Cheers, Hammer |
Ian Hunt wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 23:12 |
Didn't realise you were a Krishna devotee John Any fuel supply that actively competes with the food supply will lead to strife on a scale as yet unseen (but maybe Tim Duffin's "those people" solution will reduce the population sufficiently to give us a little extra time? |
Ian Hunt wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 23:45 |
I'm not saying food will run out, but what happens when first world demand exceeds third world budgets! Prices are increasing sharply in every region of the world for some of the most basic foodstuffs traded on international commodity markets. The price of wheat has doubled in less than a year, while other staples such as corn, maize and soy are trading at well above their 1990s levels. Rice, which is the staple food for about 3 billion people worldwide, has tripled in cost in the last 18 months. In some countries, prices for milk and meat have more than doubled. Source: CRS |
Charlie Zureki wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 16:25 |
Patrick, If you really want to save money on gasoline... always purchase your gas in the morning hours 4-6am. Gasoline pumps use volumetric measurements, not by weight. When the Gas temperature is the coolest it is more dense. |
Mac Kerr wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 12:14 | ||
Mac |
Tim Duffin wrote on Mon, 12 May 2008 15:55 |
No extra power from the alternator. By definition, and "alternator" alternates between charging and freewheeling with no load. This is controlled by the IC regulator inside the case-- when there is no calculated load, it de-energizes the field and the alternator is simply a spinning mass until its needed again. T |
Andy Zimmerman wrote on Mon, 12 May 2008 17:13 |
And here I always thought that they called it an "alternator" because it outputs "alternating" current.... |
Quote: |
Zepplins get a bad rap, just like nuclear power. I would differentiate petroleum for making plastics from airplane fuel. I believe they have already successfully liquefied coal for use in airborne turbines, and Virgin did a test flight with bio-fuel. So again, we'll survive with minor economic adjustments. JR |
SteveKirby wrote on Mon, 12 May 2008 19:01 |
Somehow this seems like an extra conversion loss. The jet engine produces rotational energy and reactive energy (the propulsive thrust). The heat of the output is simply an inefficiency of burning the fuel. I would imagine that there are more efficient ways of using biofuel to boil water. Now if they were using the jet engines to turn generators, and then capturing the heat to boil water for additional conversion efficiency, maybe. |
Mike. Brown wrote on Tue, 13 May 2008 08:13 |
So this is where all the genius is. Better check out. Netgain Motors This Warp motor with the Turbo 400 drive knuckle. Another big brainer in the oil rehab market. |
Jim Bowersox wrote on Tue, 13 May 2008 00:06 |
Most modern cruise ships al use electric motors to drive the props, usually mounted on Azipods: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azipod). The gas turbine is used to turn a generator, which powers the electric propulsion systems of the ship. Using exhaust heat to generate steam is just a way to increase efficiency. None of these ships use gas turbines to mechanically drive a prop. -JB |
Stavross (Sam Buck) wrote on Tue, 13 May 2008 17:47 |
New process generates hydrogen from aluminum alloy to run engines, fuel cells No free lunch of course you have to refine the Aluminum in the first place; which could be done with wind power leaving you carbon free. Since it is hard for wind power to be scheduled into the power grid as it is not as predictable as say coal or nuclear this would be a good use for it. "Young lady, in this house we OBEY the laws of thermodynamics!" - Homer Simpson |
dave stojan wrote on Tue, 13 May 2008 17:27 |
Interesting link Sam! You know this brings to mind a nagging question I've had in the back of my mind for quite a while: What is the effect of a field of wind generators on the climate? Thermodynamics says not only do we never get to win but that we can't as much as hope to break even! Do we end up crapping up Ma Nature even more by blocking her wind? |
John Roberts {JR} wrote on Wed, 14 May 2008 01:30 | ||
