http://pixelbark.com/13045/how-the-d...bustion-engine

On 23/04/2014 06:35, harryagain wrote:
http://pixelbark.com/13045/how-the-d...bustion-engine


One thing I noticed is that it has a single, asymmetric counterbalance
weight, which must make it inherently unbalanced.

Colin Bignell

On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 8:46:23 AM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 23/04/2014 06:35, harryagain wrote:

http://pixelbark.com/13045/how-the-d...bustion-engine

One thing I noticed is that it has a single, asymmetric counterbalance
weight, which must make it inherently unbalanced.
Colin Bignell

I operated a very unbalanced engine for a few years, and it behaved fine. Imho the balance issue of reciprocating IC engines tends to be overstated.


NT

On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 6:35:02 AM UTC+1, harry wrote:
http://pixelbark.com/13045/how-the-d...bustion-engine

There are lots of engine designs with advantages. But almost none of them see the light of mass production. After weeding out the 99% that have some sizeable downside, the level of investment and experience needed before a car manufacturer would trust their business to a new engine design is excessively large. Car engine design is not a good area to invent in.


NT

On 23/04/2014 10:48, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 8:46:23 AM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 23/04/2014 06:35, harryagain wrote:

http://pixelbark.com/13045/how-the-d...bustion-engine

One thing I noticed is that it has a single, asymmetric counterbalance
weight, which must make it inherently unbalanced.
Colin Bignell

I operated a very unbalanced engine for a few years, and it behaved fine. Imho the balance issue of reciprocating IC engines tends to be overstated.

Given that one of the features mentioned is the light weight, I presume
that it is intended for applications where there will not be a lot of
spare mass to soak up the vibrations; unlike the single cylinder diesel
road roller I used to sometimes operate.

Colin Bignell

In article ,
wrote:
On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 6:35:02 AM UTC+1, harry wrote:
http://pixelbark.com/13045/how-the-d...bustion-engine

There are lots of engine designs with advantages. But almost none of
them see the light of mass production. After weeding out the 99% that
have some sizeable downside, the level of investment and experience
needed before a car manufacturer would trust their business to a new
engine design is excessively large. Car engine design is not a good area
to invent in.


Quite. Remember the Orbital? Actually developed for some time. But where
is it now?

--
*Change is inevitable ... except from vending machines *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 2:36:10 PM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 23/04/2014 10:48, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 8:46:23 AM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 23/04/2014 06:35, harryagain wrote:

http://pixelbark.com/13045/how-the-d...bustion-engine

One thing I noticed is that it has a single, asymmetric counterbalance
weight, which must make it inherently unbalanced.

I operated a very unbalanced engine for a few years, and it behaved fine. Imho the balance issue of reciprocating IC engines tends to be overstated.

Given that one of the features mentioned is the light weight, I presume
that it is intended for applications where there will not be a lot of
spare mass to soak up the vibrations; unlike the single cylinder diesel
road roller I used to sometimes operate.
Colin Bignell

All popular IC engine configurations produce large vibration forces internally. Its not normally a problem, its a manageable issue. 30% less weight will increase those a bit, but a bit is no big deal, especially in a multicylinder engine.


NT

On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 2:58:49 PM UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 6:35:02 AM UTC+1, harry wrote:

http://pixelbark.com/13045/how-the-d...bustion-engine

There are lots of engine designs with advantages. But almost none of
them see the light of mass production. After weeding out the 99% that
have some sizeable downside, the level of investment and experience
needed before a car manufacturer would trust their business to a new
engine design is excessively large. Car engine design is not a good area
to invent in.

Quite. Remember the Orbital? Actually developed for some time. But where
is it now?

There's a long list of clever engine designs out there. If a company chose to use one and some problem showed up down the line, it would be curtains. And even before then, end buyers would be mostly very wary. Also current engines have improved greatly due to a long process of minor improvements, which won't be true for other engine types. Hence no-one will stake their company on a novel and maybe better design. The only one that did see the light of day in many decades was the wankel.


