Hydrogen fuel cell car! HAHA!

Discussion in 'The Bucket' started by Ryland, May 4, 2011.

to remove this notice and enjoy 3reef content with less ads. 3reef membership is free.

  1. Ryland

    Ryland Stylophora

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Messages:
    962
    Location:
    Southeast Iowa

    True. He merely waited for the lightning to strike and then reached for the key. Obviously he got a jolt out of it.
     
  2. Click Here!

  3. leighton1245

    leighton1245 Horrid Stonefish

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    2,081
    Here is some more questions for you interested in some set in stone answers on your project.

    You say a mix of city and highway driving what times do you normally test and do you use a few different roads?

    Lets forget about all the stuff thats in the pictures for a min because im sure that we all understand you have a switch and container of some kind and how its said to works.

    Do you have a flow meter(didnt see it pictured) if so how much is flowing per CC?

    How did you test to ensure that what is coming out is truly gas hydrogen?

    I see that you said you get 6mpg more with your device on so what does your air to fuel raito look like when its on vs off?

    Thanks for answering the above also :)
     
  4. Ryland

    Ryland Stylophora

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Messages:
    962
    Location:
    Southeast Iowa

    Lets see. Often I drive to work when testing this theory. This includes a few miles of city but mostly highway. I take the exact same route home. Then once home I will drive around a little more until the car starts to stall. The time of day for this is 5 AM and 2 PM.

    No flow meter.

    How did I test to see if its hydrogen? I lit a match. In fact it puts off more than enough for sustained small explosions. Kind of sounds like firecrackers.

    I messed with the air to fuel ratio some at the beginning but I have since been leaving it alone. I dont have the specific measurements your asking for.
     
  5. leighton1245

    leighton1245 Horrid Stonefish

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    2,081
    nice good to see you have some minor controls in place.

    How did you adjust the air fuel ratio?
    As for specific measurements like what were your afr(air/fuel ratios) before, after and during injection?

    what device was used to monitor the afr's?

    Also your timing how did you advance or retard it?

    Thats also cool you got hydrogen gas but unfortunate you dont know how much thats where a meter would come in handy.

    Thanks again
     
  6. alpha_03

    alpha_03 Bubble Tip Anemone

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2010
    Messages:
    650
    Location:
    midwest
    Power Man I appreciate your copy and paste explanation, it will help us to understand where you are coming from- I already know this.

    However, that is based upon total mechanical output as measured when the car/truck runs down the road not actual engine efficiency. Either way the NEVIS system doubles this to around 41%. The test model car seats 2 and gets 117 MPG. Your description to the novice indicates that only 20 percent of the fuel burned is actually being used to create power- this way of enplaning efficiency is very misleading.

    If you test only the engine, on a dynometer, efficiently is much, much higher. And yes I understand this is not how fuel economy/efficiency is rated in layman's term. If you look at what I posted as an alternative, the engine is not really in the drive train mix- it only turns the AC/DC alternator, then a motor, not an engine.

    However, efficiency is a measurement that has a sole purpose of energy output of it's design principles from it's on set.

    If you read the following, you will understand why I required your meaning:

    Volumetric efficiency in internal combustion engine design refers to the efficiency with which the engine can move the charge into and out of the cylinders. More specifically, volumetric efficiency is a ratio (or percentage) of what quantity of fuel and air actually enters the cylinder during induction to the actual capacity of the cylinder under static conditions. Therefore, those engines that can create higher induction manifold pressures - above ambient - will have efficiencies greater than 100%. Volumetric efficiencies can be improved in a number of ways, but most notably the size of the valve openings compared to the volume of the cylinder and streamlining the ports. Engines with higher volumetric efficiency will generally be able to run at higher speeds (commonly measured in RPM) and produce more overall power due to less parasitic power loss moving air in and out of the engine.
    There are several standard ways to improve volumetric efficiency. A common approach for manufacturers is to use larger valves or multiple valves. Larger valves increase flow but weigh more. Multi-valve engines combine two or more smaller valves with areas greater than a single, large valve while having less weight. Carefully streamlining the ports increases flow capability. This is referred to as Porting and is done with the aid of an air flow bench for testing.
    Many high performance cars use carefully arranged air intakes and tuned exhaust systems to push air into and out of the cylinders, making use of the resonance of the system. Two-stroke engines take this concept even further with expansion chambers that return the escaping air-fuel mixture back to the cylinder. A more modern technique, variable valve timing, attempts to address changes in volumetric efficiency with changes in speed of the engine: at higher speeds the engine needs the valves open for a greater percentage of the cycle time to move the charge in and out of the engine.
    Volumetric efficiencies above 100% can be reached by using forced induction such as supercharging or turbocharging. With proper tuning, volumetric efficiencies above 100% can also be reached by naturally-aspirated engines. The limit for naturally-aspirated engines is about 137%[1]; these engines are typically of a DOHC layout with four valves per cylinder.
    More "radical" solutions include the sleeve valve design, in which the valves are replaced outright with a rotating sleeve around the piston, or alternately a rotating sleeve under the cylinder head. In this system the ports can be as large as necessary, up to that of the entire cylinder wall. However there is a practical upper limit due to the strength of the sleeve, at larger sizes the pressure inside the cylinder can "pop" the sleeve if the port is too large.
    Volumetric Efficiency is frequently abbreviated as "VE" when discussing engine efficiency.
    Volumetric efficiency in a hydraulic pump refers to the percentage of actual fluid flow out of the pump compared to the flow out of the pump without leakage. In other words, if the flow out of a 100cc pump is 92cc (per revolution), then the volumetric efficiency is 92%. The volumetric efficiency will change with the pressure and speed a pump is operated at, therefore when comparing volumetric efficiencies, the pressure and speed information must be available. When a single number is given for volumetric efficiency, it will typically be at the rated pressure and speed.
     
