Interesting car and engine technology

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

http://www.ronnmotors.com/cms/

I mentioned hydrogen injection a few years ago as a way to increase power and economy, finally someoe's actually producing it. cool!

[brennahm]

Uhhh, they expected to produce 200 cars in 2009...how'd that work out?

At least they have a testimonial from a guy in a dragon t-shirt, was his lone wolf shirt at the cleaners?

[OUTLAWD]

you can't violate the laws of thermo...sorry.

A guy up in red feather developed a similar system and I was in charge of testing it out on an engine...actually increased fuel consumption :lol:

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

you can't violate the laws of thermo...sorry.

A guy up in red feather developed a similar system and I was in charge of testing it out on an engine...actually increased fuel consumption :lol:
The original article I read was from researchers from, if I remember, MIT, so if they thought it had promise, it's a good bet it's worthin looking into. It seemed a way to help with part-throttle applications, where the problem is getting the engine to run at all on extremely lean mixtures. Done right, it should help with fuel economy, as you wouldn't have to inject more fuel than needed for the actual required power form the engine just to keep if from sputtering and dying. It's not a violation of thermo laws, just being able to actually ignite a super-lean mixture that you wouldn't be able to ignite with spark-ignition alone. I think it still has a lot of promise, but as always, it's the implementation that's key to actually making it work. did you work at the engine lab at CSU? I know they do a lot of work with Woodward.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Uhhh, they expected to produce 200 cars in 2009...how'd that work out?

At least they have a testimonial from a guy in a dragon t-shirt, was his lone wolf shirt at the cleaners?
Nothing of any technical value to contribute?

[rforsythe]

The original article I read was from researchers from, if I remember, MIT, so if they thought it had promise, it's a good bet it's worthin looking into. It seemed a way to help with part-throttle applications, where the problem is getting the engine to run at all on extremely lean mixtures. Done right, it should help with fuel economy, as you wouldn't have to inject more fuel than needed for the actual required power form the engine just to keep if from sputtering and dying. It's not a violation of thermo laws, just being able to actually ignite a super-lean mixture that you wouldn't be able to ignite with spark-ignition alone. I think it still has a lot of promise, but as always, it's the implementation that's key to actually making it work. did you work at the engine lab at CSU? I know they do a lot of work with Woodward.

So is it using hot flaming H as the ignition source for a lean fuel mixture, or just enriching the mixture with H as well and igniting that? Also while it does save on gasoline, you are still burning H which has to come from somewhere, be purchased, stored, and utilized. It may gain some efficiency or may not (I don't know), but does the added complexity really make it worthwhile?

[Ghost]

http://www.geekosystem.com/world-record-coffee-car/

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

So is it using hot flaming H as the ignition source for a lean fuel mixture, or just enriching the mixture with H as well and igniting that? Also while it does save on gasoline, you are still burning H which has to come from somewhere, be purchased, stored, and utilized. It may gain some efficiency or may not (I don't know), but does the added complexity really make it worthwhile?
Well, it's not a plasma-ignited (flaming H?) engine. Rather, from the original article from MIT (I think) they just injected a little H into the cylinder, like you would nitrous, to help the spark-ignition actually burn the gasoline. H ignites so easily, in such low mistures, it ignites the random microscopic fuel droplets that would be too lean to ignite with spark-ignition alone. One of the major problems in MotoGP (major cut in fuel tank size) was first solved by Ducati with their FI system almost completely shutting down the engine on deccelleration, saving that fuel so it could be used for accelleration. That's why the Duc Stoner rode to his title was such a rocket......and why a lot of the other bikes ran out or low on gas. Yes there's some energy used to get the hydrogen out of the water carried onboard, but you'd have to look at the real tradeoff in that loss vs. saving gas. Theoretically, there could be some serious gains there, as touted. I haven't seem any real technical articles on the car, so it may be just claims, but I think the process has real potential if it can be implemented correctly. And, from the claims, yes, the complexity (not much, actually) would seem very worth it.

[MattTLS]

http://www.vandynesuperturbo.com/

Completely different than what you're bringing up, but interesting nonetheless. I talked to a former classmate who is working on the R&D. And even better yet, this is being done right in Fort Collins.