While just speculation on my part, windmills seem far less offensive to mother earth than damning up rivers for Hydropower. There is some concern about windmills bothering birds (and wealthy residents of Hyannisport). I suspect they still have birds in Holland. JR |
dave stojan wrote on Tue, 13 May 2008 18:27 |
Interesting link Sam! You know this brings to mind a nagging question I've had in the back of my mind for quite a while: What is the effect of a field of wind generators on the climate? Thermodynamics says not only do we never get to win but that we can't as much as hope to break even! Do we end up crapping up Ma Nature even more by blocking her wind? |
Phillip Graham wrote on Tue, 13 May 2008 18:58 |
I will spare my thoughts on the alumothermic reduction of water... There is no free lunch, with any of these potential energy sources; for instance, with solar power, in large arrays you have to consider the change in albedo from the solar panels relative to the native environment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo The change in the behavior of the reflection of light from the Sun could have significant local temperature effects. I don't know much about wind power, in terms of possible side effects, but I have heard that the generator maintenance requirements are very high... |
Art Welter wrote on Tue, 13 May 2008 19:03 |
JR, Let’s not start tilting at windmills... I’d be willing to bet a lot more birds fly into plate glass than will into whirring blades, but there does not seem to be much restriction on putting windows in buildings. But since you mentioned Hydropower, and the OP was about burning hydrogen and oxygen derived from H2O, anyone know if “burning up water” would eventually create a net reduction of that precious commodity? |
SteveKirby wrote on Mon, 12 May 2008 19:01 |
Somehow this seems like an extra conversion loss. The jet engine produces rotational energy and reactive energy (the propulsive thrust). The heat of the output is simply an inefficiency of burning the fuel. I would imagine that there are more efficient ways of using biofuel to boil water. Now if they were using the jet engines to turn generators, and then capturing the heat to boil water for additional conversion efficiency, maybe. |
Tom Bourke wrote on Tue, 13 May 2008 21:17 |
A couple of thoughts: 1, All of our energy comes from the sun (or nuclear) |
Tom Bourke wrote on Tue, 13 May 2008 22:32 |
In the Prius the smaller of the 2 motors is used to load down the ICE to keep it at relativly low RPM. It also gives us the ability to store energy to help even out the load on the ICE. The Prius and dielse electric locomotivs are just ICE powerplants with an electric transmision/drivertain. |
Ryan Lantzy wrote on Tue, 13 May 2008 23:16 | ||
AFAIK, the Prius does not work like a Diesel-Electric Locomotive. When the ICE is running, it directly drives the wheels via a continuously variable transmission, and also charges the batteries with the spare power it makes. The simultaneous charging and direct drive of the wheels is accomplished using a load balancing device. It keeps the gas engine in it's maximum efficiency all the time. Coincidentally, the gas engine only turns on over a certain speed. |
Ian Hunt wrote on Wed, 14 May 2008 03:47 | ||
So where did the heavy elements (not to mention the sun itself) come from! All our energy comes from gravitational forces, including the sun. |
Ian Hunt wrote on Wed, 14 May 2008 00:22 | ||||
" Coincidentally, the gas engine only turns on over a certain speed." Actually over a particular throttle opening, demand more than a small fraction of a G of acceleration and it's the gas that gets you there. But you can feel better about the illusion! |
Ryan Lantzy wrote on Tue, 13 May 2008 23:16 |
AFAIK, the Prius does not work like a Diesel-Electric Locomotive. When the ICE is running, it directly drives the wheels via a continuously variable transmission, and also charges the batteries with the spare power it makes. The simultaneous charging and direct drive of the wheels is accomplished using a load balancing device. It keeps the gas engine in it's maximum efficiency all the time. Coincidentally, the gas engine only turns on over a certain speed. |
Mike Butler (media) wrote on Wed, 14 May 2008 10:25 |