NT

On 23/04/14 14:58, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 6:35:02 AM UTC+1, harry wrote:
http://pixelbark.com/13045/how-the-d...bustion-engine

There are lots of engine designs with advantages. But almost none of
them see the light of mass production. After weeding out the 99% that
have some sizeable downside, the level of investment and experience
needed before a car manufacturer would trust their business to a new
engine design is excessively large. Car engine design is not a good area
to invent in.


Quite. Remember the Orbital? Actually developed for some time. But where
is it now?

Or indeed the Wankel..sleeve valves...the opposed H configuration..

IN the end it boils down to
(cost savings of performance advantage) - (cost of a rather complex
crankshaft arrangement)

I am also worried that there are a lot of friction surfaces there. And
seals.

Two things that buggered the Wankel and the sleeve valve.

Is also got a massive amount of rotating mass leading to a huge gyro
effect. As well as a huge lag in acceleration.






--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 2:58:49 PM UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 6:35:02 AM UTC+1, harry wrote:

http://pixelbark.com/13045/how-the-d...bustion-engine

There are lots of engine designs with advantages. But almost none of
them see the light of mass production. After weeding out the 99% that
have some sizeable downside, the level of investment and experience
needed before a car manufacturer would trust their business to a new
engine design is excessively large. Car engine design is not a good area
to invent in.

Quite. Remember the Orbital? Actually developed for some time. But where
is it now?

There's a long list of clever engine designs out there. If a company chose
to use one and some problem showed up down the line, it would be curtains.
And even before then, end buyers would be mostly very wary. Also current
engines have improved greatly due to a long process of minor improvements,
which won't be true for other engine types. Hence no-one will stake their
company on a novel and maybe better design. The only one that did see the
light of day in many decades was the wankel.


This one looks like it would be difficult to manufacture for only small
benefits.

On 23/04/2014 06:35, harryagain wrote:
http://pixelbark.com/13045/how-the-d...bustion-engine


Not sure if you can call it that new. Engines based on swash-plates,
wobble-plates, cams etc. have been tried quite a bit in the past.
There's some info he-

http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/P...g/axial-IC.htm

I don't recall anyone trying to get the cylinders to rotate whilst the
heads remain stationary though, so that bit could be new - and
frightening, sealing-wise.

Cheers,

Colin.

On 23/04/2014 15:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Two things that buggered the Wankel and the sleeve valve.

It was the sleeve valve that occurred to me. They breath much better, but...

Andy

On 23/04/2014 10:51, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 6:35:02 AM UTC+1, harry wrote:
http://pixelbark.com/13045/how-the-d...bustion-engine

There are lots of engine designs with advantages. But almost none of them see the light of mass production. After weeding out the 99% that have some sizeable downside, the level of investment and experience needed before a car manufacturer would trust their business to a new engine design is excessively large. Car engine design is not a good area to invent in.


NT



The most important engine design for future of the car is the Honda FCX
Clarity approach ...
Hydrogen fuel cell ... has the benefits of hardly any noise, no
batteries, zero emissions ... and 61mpg


Exists is in production and out with users in California ...
Hydrogen is manufactured at point-of-sale pumps, just storing enough
Hydrogen for next couple of fills ... so no bulk storage issues.
Honda also developing home Generation stations for you to produce your
own Hydrogen.

Fixes the problem of the benefit of electric drive and the problem of
battery weight & charging - no charging & no batteries.

Hydrogen no longer needing to be stored as super cooled liquid, with
insulation issues.

Government was in talks with Honda UK to subsidies installation of
Hydrogen fuel filling points along M4 corridor ... to kick-start this,
not sure of current status.

Hydrogen is the easiest gas to manufacture and is in unlimited supply
(water) ... for the eco tree huggers, you could use wind/wave/solar to
provide the electricity required for electrolysis.

Saw a programme on this car ... it's no concept now on sales, looks
pretty similar to Civic, not like a milk float.

http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/



--
UK SelfBuild: http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/UK_Selfbuild/

On 24/04/14 12:10, Tim Streater wrote:
Hydrogen no longer needing to be stored as super cooled liquid, with
insulation issues.

Yes yes yes, thanks for the infomercial, but what's its *range*, eh?
How is it stored in the car itself?

--
And what happens in a crash..



