MikeC

That doesn't sound right, are you sure on that? At what pressure is the hydrogen, atmospheric?

BTW, a watt is a rate of energy consumption, not an amount of energy. A litre of anything can't hold any amount of watts. You need to talk in joules or watt hours I believe.

That's an efficiency of 40% which isn't bad. Petrol engines run from 30% down to very low figures.

Others have stated that you can get hydrogen from algea. You can also get it from solar panels or hydro electric or wind or whatever. It doesn't matter so much about the efficiency if it is free.

The whole problem is you have to store the energy somewhere. You can't just run the car off solar panels because it will only work during daylight and won't have enough energy anyway.

Unlikely to be a problem, what is the power of the electric engine in a prius? Ships now run thousands of horsepower into electric motors and trains run off electric motors.

Don't worry, something will come about, there is too much money to be made...

shm21284

Wow, there are a lot of educated arguments here, and a lot of misreading. Also a lot of people that need to understand thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, and chemistry a lot more before they try to make an argument (none of which I am an expert on, hopefully in 4 more years I will be). My school has a TON of presentations on hydrogen as a fuel source, especially fuel cells (which, from what I know, find useless and prefer the rotary hydrogen engine). Maybe people should attend more seminars like these? I haven't been to one because I'm honestly not that interested. People make it seem like we are going to run out of petroleum sometime soon, but Alaska and Siberia are barely being tapped. And, if hydrogen does become demanded enough to where we use it as a fuel, its not going to be for another 50 years. There's far too much development needed in order to produce it efficiently, make power with it in a car safely and efficiently; besides, there's way too much money in the internal combustion engine and petroleum.

EpitrochoidMan

Given re-fueling options, cost and availibility of fuels, and overall fuel economy and emissions the best option for future cars are small hybrids.

Hybrid cars that pair a small electric engine to a small turbo diesel.

EpitrochoidMan

^^ especially with all the bio diesel technology available


I also agree that there is alot of misreading on this thread. At this point in history hydrogen fuel cells are nothing but cool expensive experiments, not hardly a viable option yet.

MikeC

Well every technology started off this way and, if I'm not mistaken, fuel cells have been used for years in space. So they've gone past the experimental stage, they just haven't reached the mass market stage yet.

EpitrochoidMan

I know very little about space technology, but I'm pretty sure that they do not use hydrogen fuel cells. The "fuel cells" used in research and deep space satellites are radioactive.

Hydrogen fuel cells ARE STILL in the experimental stage, and are not very economically viable.

Hybrid electric- compression ignition engines are currently the best option we should be focusing on.

If you're intrested in finding out more, there is plenty of reading material here:

http://www.sae.org

cosmicbang

This has been painful reading, but in the interest of education:

NASA has been using fuel cells in spacecraft since the 60's. These fuel cells use hydrogen and oxygen to produce electricity and water. (They are not radioactive.) Fuel cells are also currently used on earth in commercial applications.

Diesel and diesel/electric hybrid cars can fill a niche. Diesel engines have the added benefit of ability to run on renewable "vegetable oil." Electric powerplants bring a host of complications. First, a hybrid vehicle by definition has two power trains, e.g the diesel engine, fuel tank and the electric motors, batteries, etc. This is a big disadvantage from the outset, in initial and maintenance costs. Second, electric storage batteries have been improved, but they have a finite lifespan ending in environmental disposal issues, and high replacement costs for the car owner. Third, electric motors by themselves in an automobile cannot practically perform as well as an internal combustion engine. Eventually electric cars may make sense, but hydrogen is a more logical choice in the nearer term.

Hydrogen powered internal combustion engines exist today. They have comparable power to their gasoline powered counterparts. They do not burst into flames. Mazda and BMW, among others, have working, driving hydrogen vehicles. Construction of hydrogen fueling stations is currently being planned.

Fundamentally, there are no overwhelming barriers to the cost-effective production, distribution and use of hydrogen in internal combustion engines. Obviously there are challenges to be met, but research to date has been promising in many areas. Additional development of the technologies will increase the economic attractiveness. Hydrogen is the fuel of the future. Whether that future is 5, 10, or 50 years away is driven by politics and economics, including the supply vs. demand of fossil and alternative fuels.

IaMtHeRuThLeSs1

this is true...i saw a pic of it in modified mag i believe.

chairchild

There's a prototype ford out - the H-type, it runs off a tank of compressed Hydrogen

MikeC

Fuel cells have been used in spacecraft since the 60s according to this link. It's best to check facts before posting, I found this through google in less than a minute.

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/spinoff2003/er_6.html

"The thought of fuel cell technology being able to accomplish such a feat may be dismissed as too futuristic by some, but the truth is that fuel cells have been in play as a source of propulsion since the 1960s, when NASA first used them to generate power onboard the Gemini and Apollo spacecraft for extended space missions."

troymcclory

There have been quite a few intelligent posts on this subject, however some people need to do a little more research on the subect.
Hydrogen is the most abundant substance in the known universe and can be manufactured in many different ways. Some where the potential energy output far exceeds the energy needed to produce this element. All of which are enviromentally safer than the production of gasoline and carbon based fuels.
As for the use in combustion engines hydrogen ignites at a lower temperature than gasoline with a greater thermal displacment and produces somewhere in the neighborhood of 99% less polution, with no carbon emmisions, then gasoline. The pollution comes from the air that is drawn into the combustion chamber and the main product emmited from the exhuast is water vapor.
Hydrogen is just as hazardous as gasoline and can be stored just as, if not more, safely as gasoline. Its just a different storage device.
The major draw back, at present, is the space required to store the amount of hydrogen needed to produce the same energy output as the fuel in fuel tanks presently installed on our vehicles today. Also, there has been a small, maybe 20%, loss of power in most of the current engines that have been "converted" to use hydrogen.
NASA has studied and used hydrogen and hydrogen fuel cells for years. The main reason it is not in mainstream prodution is: 1) The oil producers and petrolium companies have supressed the prodution and lobbied against alternitive fuels in most every country. 2) The infrastructure is not in place for wholesale production and distribution. 3) It has been cheaper for auto manufatures to keep with the current technoligies then to devolop vehicels that use alternitive fuels. Now that there is more of a public need, demand or desire for them, they(auto producers and petrolium companies) are scrambling to get these technologies and the infrastructure in place.