The diesel engine-to-generator-to-traction motors setup of your typical diesel-electric locomotive has proven itself to be by far the most practical means of getting power to the wheels, not just because of the ability to match the wide range of road speeds to the narrow RPM powerband of a diesel, but also due to the complexity of the gearing and shafts that would be required for mechanical transmission of power to the multiple drive axles of a railroad locomotive. And as Ryan L. pointed out, the Prius does have a CVT. |
Mac Kerr wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 14:14 | ||
Mac |
John Roberts {JR} wrote on Mon, 12 May 2008 17:39 | ||
I think you are correct about the derivation of the name, but that internal AC is converted to DC before it gets output anywhere. Tim is correct about general function and loading. Both modern alternators, and the old generators use regulators to activate or rest the charging circuits as needed based on battery/system voltage. Alternators are capable of charging at lower RPM than generators, and don't require the mechanical brush contacts, so are more reliable. JR |
Phillip Graham wrote on Tue, 13 May 2008 18:58 |
I don't know much about wind power, in terms of possible side effects, but I have heard that the generator maintenance requirements are very high... |
Charlie Zureki wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 20:18 |
While I realize I misspoke regarding petroleum as a fuel for generating Electricity. I was referring to it's sister industry of Coal. Sorry and Thank You, for pointing that out. While I understand the methods for generating Electricity in the Past and Present, has been driven by the Economy, I believe in the Future it will be driven by Desperation. Observation: Throughout History mankind has been driven to develop new technologies and products because of desperation, in as much for the reason of greed. Pump manufacturers were really keen on the Idea of using Mass Flow Meters, but, then later claimed they couldn't because of higher manufacturing costs that could not be passed on to the Stations. (the amount of regulations regarding Gasoline Pumps were astronomical at the time.) The Individual States still send a guy with an "old technology" prover to check customers complaints. It's possible things have changed, but, I wouldn't bet on it. P.S. The density of a fluid will vary from Temperature and Pressure. Thanks, Hammer |
Scott Raymond (Scott R) wrote on Wed, 14 May 2008 11:22 |
Just a note JR. Maybe Alternator technology has changed in the last 4 or 5 years but most automotive alternators did use brushes on the rotor. They were a slip ring type, not segmented as they just supplied dc for the field winding on the rotor. They usually were fairly reliable as they on carried the smaller current to energise the field winding. I haven't worked on and alternator in 5 or so years as you just can't get parts for them any more. It's more plug and play. I used to replace regulators, rectifiers, brushes and bearings but I think that's now a thing of the past. |
John Roberts {JR} wrote on Wed, 14 May 2008 14:00 |
Thanx, I may be a little confused... Alternators were still new when I was taking such things apart. I recall the major difference was AC vs DC raw output and charging at lower rpm. I could be wrong about absence of brushes but they're not like old school DC motors/generators with all that brush arcing from stepping between multiple windings. The generators extracted pulsed DC from the rotational motion by stepping between multiple sequential windings. The alternator OTOH used one (?) winding and solid state rectifiers to convert the "alternating " current to DC. or not... JR |
Charlie Zureki wrote on Wed, 14 May 2008 18:33 |
Traction Motors remained DC on Locomotives because by reversing the polarity on the input of the DC. motor gave you forward or reverse without extra expense. Hammer |
John Roberts {JR} wrote on Wed, 14 May 2008 14:00 |
The alternator OTOH used one (?) winding and solid state rectifiers to convert the "alternating " current to DC. or not... JR |
Mike Butler (media) wrote on Wed, 14 May 2008 22:19 |
So how do we do that, with a bank of caps to offset the inductive reactance of motor-driven appliances? But then, how do they know how much capacitance is needed in the "typical" house? They have no way of knowing how many air conditioners, refrigerators, well pumps, etc. I have. Plus any heating elements (stove, oven, etc,) which are huge gobblers of electricity are purely resistive loads with no power factor losses. |
John Roberts {JR} wrote on Wed, 14 May 2008 13:00 |