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

In article ,
Rick Hughes wrote:
Hydrogen is the easiest gas to manufacture and is in unlimited supply
(water) ... for the eco tree huggers, you could use wind/wave/solar to
provide the electricity required for electrolysis.

This has been known from the earliest days of chemistry. The snag is the
amount of energy required to produce the hydrogen. If you were to use
petrol, etc, to produce the hydrogen, it would be far more efficient to
burn that petrol directly in the car engine.

Or since much electricity is produced by burning gas, to compress that gas
into LPG and burn that directly in the car.

It only becomes viable where electricity is produced in abundance by
'free' renewables, like wind, water or solar.

Sadly, you don't get owt for nowt in this world - despite what vested
interests would like you to think.

--
*Lawyers believe a man is innocent until proven broke.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 24/04/2014 12:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/04/14 12:10, Tim Streater wrote:
Hydrogen no longer needing to be stored as super cooled liquid, with
insulation issues.

Yes yes yes, thanks for the infomercial, but what's its *range*, eh?
How is it stored in the car itself?

--
And what happens in a crash..



I'm quite impressed; agree with Rick on this one. Not sure about capital
cost of fuel cells though (fine for NASA Apollo budget).

240 miles per refill, according to the link: pretty reasonable, once the
filling infrastructure is there.

Obviously there is the potential for a fireball, Hindenberg style, in a
crash, but that is nothing like as scary as a vapour cloud explosion, a
la Flixborough. In the open air, hydrogen leaks or fires are not much of
a threat. Leaks in underground car-park or other closed space, without
gas detection, is definitely another matter.

On 24/04/2014 14:20, wrote:
On Thursday, April 24, 2014 11:19:35 AM UTC+1, Rick Hughes wrote:

The most important engine design for future of the car is the Honda FCX
Clarity approach ...
Hydrogen fuel cell ... has the benefits of hardly any noise, no
batteries, zero emissions ... and 61mpg
Exists is in production and out with users in California ...
Hydrogen is manufactured at point-of-sale pumps, just storing enough
Hydrogen for next couple of fills ... so no bulk storage issues.
Honda also developing home Generation stations for you to produce your
own Hydrogen.
Fixes the problem of the benefit of electric drive and the problem of
battery weight & charging - no charging & no batteries.
Hydrogen no longer needing to be stored as super cooled liquid, with
insulation issues.
Government was in talks with Honda UK to subsidies installation of
Hydrogen fuel filling points along M4 corridor ... to kick-start this,
not sure of current status.
Hydrogen is the easiest gas to manufacture and is in unlimited supply
(water) ... for the eco tree huggers, you could use wind/wave/solar to
provide the electricity required for electrolysis.
Saw a programme on this car ... it's no concept now on sales, looks
pretty similar to Civic, not like a milk float.
http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/

Hydrogen as car fuel has to be one of the most hopeless ideas out there.

Energywise, you go from oil to electricity at 40% efficiency, then electricity to hydrogen with more losses, so the car uses triple the amount of energy for the same job.

Costwise, as well as the usual oil costs you pay for the elec gen plant that currently roughly triples the cost of the energy.

The whole thing's bonkers. Its not even green - you get to use triple the energy for the same result.

One way to make it green would be to install one of the small modular
reactors on site to generate the electricity, and pipe the water in.

I believe that the current method in common use, though, is to use heat
to crack methane, using fossil fuel to generate the heat required.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 24/04/14 14:00, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Rick Hughes wrote:
Hydrogen is the easiest gas to manufacture and is in unlimited supply
(water) ... for the eco tree huggers, you could use wind/wave/solar to
provide the electricity required for electrolysis.

This has been known from the earliest days of chemistry. The snag is the
amount of energy required to produce the hydrogen. If you were to use
petrol, etc, to produce the hydrogen, it would be far more efficient to
burn that petrol directly in the car engine.

Or since much electricity is produced by burning gas, to compress that gas
into LPG and burn that directly in the car.

It only becomes viable where electricity is produced in abundance by
'free' renewables, like wind, water or solar.

ITYM inbcedribly expensive renewables:-)


Sadly, you don't get owt for nowt in this world - despite what vested
interests would like you to think.