[OUTLAWD]

The energy that it takes to make the hydrogen on board, is more than the energy you can recover by injecting it into the engine. in theory (guys at MIT) it makes sense for transient applications, but in practise, not so much...I have yet to see any data I believe to make it worthwhile.

and yes, I work at the EECL



http://www.vandynesuperturbo.com/

Completely different than what you're bringing up, but interesting nonetheless. I talked to a former classmate who is working on the R&D. And even better yet, this is being done right in Fort Collins.

Also total waste of resources...they are still very far from having anything worthwhile...My friend worked for Ed VanDyne for 2 years as a grad student, with the understanding that he would have a job upon graduating...he got laid off shortly after graduating

[The GECCO]

The energy that it takes to make the hydrogen on board, is more than the energy you can recover by injecting it into the engine.

Exactly right.

The propaganda is that Hydrogen as a fuel is the way to go because it's the most plentiful substance on the planet. This is true, but it's not the WHOLE truth.

Hydrogen is only an energy SOURCE when it's all by itself (which is quite rare). It's true that it's very plentiful, the problem is that 99.99999% of all the hydrogen on the planet is firmly locked to Oxygen molecules in the ratio of 2-to-1 (H2O, sound familiar?)

In order to get Hydrogen by itself, you have to break the bond with the Oxygen and this takes a rather large amount of energy, usually in the form of electricity. So, you take water and add electricity to get pure Hydrogen and Oxygen.

Then the Hydrogen can be burned, which, as Outlawd points out, doesn't yield as much heat energy as was required to separate the Hydrogen/Oxygen bond in the first place, so it's a net loss.

A Hydrogen fuel cell can take that same raw Hydrogen and combine it with Oxygen to produce electricity and water...the same things you started with earlier before you added electricity. In this sense, Hydrogen is an energy store, not an energy source. The actual energy SOURCE is the electricity required to separate the Hydrogen in the first place - where did THAT come from?

Hydrogen as an energy SOURCE is sort of like saying the kid at the top of the hill on his skates is a SOURCE of kinetic energy. Sure, kinetic energy is present when he rolls down the hill, but he's not PRODUCING kinetic energy, all he's doing is RECOVERING the kinetic energy that he expended climbing the hill in the first place.

If you really want to get literal - there is ONE (and only one) energy SOURCE in our solar system, and it is the sun. Everything else - natural gas, oil, wood, paper, plants, our clothes and even our bodies - are nothing more than different forms of storing energy that originally came from the sun. All we're doing here is trying to figure out the most efficient ways to convert all these energy stores into some other form of energy that we can harness.

[vort3xr6]

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2007/11/dei.jpg

[Penadam]

I believe the most interesting use of Hydrogen will be as an energy storage method. Currently, the US electrical grid has very limited energy storage potential (mostly pumped hyrdo). With the increasing use of renewable energy, which generates electricity when it wants, not in line with grid demand, energy storage becomes valuable. Another advantage is a lower required generation capacity as you don't need to size your grid for peak load, you can just tap your energy reserves.

Additionally, with hydrogen you have a fuel that can be used in both stationary and mobile applications. Combined with nuclear power, you have both a clean and relatively cheap energy source which could serve as a partial replacement for fossil fuels..


http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2007/11/dei.jpg

This isn't that far from the truth. A modern diesel engine runs something like 50% EGR.

[rforsythe]

Hydrogen as an energy SOURCE is sort of like saying the kid at the top of the hill on his skates is a SOURCE of kinetic energy. Sure, kinetic energy is present when he rolls down the hill, but he's not PRODUCING kinetic energy, all he's doing is RECOVERING the kinetic energy that he expended climbing the hill in the first place.

So if I get what I think you're saying here, we can just push a bunch of kids on skates down hills and recover their energy for hydrogen production?

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

The energy that it takes to make the hydrogen on board, is more than the energy you can recover by injecting it into the engine. in theory (guys at MIT) it makes sense for transient applications, but in practise, not so much...I have yet to see any data I believe to make it worthwhile.

and yes, I work at the EECL




Also total waste of resources...they are still very far from having anything worthwhile...My friend worked for Ed VanDyne for 2 years as a grad student, with the understanding that he would have a job upon graduating...he got laid off shortly after graduating
I think everyone is still totally missing the point. I understand the thermodynamics angle as well. Hydrogen isn't being used as an energy source per se, it's only used to facilitate/allow combustion of ultra-lean mixtures that would not otherwise be combustable via typical spark-ignition. If you can run an engine far leaner than normally possible in part-throttle applications, isn't that a benefit? How often do you operate at WOT?