Thanx, I may be a little confused... Alternators were still new when I was taking such things apart. I recall the major difference was AC vs DC raw output and charging at lower rpm. I could be wrong about absence of brushes but they're not like old school DC motors/generators with all that brush arcing from stepping between multiple windings. The generators extracted pulsed DC from the rotational motion by stepping between multiple sequential windings. The alternator OTOH used one (?) winding and solid state rectifiers to convert the "alternating " current to DC. or not... JR |
Charlie Zureki wrote on Wed, 14 May 2008 23:37 |
The Sun IS a star. Hammer |
Mike Butler (media) wrote on Wed, 14 May 2008 21:19 |
Oh and speaking of things that are supposed to save energy, what is up and does anyone have any real, solid, verifiable information about this thing? Or even an accurate description of what it exactly is and does? http://www.power-save1200.com/1200?gclid=CLHXgaW2ppMCFRKLxwo dOBaAnw OK, so given the premise that we use watts but the electric company bills us for volt-amps, anything that gets the power factor up closer to 1 or 100% has got to save money, right? So how do we do that, with a bank of caps to offset the inductive reactance of motor-driven appliances? But then, how do they know how much capacitance is needed in the "typical" house? They have no way of knowing how many air conditioners, refrigerators, well pumps, etc. I have. Plus any heating elements (stove, oven, etc,) which are huge gobblers of electricity are purely resistive loads with no power factor losses. I first heard about this from a story on the local TV news, which instantly made me suspicious because that's the first place where I heard that we need to unplug hair dryers when not in use to save energy (I have never seen a hair dryer with any components that would draw any quiescent current, unlike some home entertainment devices). To call me skeptical would be an understatement. My bu11$h!+ detector is going into Defcon 3. Somebody, please help me sort out this mess of media hype. |
Dennis Wiggins wrote on Thu, 15 May 2008 09:45 |
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fuelcell.shtml Forgive me if this has already been mentioned in this discussion - I didn't have time to look all the way through it. I believe fuel cella are the way we will go in the future. There are really no other (my opinion) viable choices. -Dennis Wiggins |
John Roberts {JR} wrote on Thu, 15 May 2008 11:34 |
Hydrogen/fuel cell is just another storage medium (glorified battery) with significant infrastructure and difficult "details" to work out to make it practical. |
Ryan Lantzy wrote on Thu, 15 May 2008 12:07 | ||
Not to drag this out, but I've been doing some reading on electric generation plants, efficiencies and the like. One think I learned along the way is that the best electrical generation from coal is about 36% efficient. The world record holder for a combustable material producing electricity is some diesel job that hit 51%. Looking into it further I learned that this is mostly do to the Carnot cycle. The Carnot cycle basically says the most efficient heat engine you can make is like 60-70%. The reason I bring this up is that fuel cells are less about hydrogen and more about using a hydrogen dense fuel to make electricity. If I can put alcohol, water, methane, gasoline, or pick yer fuel de jour into a fuel cell and get electricity at 50% or greater efficiency, I'm beating the system. I know that fuel cells are probably not that efficient, but I guess the hope is that some day they might be? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell#Fuel_cell_efficiency From the above, I gather that the maximum efficiency is 83% If you compare this to your average gasoline engine at 25% efficiency, along with a mechanical linkage (transmission) that soaks up another 10-20%, you are getting maybe 20% of the energy in the gasoline into the wheels. Compare that to a moderately efficient fuel cell of say 50% efficiency and an electric motor that might be 80% efficient and now you've doubled your equivalent fuel economy. I guess eventually we might get some electric motors in the mid 90% efficiencies and if we can get a fuel cell in the high 70s, we'd be cooking with gas. |
Ryan Lantzy wrote on Thu, 15 May 2008 12:07 |