If it costs nowt, chances are its something no one wants anyway.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
It only becomes viable where electricity is produced in abundance by
'free' renewables, like wind, water or solar.

ITYM inbcedribly expensive renewables:-)


We were promised 'meter free' electricity when nuclear first arrived.

--
*Sorry, I don't date outside my species.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thursday, April 24, 2014 3:27:51 PM UTC+1, John Williamson wrote:
On 24/04/2014 14:20, wrote:
On Thursday, April 24, 2014 11:19:35 AM UTC+1, Rick Hughes wrote:

The most important engine design for future of the car is the Honda FCX
Clarity approach ...
Hydrogen fuel cell ... has the benefits of hardly any noise, no
batteries, zero emissions ... and 61mpg
Exists is in production and out with users in California ...
Hydrogen is manufactured at point-of-sale pumps, just storing enough
Hydrogen for next couple of fills ... so no bulk storage issues.
Honda also developing home Generation stations for you to produce your
own Hydrogen.
Fixes the problem of the benefit of electric drive and the problem of
battery weight & charging - no charging & no batteries.
Hydrogen no longer needing to be stored as super cooled liquid, with
insulation issues.
Government was in talks with Honda UK to subsidies installation of
Hydrogen fuel filling points along M4 corridor ... to kick-start this,
not sure of current status.
Hydrogen is the easiest gas to manufacture and is in unlimited supply
(water) ... for the eco tree huggers, you could use wind/wave/solar to
provide the electricity required for electrolysis.
Saw a programme on this car ... it's no concept now on sales, looks
pretty similar to Civic, not like a milk float.
http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/

Hydrogen as car fuel has to be one of the most hopeless ideas out there.

Energywise, you go from oil to electricity at 40% efficiency, then electricity to hydrogen with more losses, so the car uses triple the amount of energy for the same job.

Costwise, as well as the usual oil costs you pay for the elec gen plant that currently roughly triples the cost of the energy.

The whole thing's bonkers. Its not even green - you get to use triple the energy for the same result.

One way to make it green would be to install one of the small modular
reactors on site to generate the electricity, and pipe the water in.
I believe that the current method in common use, though, is to use heat
to crack methane, using fossil fuel to generate the heat required.

However you generate it, you're still using high price electricity to replace low cost oil, you've still got 1 or 2 lossy conversion steps, and the extra costs of generation mean consumed energy. It so doesnt add up.


NT

On 24/04/2014 20:01, wrote:
On Thursday, April 24, 2014 3:27:51 PM UTC+1, John Williamson wrote:

One way to make it green would be to install one of the small modular
reactors on site to generate the electricity, and pipe the water in.
I believe that the current method in common use, though, is to use heat
to crack methane, using fossil fuel to generate the heat required.

However you generate it, you're still using high price electricity to replace low cost oil, you've still got 1 or 2 lossy conversion steps, and the extra costs of generation mean consumed energy. It so doesnt add up.


Granted, but as it's not recommended to fit nuclear reactors into road
vehicles, it's a reasonably sensible way to transfer the power from the
reactor to the wheels. About the same efficiency overall as batteries,
but with less pollution as a by product.

An alternative is to use nuclear power to make hydrocarbon fuels from
water and CO2. The pilot project is using wind turbines, and needs money
to scale up as a proof of concept, but it does work and the heat cam
come from any source.

It won't be economic though, until either nuclear becomes much cheaper,
or fossil oil becomes much more expensive.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
It only becomes viable where electricity is produced in abundance by
'free' renewables, like wind, water or solar.

ITYM inbcedribly expensive renewables:-)

We were promised 'meter free' electricity when nuclear first arrived.

No we weren't.

Yes we were.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_cheap_to_meter

--
*Sleep with a photographer and watch things develop

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 20:32:53 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

On 24/04/2014 20:01, wrote:
On Thursday, April 24, 2014 3:27:51 PM UTC+1, John Williamson wrote:

One way to make it green would be to install one of the small modular
reactors on site to generate the electricity, and pipe the water in.
I believe that the current method in common use, though, is to use heat
to crack methane, using fossil fuel to generate the heat required.

