| Author |
Message |
    
Brucelee
| | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 09:41 am: | 
|
More on diesel hybrids
http://ca.autos.yahoo.com/031229/11/w488.html
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/000791.html
The last article cites test vehicles running at 80 MPG on biodiesel that are as clean as hydrogen vehicles.
Cool stuff! |
984_cc
| | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 12:40 pm: |
|
Interesting stuff Bruce. Just let me make one point to everyone not get 'Hydrogen fuel cell' powered electric cars confused with 'Hydrogen fueled' reciprocating engines. |
Blake
| | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 04:19 pm: |
|
Bruce,
I dunno. I just recall watching a race a few years back and noting that some of the boats were running supercharged diesels. Might be that in the unlimited classes that the larger diesel engines have an advantage over the smaller gasoline engines. |
Spike
| | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 05:16 pm: |
|
Blake,
Blown diesels are great for certain applications. Boat racing happens to be one of those applications.
Sports cars are totally different animals. |
Blake
| | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 06:22 pm: |
|
I agree. A sports car is certainly different from a 60 foot ocean racing boat. Rocket engines work best on spacecraft. |
Buellkowski
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 12:59 am: |
|
A hydrogen-fueled reciprocating engine sounds like an explosion waiting to happen. Too many moving parts, too many components "sealed" together to handle such a volatile fuel. Maybe if NASA technicians serviced it, OK, but the dudes at Midas? Please correct me if I'm wrong. A fuel cell is just a fancy beaker holding a chemical reaction. |
984_cc
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 01:39 am: |
|
People just have to get used to the idea of carrying Hydrogen around in a tank. We all carry an explosive tank of gasoline around with us, even between our legs on a motorcycle. We are just used to it. If they package the tank right, it is not an explosion waiting to happen. It would be entirely safe. You need to do more research on the subject. I forgot to add to my last post 'Hydrogen burning' rotary engines as well, as they are not reciprocating engines. The only emission burning Hydrogen would be water vapor. A 'fuel cell' is not simply a beaker holding a chemical reaction. They have been around for a very long time. They used fuel cells in WWII submarines to provide long lasting electrical power. Do some research into it to get detailed information. |
Static
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 02:56 am: |
|
Ok. I've been following this for awhile now and I think I need to point a few things out. As always, let me know if I'm way off. First of all The exhaust emissions of a hydrogen burning reciprocating, internal combustion engine are unfortunately more than just water vapor. I tested a hydrogen converted s-10 pickup and found the emissions to be pretty bad. ( I'll see if I can locate the printout I have) also there has not yet been any talk of the power density difference in hydrogen vs gasoline or diesel fuel. Hydrogen is very volatile ( a good reason not to use it in the goodyear blimp) takes a lot to actually make much power. The s-10 as an example made about 120hp at the wheels on gas ( 2.4 liter engine) on hydrogen it made just over 65hp. This by the way was a stock engine ie. no internal modifications. The biggest problems with the conversion were pre-ignition ( not detonation there is a difference) and a tendency to back fire though the intake. All due primarily to the volatility of the fuel. Another couple of drawbacks to hydrogen are storage( Because so much must be used the storage tanks must be fairly large and therefore take up a lot of space) and upper cylinder wear. The piston crown, ring lands/rings, and valves all take quite a beating. Granted part of these problems are because this engine was not originally designed to run on hydrogen, but at least material wear will still apply to any hydrogen powered vehicle. This brings me to the beloved rotary. Great power to size/weight ratio, but lousy fuel economy, emissions, and last but not least reliability. Cajun style apex seals any one? Plus, this whole discussion started out about diesel power didn't it? |
Austinrider
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 08:07 am: |
|
Sheesh all this talk about fuel consumption.
You guys talk about 22/MPG like its a bad thing. Try driving a pickup!
My 4x4 Dodge Ram - 10-12mpg if I was lucky.
My Ford Ranger 16mpg if I baby it, which I never do.
People who buy cars because they are fast (RX's, C5/6, LS1 Camaro/Firebucket, and Rustangs) dont really buy them for the fuel economy in my experience. Not saying Im a know it all - but when it comes to sports cars and pickup trucks - fuel economy is not what they had in mind when they built em.
YMMV, thats just my 2 cents |
Aaron
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 08:48 am: |
|
You need a diesel pickup ... you'll never go back.
Modern diesels are quiet, clean, powerful, and efficient. |
Court
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 09:31 am: |
|
>>>You need a diesel pickup ... you'll never go back.