=John Roberts {JR} wrote on Thu, 15 May 2008 11:34] Hydrogen/fuel cell is just another storage medium (glorified battery) with significant infrastructure and difficult "details" to work out to make it practical. end/quote ---- Not to drag this out, but I've been doing some reading on electric generation plants, efficiencies and the like. One think I learned along the way is that the best electrical generation from coal is about 36% efficient. The world record holder for a combustable material producing electricity is some diesel job that hit 51%. Looking into it further I learned that this is mostly do to the Carnot cycle. The Carnot cycle basically says the most efficient heat engine you can make is like 60-70%. The reason I bring this up is that fuel cells are less about hydrogen and more about using a hydrogen dense fuel to make electricity. If I can put alcohol, water, methane, gasoline, or pick yer fuel de jour into a fuel cell and get electricity at 50% or greater efficiency, I'm beating the system. I know that fuel cells are probably not that efficient, but I guess the hope is that some day they might be? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell#Fuel_cell_efficiency From the above, I gather that the maximum efficiency is 83% If you compare this to your average gasoline engine at 25% efficiency, along with a mechanical linkage (transmission) that soaks up another 10-20%, you are getting maybe 20% of the energy in the gasoline into the wheels. Compare that to a moderately efficient fuel cell of say 50% efficiency and an electric motor that might be 80% efficient and now you've doubled your equivalent fuel economy. I guess eventually we might get some electric motors in the mid 90% efficiencies and if we can get a fuel cell in the high 70s, we'd be cooking with gas. |
Art Welter wrote on Wed, 14 May 2008 02:03 |
JR, Let’s not start tilting at windmills... I’d be willing to bet a lot more birds fly into plate glass than will into whirring blades, but there does not seem to be much restriction on putting windows in buildings. |
Kristian Johnsen wrote on Thu, 15 May 2008 15:34 |
The problem with windmills is not as shortsighted as birds flying into them...think one step further: Their migratory and nesting habits are disturbed. |
Ian Hunt wrote on Thu, 15 May 2008 21:40 |
Or maybe we could engineer another myxomatosis, the avian version this time, then you wouldn't have to be bothered at all! |
Art Welter wrote on Thu, 15 May 2008 23:17 |
Kristian, That is true, birds may nest on the windmills like they do on power transmission poles. I would think climate changes will have far more impact on migration patterns than physical constructs. |
Art Welter wrote on Fri, 16 May 2008 03:29 |
Mike, On the right hand picture, turbine #4, #6 and #8 have been turned 180 degrees from the rest. Was that from bird strikes? |
Art Welter wrote on Fri, 16 May 2008 09:29 |
Mike, On the right hand picture, turbine #4, #6 and #8 have been turned 180 degrees from the rest. Was that from bird strikes? |
Ryan Lantzy wrote on Thu, 15 May 2008 12:07 |
Compare that to a moderately efficient fuel cell of say 50% efficiency and an electric motor that might be 80% efficient and now you've doubled your equivalent fuel economy. I guess eventually we might get some electric motors in the mid 90% efficiencies and if we can get a fuel cell in the high 70s, we'd be cooking with gas. |
Mike Butler (media) wrote on Fri, 16 May 2008 11:11 |
The only way ethanol MIGHT work is if it can be done without (literally) taking food off our table. |
Ian Hunt wrote on Thu, 15 May 2008 21:52 |
John It is obvious that the vast majority of people in the western world put their desires above all else, welcome to the club. Ian |
Nick Pires wrote on Fri, 16 May 2008 10:46 |
....or without requiring the burning of 1.25 gallons of fossil fuels to produce/transport one gallon of ethanol. |
Nick Pires wrote on Fri, 16 May 2008 16:46 |
You want climate change.......what happens if we start replacing all of the the world's current CO2 emissions with water vapor. |
Kristian Johnsen wrote on Fri, 16 May 2008 04:52 |
Man made construction affects animal habits more than one might think. Just think about roads as one example. |
Tom Bourke wrote on Fri, 16 May 2008 09:55 |