I also worked with Ed VanDyne (brilliant guy), and, actually think it's a great idea if it can be implemented efficiently. I've actually seen some of the parts. Basically, it would perform like a variable-vane turbo, but more with the instant response of a supercharger (no waiting for boost pressure). Or, how about a turbo where there were tiny but powerful magnets on the tips of the vanes (basically making it an electric motor OR generator), and the system has a large capacitor array, so when the engine is operating at low RPM/low boost, the caps can instantly add RPM to the turbo until pressure upstream of the turbo can build high enough for the turbo to act normally. The efficiency of a turbo, with the instant response of a supercharger. Hmmmm? I remember reading an article where people were working on something similar, unlike the mechanically-driven Superturbocharger VanDyne is working on. And, there are a lot of superchargers out there that are NOT positive-displacement-type (like a roots-type on a Top Fuel car) superchargers, but a mechanically-driven (you guessed it) turbo. VanDynes' is just variable in it's speed ratios (not limited to being under-driven or over-driven at a fixed ratio). And, a bit of trivia: If I remember right, the roots-type were actually designed as scavenge pumps for large ship-type 2-stroke diesels.

[OUTLAWD]

but the thing that van dyne is trying to do to set itself apart involves turbo compounding..trying to take the excess energy from the turbine spinning and mechanically feeding it back to the crank...I have seen some of the parts too...rather all of them, on an engine...nifty idea, but far too complex/ineffective for on road vehicles, especially for the price range he was aiming for.

the BNSF locomotives you see rolling around use mechanically coupled turbos, and they were designed in the 60's...nothing new here, and they use 2.5 - 4 gallons/min at full power :lol: maybe we should stop caring about cars that are already decently efficient

Sort of like what Penadam was getting at, the major improvements we see in the near future are not going to be miniscule improvements in operating efficiency, but advances in energy storage techniques that really make a difference.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

but the thing that van dyne is trying to do to set itself apart involves turbo compounding..trying to take the excess energy from the turbine spinning and mechanically feeding it back to the crank...I have seen some of the parts too...rather all of them, on an engine...nifty idea, but far too complex/ineffective for on road vehicles, especially for the price range he was aiming for.

the BNSF locomotives you see rolling around use mechanically coupled turbos, and they were designed in the 60's...nothing new here, and they use 2.5 - 4 gallons/min at full power :lol: maybe we should stop caring about cars that are already decently efficient

Sort of like what Penadam was getting at, the major improvements we see in the near future are not going to be miniscule improvements in operating efficiency, but advances in energy storage techniques that really make a difference.
Yeah, Ed might be a little too adventurous there. I was in some of the pre-patent meetings on some of that. I know he was looking at the NewVinci drive system for infinite variability, but it probably wouldn't take the torque.

Hah! Yeah, the cars are getting very efficient for sure. Hell, I'm happy my RAV4 is getting 22-23mpg in mixed driving, far better than my '05 Dakota QC 4X4 ever got on the highway!

Well, I can relate with the "storage thing", but I still think there's lots to be gotten out of the ICE still, but it'll be incremental advances for sure. But, they all add up. I'd like to see some more tech data about the H injection, which the article seemed a little sparse on while heavy on claims.

I really like the idea of an exhaust-driven turbo, but with an electrical system to kick-start it for better response as I mentioned. I'll have to look more into that and see what people are doing in that area.

[Penadam]

Look at Volkswagen twincharger. Supercharger at low speeds and turbo at high speeds.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Look at Volkswagen twincharger. Supercharger at low speeds and turbo at high speeds.
Interesting. It's basically a compound boost system though.

This is more what I meant:
http://www.syty.org/archives/syty/9911/msg00723.html

[Penadam]

Interesting. It's basically a compound boost system though.

This is more what I meant:
http://www.syty.org/archives/syty/9911/msg00723.html


It's just a different approach to the same problem.

With an electrically driven turbo, you run into a few problems:

1a) You need to generate enough electricity to spin that turbo up and create boost. This requires a lot of power(more than an equivalent supercharger due to conversion losses) and requires a much larger alternator, or some combo of batter pack/capacitor.