  7. alpha_03

    alpha_03 Bubble Tip Anemone

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2010
    Messages:
    650
    Location:
    midwest
    Ryland, what kind of car is this- year make and model please.

    thank you.
     
  8. Click Here!

  9. Powerman

    Powerman Giant Squid

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2008
    Messages:
    3,460
    Location:
    Colorado
    OK... volumetric efficiency has absolutely nothing to do with anything.... other than some engineer working of valve trains.

    Nothing misleading at all about what I said. It's all about MPG. I just couple the engine to a drive train... but I think I made it clear drive train loss is not a function of engine efficiency.

    All heat engines are bound by the Carnot cycle and all have inherent entropy. Energy that can't be recovered. THEORETICAL efficiency is only 37% in a ICE... that's in a perfect world cycle... which does not exist in the real world.

    I can't make this any more simple for you than this.... engine efficiency is chemical energy input compared to mechanical energy out .. the measure of how effeciently the device is doing it's job.... there is no amount of explaining or fancy math or volumetric efficencies that will change that fact.

    And the fact is that your claim of a 92% efficient internal combustion engine... is not only false, but not even possible in the realm of physics. And you want to tell me what I said is misleading????

    Show me the data on NEVIS so I can see what efficiency they are talking about. From what I can tell it is no different than current sytems in locomotives which do the same thing. Diesel engines are more efficient... but upper 30s are as good as it gets even with trubos and the works. Locomotives are much more efficent overalll because they don't have the drive train losses and the engine can operate in much better power bands.... but the diesel engine is no more efficent than any other diesel engine.

    I'm still waiting for you to disprove what I said as you told me earlier.... or you could just admit you are wrong. You have been quoting Wiki... so I gave it back. It states highest efficiency is 37%... but most average 18-20% efficient... I gave it higher of 20-30% and I was talking about the engine, not the whole drive train. ICE are extremely inefficient at converting chemical energy (heat) to mechanical energy... but it is all we have needed for a long time.
     
  10. Powerman

    Powerman Giant Squid

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2008
    Messages:
    3,460
    Location:
    Colorado

    Diesel engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Power and fuel economy

    The MAN S80ME-C7 low speed diesel engines use 155 gram fuel per kWh for an overall energy conversion efficiency of 54.4 percent, which is the highest conversion of fuel into power by any internal or external combustion engine.[1] Diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline (petrol) engines of the same power rating, resulting in lower fuel consumption. A common margin is 40 percent more miles per gallon for an efficient turbodiesel. For example, the current model Škoda Octavia, using Volkswagen Group engines, has a combined Euro rating of 6.2 L/100 km (38 miles per US gallon, 16 km/L) for the 102 bhp (76 kW) petrol engine and 4.4 L/100 km (54 mpg, 23 km/L) for the 105 bhp (78 kW) diesel engine.
    However, such a comparison does not take into account that diesel fuel is denser and contains about 15 percent more energy by volume. Although the calorific value of the fuel is slightly lower at 45.3 MJ/kg (megajoules per kilogram) than petrol at 45.8 MJ/kg, liquid diesel fuel is significantly denser than liquid petrol. This is significant because volume of fuel, in addition to mass, is an important consideration in mobile applications. No vehicle has an unlimited volume available for fuel storage.
    Adjusting the numbers to account for the energy density of diesel fuel, the overall energy efficiency is still about 20 percent greater for the diesel version.
     
  11. blackraven1425

    blackraven1425 Giant Squid

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    4,780
    You found a single example of an engine that is >25% less efficient than your claim of 92%.

    Sent from a phone.
     
  12. Powerman

    Powerman Giant Squid

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2008
    Messages:
    3,460
    Location:
    Colorado
    So I read about the NEVIS engine... interesting.... however, all it keeps touting is to double fuel efficiency and it can get 117MPG. Huge huge gaping holes for interpretation. First not too many cars out there right now getting 54 mpg.

    Double fuel efficiency of what.. the most efficient engine, or the worst? Gas or diesel? Large range to cover there.

    117 mpg out of what? A 3500 lb car on 35 psi tires with drive train loss.... or a sled that weighs a 100 lbs on aluminum wheels and a smooth as glass test track with no wind loss and low speeds.... just saying.

    Not at all knocking the "prototype" engine... looks really cool. Sounds very interesting... and heck if we could double our fuel efficiency on average of our transportation... that would be HUGE. Even to be able to run multiple fuels... really sounds pretty cool. I'm being totally serious.

    You just need to be careful of making claims and throwing out numbers without looking into what goes into the numbers and what claims you are actually making. The Devil is always in the details.