Large electric motors (>25hp) are already past that. NEMA rating -B is over 90% on larger motors. >25hp I have seen standard industrial motors over 95%. A good controller is going to be very efficient too. I think too much attention is paid to very specific parts of the system at the expense of the whole. I just heard a news report regarding dropping funding for ethanol and putting that money into fuel cell research because of the mess ethanol is. Go figure. One buzz word for another I guess. It is almost like the politicians keep picking unattainable technology to throw money at on purposes. Hydrogen any one? We have problems now with people driving off with the gas hose in the tank, lets turn that in to HYDROGEN! I really don't care HOW the energy gets us to and from work/fun/whatever. I think most of the technology have there place in this, just not the most advanced needs to be in EVERY car. Electric and battery combined with some kind of biobiproduct liquid fuel will provide enough energy for our fleet of cars. That is IF we can kik the 90MPH SUV habit. |
Charlie Zureki wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 16:25 |
If you really want to save money on gasoline... always purchase your gas in the morning hours 4-6am. Gasoline pumps use volumetric measurements, not by weight. When the Gas temperature is the coolest it is more dense. Cheers, Hammer |
John Roberts {JR} wrote on Fri, 16 May 2008 11:03 |
I believe there is a balance between being a good shepherd of the environment and doing zero harm. I am reminded of the Indian sect that wear mouth scarves so they don't accidentally inhale an insect and hurt it. I will go out of my way to harm many insects that try to eat my house or food. I will kill fire ants when I can, because they need killin. Draw your personal lines where they fit your life experience and judgement. YMMV. |
Al Limberg wrote on Fri, 16 May 2008 14:01 |
---- What is a BILLION?? |
Joe Breher wrote on Tue, 20 May 2008 23:43 |
I like to divide these by our national population to figure out what it's costing me. $285B farm bill / ~285M people in the US (low, but I like nice round numbers) * 4-person household I'm the head of = $4,000 outta my pocket into the coffers of ADM. Where do I sign!? |
Brian Houchin wrote on Wed, 21 May 2008 09:57 |
I'm no scientist, but I'm sure if you asked someone like me back in 1940 about building an atomic bomb I would look at them like they were crazy. And the entire Manhattan Project (according to data on the internet, might not be reliable so don't flame the crap out of me) cost about $20B back then. I'd say that creating a hydrogen powered engine is a possiblity...if they had several thousand people working on it and a trillion bucks for research. |
Charlie Zureki wrote on Wed, 21 May 2008 10:17 |
Brian, They do have Hydrogen Powered Vehicles! Hammer |
John Roberts {JR} wrote on Wed, 21 May 2008 16:26 |
Storing a few hundred miles worth of it in a "gas" tank, and coming up with hydrogen stations on every corner, etc is a major $$$ issue. Then at the end of all this we are left with a similar question of where does this hydrogen come from? Generally we either put energy into water to manufacture, or crack it from the same fossil fuels we are now consuming. |
dave stojan wrote on Wed, 21 May 2008 11:05 |
Making hydrogen from water is always an energy losing proposition. The big 'but' (remember in Pee Wee's Big Adventure his classic line about "everyone having a big but". - Hey, I had small kids back then - there was no escape from Pee Wee mania)is that there are enormous amounts of "wasted" energy that can be captured / co-gen'd / utilized to make hydrogen. Efficient storage has been the rub, but there are possibilities. Hell, for that matter they may figger out that creating Hydrogen gas and releasing it freely into the atmosphere can work as an "anti-greenhouse" gas - it's extremely thermally conductive as opposed to "insulative" (look JR, I made up a new word!). What are some possible "near free" energy sources for making all this hydrogen? Solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, tidal, flare stack gas, garbage dump gas (methane - which is said to be WAY more bothersome than CO2), poop (ain't that the shizzle) and a hoard of resources are available. It ain't a waste if you use something that was going to waste in the first place. |
Charlie Zureki wrote on Wed, 21 May 2008 17:17 |
Brian, They do have Hydrogen Powered Vehicles! Hammer |
John Roberts {JR} wrote on Wed, 21 May 2008 10:26 |