1b) If you're just intending to spin the turbo up to speed without creating boost, you would be better off with either a VGT (can create boot at low RPM/flow) or a bypass line (lets the turbo spin up fast without creating any boost)

2) Why would you want to add lots of mass and inertia to a turbo? They're designed to change speed extremely quickly to aid in their response. Added any weight will only hurt the performance.

3) Why would you want to try and run a turbo over the entire engine operation range? A compressor good at operating at higher engine speeds (flow rates) will not operate well at low speeds even if you're driving it with a motor. This is why so many manufactures are moving to solutions involving 2 turbos or a turbo supercharger solution. You can design a device to operation at low engine speeds (positive displacement supercharger specialty, small turbo works well also) and one to operate at higher engine speeds (centrifugal turbo specialty).

4) Motors that can operation at those high speeds are expensive, as would be any geartrain. They would also need to withstand the rough conditions within the turbo.

It's an interesting concept, but it would offer marginal gains at best. I would much rather see R&D money spent on a revolutionary technology rather one with high costs and limited benefit.

[stubbicatt]

A modern diesel engine runs something like 50% EGR.

When I was OTR not so long ago I ran Kenworth and Peterbilt, then recent models, both CAT and Cummins engines and I didn't notice this recycling of exhaust. I do remember that damn DPF though!

[Penadam]

When I was OTR not so long ago I ran Kenworth and Peterbilt, then recent models, both CAT and Cummins engines and I didn't notice this recycling of exhaust. I do remember that damn DPF though!

were they off road or on highway? When I worked at Cummins, the engine for the ram was towards having close to 50%erg In some situations.

[mxer]

Exactly right.

The propaganda is that Hydrogen as a fuel is the way to go because it's the most plentiful substance on the planet. This is true, but it's not the WHOLE truth.

Hydrogen is only an energy SOURCE when it's all by itself (which is quite rare). It's true that it's very plentiful, the problem is that 99.99999% of all the hydrogen on the planet is firmly locked to Oxygen molecules in the ratio of 2-to-1 (H2O, sound familiar?)

In order to get Hydrogen by itself, you have to break the bond with the Oxygen and this takes a rather large amount of energy, usually in the form of electricity. So, you take water and add electricity to get pure Hydrogen and Oxygen.

Then the Hydrogen can be burned, which, as Outlawd points out, doesn't yield as much heat energy as was required to separate the Hydrogen/Oxygen bond in the first place, so it's a net loss.

A Hydrogen fuel cell can take that same raw Hydrogen and combine it with Oxygen to produce electricity and water...the same things you started with earlier before you added electricity. In this sense, Hydrogen is an energy store, not an energy source. The actual energy SOURCE is the electricity required to separate the Hydrogen in the first place - where did THAT come from?

Hydrogen as an energy SOURCE is sort of like saying the kid at the top of the hill on his skates is a SOURCE of kinetic energy. Sure, kinetic energy is present when he rolls down the hill, but he's not PRODUCING kinetic energy, all he's doing is RECOVERING the kinetic energy that he expended climbing the hill in the first place.

If you really want to get literal - there is ONE (and only one) energy SOURCE in our solar system, and it is the sun. Everything else - natural gas, oil, wood, paper, plants, our clothes and even our bodies - are nothing more than different forms of storing energy that originally came from the sun. All we're doing here is trying to figure out the most efficient ways to convert all these energy stores into some other form of energy that we can harness.

Actually the most efficient method of producing hydrogen is steam/fuel reforming teamed with water gas shift to make hydrocarbons into CO2 and H2. So it's not considered a "clean" fuel. However if you can reform fuel and separate it using membrane technology and run the H2 through a PEM Fuel Cell while burning the the remaining gases for the reforming process is a net generator of energy.

[The GECCO]

Actually the most efficient method of producing hydrogen is steam/fuel reforming teamed with water gas shift to make hydrocarbons into CO2 and H2. So it's not considered a "clean" fuel. However if you can reform fuel and separate it using membrane technology and run the H2 through a PEM Fuel Cell while burning the the remaining gases for the reforming process is a net generator of energy.

Cool. So it is a net positive, but any ideas on how efficient it actually is? Is it a technology worth pursuing?