You've even got me, with that gorgeous pickup you bought, thinking that way. Problem is, I can't make the one I have die.
|
Dasbuell
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 09:36 am: |
|
This is the diesel I want!!!
The current issue M1030 M1 Diesel Kawasaki motorcycle approved by the US Military. It's expected to be adopted by Great Britain and the Pentagon's peace keeping forces as well. This machine is being deployed with forces near Afghanistan now. It's basically a Kawasaki KLS 650 that has been modified to run on diesel fuel instead of gasoline.
They have surplus sales of these once they have been well used. There was one in I think North Carolina that went for about $800.00 at auction. Too far from KC! I wonder why more civilian diesel bikes don't happen. Besides emissions and lower HP ratings? I really want one of those!!!
CLAIMED 24 HP AND 120 MPG... TOP SPEED 80MPH, regeared tranny and claimed more durable engine than gasoline model
(formerly dasxb9s - still a bit touched in the head)
(Message edited by dasbuell on August 15, 2004) |
Phillyblast
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 10:29 am: |
|
>>>You need a diesel pickup ... you'll never go back.
>>You've even got me, with that gorgeous pickup you bought . .
Anyone care to help me lobby the automakers to put a diesel in a 1/2 ton or smaller pickup? The Jeep Liberty is a step in the right direction, but what are the chances of the Dodge Dakota seeing this powertrain? I had an F-250 extended cab - it was longer than my street is wide, try getting that thing out of the driveway! I need another truck, want a diesel (FMJs is pretty slick, too with the carbon fiber interior pieces) but I'd prefer a 1/2 ton or even mid-size vehicle, not a 3/4 ton. Didn't Ford, Isuzu, Mazda, and Nissan used to make a diesel mini truck? |
Geoffg
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 11:14 am: |
|
Didn't Ford, Isuzu, Mazda, and Nissan used to make a diesel mini truck?
Yes they did, and so did Toyota.
Unfortunately, in North America small diesels are a tough sell--so they don't get imported. Marketing here is all based on numbers--everyone's trying to one-up everyone else with higher torque and horsepower numbers. My 95 Dodge diesel is rated at only 175 hp, but in 96 the same engine was upped to 200...I think they're now around 250 or something. Personally, I find mine to be plenty powerful, and I expect it may last longer due to being less stressed.
And as to the comments about hydrogen fuel--we ALL burn hydrogen as fuel, not matter what we put in our tanks. Gasoline and diesel oil are hydrocarbons, basically a convenient way to carry around hydrogen. Strip the hydrogen out of the hydrocarbon, you're left with carbon and oxygen--carbon dioxide and monoxide, greenhouse gases! Carrying hydrogen around in other forms is difficult and heavy--it doesn't liquefy at reasonable pressures, so to carry it as a gas it needs high-pressure tanks and plumbing, and it tends to leak through steel (very small molecule--the smallest, in fact!). It can be dissolved into a solid (I can't remember the metal used), but that gets VERY heavy. In fact, last I knew the fuel cell guys were looking at simply using gasoline and catelyzing the H2 out of it right in the car, and dumping the CO2 out the exhaust--there's those greenhouse gases again!
Hmmm |
Brucelee
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 12:35 pm: |
|
I really think the next new thing will be diesel hybrids. In the lab, these things are fast and fuel efficient, and clean.
If you move to biodiesel, of course, they are even cleaner.
5-10 yrs at most before these guys are the next major change in technology.
And, they can be made to be very fast, simply by the size of the electric and diesel motors.
Last point, I just came back from the kart track, where I drove an electric kart for the first time.
WOW, does that thing accelerate!!!!!!!!!
I still have a headache. |
Blake
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 01:03 pm: |
|
Here's a mind blower...
All diesel is biodiesel.
Is not all petroleum formed from decayed and buried organic (biological) materials... plants and animals? Some is derived from newer/fresher biological matter, some is refined from old products of biological matter, but it is all biodiesel.
So what we are doing is simply returning carbon to the environment.
Ever wonder why the dinosaurs could grow so large? Could it be that all the carbon in the environment back then, carbon that has subsequently been burried actually made for a more ideal environment?
Plants thrive and grow more vigorously in a carbon-dioxide rich atmosphere. Plants that grow more vigorously release more oxygen to the atmosphere and provide more food for us animals to eat.
Next pickup truck I buy will be a diesel, but I have the same problem as Court. No mountains around here to wear out a vehicle like happens in Colorado. |
|