Hybrid (battery) electric, can at least be plugged into a garage outlet and charged overnight (off peak). That energy will come primarily from burning coal. The electric cars are already in the pipeline and we will see them in a few years. Prices have already dropped on used SUVs as people scramble to get away from the poor gas mileage. A classic case of demand destruction, in slow motion, as these won't get parked, just driven less. |
John Roberts {JR} wrote on Wed, 21 May 2008 10:26 |
I am a free market guy so am not convinced the government needs to help us. Their help so far has caused enough unintended negative consequences. |
Brian Houchin wrote on Wed, 21 May 2008 12:49 |
Damn, I had a pretty good reply and I wasn't logged in so I lost it! I realize that we can already burn hydrogen in vehicles. I don't think that private industry can develop a way to extract hydrogen efficiently...it would be a massive undertaking, consuming so much money and resources that it would bankrupt a company. The scientists that developed the atomic bomb didn't look at a conventional bomb and think "How can we use part of this and make it bigger?" They developed an entirely new type of weapon. Perhaps this is an approach that chould be taken; not converting an existing IC engine, but coming up with a different type of engine altogether. If we've landed men on the moon, created vaccines for most life threatening diseases, made cell phones a staple, and flown around the world nonstop, there has got to be an efficient way to power a car without using fossil fuel. |
Karel 'Charly' Will wrote on Thu, 22 May 2008 05:28 |
Well, I don't know the numbers, but families aren't the only ones paying taxes, are they? I guess companies pay a lot more taxes.... Perhaps you should look at that $285B versus all tax income for the state, and compare that to what you pay in taxes to see how much of that $285B YOU are paying... I guess that would be far less than $4000, wouldn't it? |
Karel 'Charly' Will wrote on Thu, 22 May 2008 04:28 |
I don't know the numbers, but families aren't the only ones paying taxes, are they? |
John Roberts {JR} wrote on Wed, 21 May 2008 14:23 |
I only drive 1 day a week but that's a 25 mile roll each way, which would be marginal if my total range is consumed in one round trip. I could probably live with a 100 mile range. JR |
Chris Davis wrote on Thu, 22 May 2008 17:48 |
Now all your viewpoints on gasoline prices and economy are beginning to make sense to me. |
John Roberts {JR} wrote on Thu, 22 May 2008 20:15 |
I recently heard an observation from a wall street type that the modern commodity investment instruments have tied up the same amount of oil as the increase in Chinese consumption over the last few years. |
John Schmidt wrote on Thu, 22 May 2008 22:39 |
That's what really drives me crazy! Investment speculators that are artificially driving prices up. I wonder what prices would be if they were truly driven by supply and demand, (of the actual consumers!!). These people sitting in the middle and simply buying/selling for profit regardless of how it skews the price and effects the ecomony should be strung up, IMHO. John |
Charlie Zureki wrote on Fri, 23 May 2008 10:49 |
I got a kick out of the President's visit with His business Partners, the Saudis, earlier in the week... he asked them to up their Oil output... and they told him NO! Americans are Sheep! Cheers, Hammer |
Andy Zimmerman wrote on Fri, 23 May 2008 12:00 |
Maybe its just the skeptic in me, but I would have a hard time believing that a filthy rich group like the Saudis wouldn't be spreading cash around the corridors of power here in the good ol' US of A to maintain status quo. |
Charlie Zureki wrote on Sat, 24 May 2008 00:17 |
They need us as much as we need OIl. |
Charlie Zureki wrote on Sat, 24 May 2008 02:17 |
John, I suppose you're right in some cases. But, a Fair and Smart American Government could bargain with: remove our Military Bases from Saudi Arabia (for which WE pay them rent, which kept Iraq out and now keeps Iran out) Stop selling them High-Tech Medical Equip. Stop selling Saudi's Military Equip. Stop Selling Saudi's Power Generating Tech. Stop selling Water Desalineation Equip Stop selling Low cost Food Products Stop selling them High speed Computers They need us as much as we need OIl. Cheers, Hammer |
Quote: |
All of which could be sourced elsewhere, not so the oil. The bases are for our benefit! Edit: format issues |