This has been a bit long winded i know, but i could go on for quite a few more pages describing the benifits of hydrogen and the need to start producing vehicles that use alternitive fuels or electricity. All of this discusion though has taken us away from the origianal topic of thread.
That is the rotary engine is the best for the combustion of hydrogen. The physics involved make it ideal for the use of hydrogen as its fuel. The conversion (which i myself am looking into doing on an 87GXL) would have an initial high cost, but no more than most here have spent just to make their RX's go from 0-60 1 second faster. From what i have learned so far i could still possibly use hydrogen and gasoline in the same engine, even at the same time! Though the extra weight would be to much i believe.
I will keep you informed to the possible conversion of the RX and would enjoy input from anyone here, exspecialy if it is to give me contacts with others involved in converting vehicels to hydrogen burners!!!

Many thanks to whoever started this website and to those who contribute and keep it going!!

EpitrochoidMan

There is also a huge difference between hydrogen fueled cars, and cars with hydrogen fuel cells.

btsnook

the real problem with the hydrogen powered rotary is lubrication. as you all probably know very well, oil is injected into rotaries and coats the surfaces of the housings providing lubrication between the apex seals and the housings. what do you think happens to this oil when its exposed to the extreme heat of combustion? well it burns of course, resulting in increased emissions over a similar piston engine. its true that a hydro piston engine will burn oil as well but the amount is tiny compared to that of the rotary because in a piston engine oil is simply "sprayed" on the backside of the piston while in a rotary you cant do this. a big problem automakers were having with hydro powered piston engines was overheating valves, rotaries have no valves and so would solve this problem, but only at the cost of increased pollution. the future of hydrogen isnt in combustion engines anyway with their 20-30% efficiency, but with electric fuel cells as mentioned previously...all it takes is the R&D to make it a reality but does anyone realistically think that hydrogen has a chance when the president and vice president are both ******* OIL EXECUTIVES!??!?!?

Silverstone

Now who looks like a snooch?

This is all Pres Bush is talking about these days. President Bush is using his bully pulpit to advance the cause of hydrogen and other alternative fuels more than any president in history. You have shown your ignorance and partisanship.

yodaddy

sorry, not sure if anyone posted this cause i was too lazy to read the whole thread, but after the initial cost hydrogen can be pretty much free http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/

KeloidJonesJr.

iTrader: (8)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOa
Mazda would be better off if they produced a tofu-powered wheelchair.

MikeC

Looks like a load of bull. The "hydrogen generator" of their's is plugged into the wall so not powering the car for free. Anything that uses electricity to create hydrogen to power a car will use a *lot* of energy. A lightbulb runs at 60W and a whole house usually uses a few thousand watts but a car uses 100,000W+. Add to that the massive inefficiencies and you'd need to draw 100s of kws from the mains.

Silverstone

Iceland uses hydrogen in their cars. It all comes from geo-thermal. Very creative. Free power from the ground.

MikeC

hmmmm, free power from the ground. Just like oil.........

coblepots

Here's my solution. How about we take a Fusion reactor and combine it with a closed Cycle MHD system. That way, we can get around an 80% thermal efficiency and zero emissions. Then we can creat hydrogen through electrolysis (I suck at spelling). Then, we can use the hydrogen to power automobiles.


If you havn't noticed, I'm joking. Well only partly since MHD is the coolest power generation technology out there. Hunt for Red October anyone?

Seriously though, the amount of PVC's that would be needed to convert the country over to hydrogen powered vehicles would be rediculous. We are talking about covering an entire state in size of Nevada to California. Personally, I believe that there needs to be huge advancements in both solar technology and hydrogen fuel cell efficiencies before any serious attempt can be made.

SPEEDRATED

I DO NOT WANT TO GET IN TO A ARGUMENT OVER THIS!! THIS IS A BUNCH OF SCINTEST'S, AND WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS PROVEN SCINTIFIC FACT!!!!
Look at the cold fusion and the bingo fule project. Never mind the lifter thing, even if it is cutting edge stuff!
Witch buy the way is the base for nasa's new orbital propellantless thruster project.

I am going to post this link and RUN LIKE HELL!!!!!! :smiley_12


http://members.aol.com/jNaudin509/

MikeC

What exactly don't you want to get into an arguement about?

Xeros

Do you really believe any of that bullshit? Haven't you ever heard of the term covering your own ***? Have you even considered what he is doing is nothing more then bullshit talk to make himself out to be a nice guy? I mean seriously do you really think he gives a flying **** about hydrogen? Realistically? I think not...its all just mascaradaing.

Xeros

by the way ZERO point technology all the way.

cosmicbang

Sorry to nit pick, but did you actually look? Their hydrogen generator is not plugged into the wall, but designed for 48V DC input and is sold with solar panels. (BTW, I'm not saying their product isn't inefficient or impractical. They ARE misrepresenting alternate storage options.)