[mxer]

Yeah, companies are investing millions of dollars in membrane technology. Steam/fuel reforming has been around for decades. The efficiency advantage is gained in the fuel cell. A PEM fuel cell has an efficiency of 50-70% where as a gas engine is below 20% (I don't know what a hybrid's efficiency is). Right now this technology is best suited for stationary power sources however and has a long way of becoming viable for vehicle use.

I should have said the most economical method of producing h2 is fuel/steam reforming. The most efficient IMO is using electricity generated via solar power for the electrolysis of water.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

It's just a different approach to the same problem.

With an electrically driven turbo, you run into a few problems:

1a) You need to generate enough electricity to spin that turbo up and create boost. This requires a lot of power(more than an equivalent supercharger due to conversion losses) and requires a much larger alternator, or some combo of batter pack/capacitor.

1b) If you're just intending to spin the turbo up to speed without creating boost, you would be better off with either a VGT (can create boot at low RPM/flow) or a bypass line (lets the turbo spin up fast without creating any boost)

2) Why would you want to add lots of mass and inertia to a turbo? They're designed to change speed extremely quickly to aid in their response. Added any weight will only hurt the performance.

3) Why would you want to try and run a turbo over the entire engine operation range? A compressor good at operating at higher engine speeds (flow rates) will not operate well at low speeds even if you're driving it with a motor. This is why so many manufactures are moving to solutions involving 2 turbos or a turbo supercharger solution. You can design a device to operation at low engine speeds (positive displacement supercharger specialty, small turbo works well also) and one to operate at higher engine speeds (centrifugal turbo specialty).

4) Motors that can operation at those high speeds are expensive, as would be any geartrain. They would also need to withstand the rough conditions within the turbo.

It's an interesting concept, but it would offer marginal gains at best. I would much rather see R&D money spent on a revolutionary technology rather one with high costs and limited benefit.
Yes.....except the parasitic drag is always present with a supercharger, whereas I believe the hp required to drive a generator depends on load. So, you'd only use/need the power to spin up the turbo in those situations with an instantaneous need for boost when the turbo is operating outside of it's effecient range.

Here's another thought: use a compressor and compressed air to blow on the exhaust side to give instant boost. OTR trucks already have a compressor and large air supply for the brakes. A big blast of air should spin it right up, and cool down the turbo. Win/win! This would only require hp form the engine on a temporary basis. If the turbo is kept in it's prime operating range in a constant RPM, then the system would not be used much, if at all. If the instant response of a supercharger is needed, as in a sports car with wildly varying RPM, then it would be used more, until the turbo could kick in on it's own. Like I said, this is not meant as a power adding device, but to eliminate turbo lag without the parasitic grag of a supercharger. Just a thought......

[OUTLAWD]

Here's another thought: use a compressor and compressed air to blow on the exhaust side to give instant boost. OTR trucks already have a compressor and large air supply for the brakes. A big blast of air should spin it right up, and cool down the turbo. Win/win! This would only require hp form the engine on a temporary basis. If the turbo is kept in it's prime operating range in a constant RPM, then the system would not be used much, if at all. If the instant response of a supercharger is needed, as in a sports car with wildly varying RPM, then it would be used more, until the turbo could kick in on it's own. Like I said, this is not meant as a power adding device, but to eliminate turbo lag without the parasitic grag of a supercharger. Just a thought......

volume of air needed to operate air brakes <<<<< volume and flowrate to spin a turbo...

ICE technology is a thing of the past ladies...stop trying to save it...lol

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

volume of air needed to operate air brakes <<<<< volume and flowrate to spin a turbo...

ICE technology is a thing of the past ladies...stop trying to save it...lol
Reminds me of the song Red Barchetta from Rush. I'll keep my anachronistic ICE's thanks! :)

Agreed.......if it was constant. Like I said you'd just need a "shot" every so often when you really needed boost faster than the turbo could spin up by itself. so, you just have a big enough tank for use as a pressure "capacitor".

From what I was told all the rally cars dump gas in the turbo housing downstream of the exhaust valve and ignite it as needed to provided that instant kick. That, and they're basically overboosting all the time and just blowing air out the wastegates full-time. But, also from what I was told, that's extremely hard on the turbo from the thermal loads. This from an Engineer friend from WG who designed and built his own ECU for his car, and designed and machined the manifold for the blower he mounted to his 4-dr convertible hotrod. He's the smartest redneck I know.