Phil LaDue wrote on Sun, 25 May 2008 10:40 |
So Randy, what were your results? |
Mike. Brown wrote on Sat, 24 May 2008 13:36 |
Heres some shots of the conversion done by Left Coast Electric for Anthony Kiedis of RHCP. I am a firm believer that if we were to produce electric commuter autos we could reduce the burden of fossil fuels. Is a conversion in your future? It is in mine. Oil Rehab, my new catch phrase. |
Charlie Zureki wrote on Sat, 24 May 2008 00:17 |
John, I suppose you're right in some cases. But, a Fair and Smart American Government could bargain with: remove our Military Bases from Saudi Arabia (for which WE pay them rent, which kept Iraq out and now keeps Iran out) Stop selling them High-Tech Medical Equip. Stop selling Saudi's (fucking apostrophe!) Military Equip. Stop Selling Saudi's (watch that apostrophe!) Power Generating Tech. Stop selling Water Desalineation Equip Stop selling Low cost Food Products Stop selling them High speed Computers They need us as much as we need OIl. |
Charlie Zureki wrote on Sun, 25 May 2008 14:39 | ||
Andy, Wow, I've been called a lot of things in my life, but never a terrorist. |
Quote: |
I believe that the welfare of our Country and It's people should come first. |
Quote: |
I do not believe in spending on, or giving Billions of Dollars to Countries that neither want us there nor have Fair Trade rules. I'll remind you that the Majority of the 9/11 Hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq, and not Iran. Yet, they're our Ally? The Western World made them into what they are today, by buying their Oil. If it wasn't for the Western Countries they'd still be herding goats and living in tents. |
Quote: |
Regarding my spelling errors, I didn't realize you were part of the Grammar Police. No need to get nasty, agree with opinions or disagree, but no need for ignorant remarks. |
Quote: |
Now, go eat some Barbeque and resume your drinking. |
Mike. Brown wrote on Sun, 25 May 2008 21:00 |
Phil: I totally agree the new pupose built tech is the way to go. The glorified golf cart technology will only be a niche market. But a Camaro golf cart is really cool, in a hillbilly way. So why is it the commuter electric market is geared to the high end user? Tesla, Volt even the truck is high priced. People at this price point could burn gas all day. The only affordable purpose built solutions are NEV's. They aren't going to cut it. I feel sad we haven't designed something for the regular guy to use for his say 60 mile a day round trip. Just seems really ignorant. Most people in urban centers commute less than that. So I guess until the designs catch up with the market, the regular guy will have to eat it, or come up with his own solution. These solutions may get better as junkyards start selling Prius or other oil rehab car parts. To an engineer, I can imagine this project seems coarse at best!!! LOL It will be a good day, when we only use petrolium for recreational purposes. |
Mike. Brown wrote on Sun, 25 May 2008 22:00 |
Phil: I totally agree the new pupose built tech is the way to go. The glorified golf cart technology will only be a niche market. But a Camaro golf cart is really cool, in a hillbilly way. So why is it the commuter electric market is geared to the high end user? Tesla, Volt even the truck is high priced. People at this price point could burn gas all day. The only affordable purpose built solutions are NEV's. They aren't going to cut it. I feel sad we haven't designed something for the regular guy to use for his say 60 mile a day round trip. Just seems really ignorant. Most people in urban centers commute less than that. So I guess until the designs catch up with the market, the regular guy will have to eat it, or come up with his own solution. These solutions may get better as junkyards start selling Prius or other oil rehab car parts. To an engineer, I can imagine this project seems coarse at best!!! LOL It will be a good day, when we only use petrolium for recreational purposes. |
Mike. Brown wrote on Mon, 26 May 2008 14:06 |
All true. Also, the commuter market is only a small part of the picture. Commercial solutions may be a long way off. |
Charlie Zureki wrote on Sun, 25 May 2008 15:09 |
Randy, ..... Guten Nocht! |
Tony "T" Tissot wrote on Mon, 26 May 2008 22:19 | ||
|
Steve Weiss wrote on Sun, 25 May 2008 21:03 | ||
There has been no news from him for over 10 days on this. Me thinks it was a bust. |