However you generate it, you're still using high price electricity to replace low cost oil, you've still got 1 or 2 lossy conversion steps, and the extra costs of generation mean consumed energy. It so doesnt add up.


Granted, but as it's not recommended to fit nuclear reactors into road
vehicles, it's a reasonably sensible way to transfer the power from the
reactor to the wheels. About the same efficiency overall as batteries,
but with less pollution as a by product.

An alternative is to use nuclear power to make hydrocarbon fuels from
water and CO2. The pilot project is using wind turbines, and needs money
to scale up as a proof of concept, but it does work and the heat cam
come from any source.

It won't be economic though, until either nuclear becomes much cheaper,
or fossil oil becomes much more expensive.

Everyone here seems to have overlooked the fact that using fuel cell
technology gives you somewhere in the region of a 90% conversion
efficiency from the energy stored in the hydrogen to the road wheels
as opposed to the more typical 20 to 25% figure for a petrol ICE and
drive train.

I'm not sure why a common electric motor is being used when each
wheel can have its own built in motor fed from a sophisticated power
management controller with KERS and a modest capacity rechargable
battery to improve stop start urban journey fuel economy. There's no
need for energy inefficient mechanical drive trains with electric
propulsion.

It's a technology that's certainly worth developing for a future when
everyone realises that the only way to satisfy our craving for a
reliable source of electrical energy is by using LFTR nuclear.

The cheapest energy cost solution to generating hydrogen is when the
waste heat in the generating stations can be used to improve the
electrolyising process efficiency. The need being to use an
alternative form of energy storage that approaches the current utility
of oil based fuels when the costs of extraction finally become
uneconomic to compete in this particular market.

The only really tricky issue lies with how you store the hydrogen
fuel on board. The choice is either cryogenic storage or, as seems to
be the case here, high pressure storage at ambient temperature. Either
case has serious health and safety implications to be addressed.

However, the threefold efficiency increase suggests that for the same
range on a 60 litre tank of petrol you can use a 20 litre tank of
cryogenically stored liquid hydrogen which leaves plenty of room to
over engineer the containment vessel.

Obviously, when relying on pressurused storage alone, you're going to
need a much larger storage volume than the cryogenic case but if you
reduce your range to something a little more modest (say 150 miles
versus 450 miles with a 60 litre tank of petrol) it, presumably,
becomes a practical alternative to cryogenic storage.

I'm not sure whether HMG have got the rules and regs in place to
collect 'excise duty on home generated hydrogen fuel' but possibly the
'early adopters' could enjoy the benefit of a duty free fuel, at least
initially. It would be a very foolish HMG indeed if they were to
impose a duty as onerous as that applied to traditional road fuels.

Provided HMG took a more pragmatic approach to encourage the use of
such vehicles, even the less efficient home generated hydrogen from
electricty could maintain an economic edge over the current highly
pollutive ICE powered transport systems.

HMG would have to use a more honest means of extracting each
citizens' contribution to the nation's infrastructure and services
costs that they have the priviledge of benefitting from for a secure
and stable society. The only fly in the ointment is the fact that HMG
is controlled, in the main, by self serving politicians only too eager
to please the voters with short sighted policies in order to win
popularity contests otherwise known as general elections.

Hydrogen power using fuel cell technology does look to be a good
approach to the problem of general transport needs in the not too
distant future when all those 'country paths' get converted back into
electrified railway lines out of sheer economic necessity.
--
Regards, J B Good

"Johny B Good" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 20:32:53 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

On 24/04/2014 20:01, wrote:
On Thursday, April 24, 2014 3:27:51 PM UTC+1, John Williamson wrote:

One way to make it green would be to install one of the small modular
reactors on site to generate the electricity, and pipe the water in.
I believe that the current method in common use, though, is to use heat
to crack methane, using fossil fuel to generate the heat required.

However you generate it, you're still using high price electricity to
replace low cost oil, you've still got 1 or 2 lossy conversion steps,
and the extra costs of generation mean consumed energy. It so doesnt add
up.


Granted, but as it's not recommended to fit nuclear reactors into road
vehicles, it's a reasonably sensible way to transfer the power from the
reactor to the wheels. About the same efficiency overall as batteries,
but with less pollution as a by product.

An alternative is to use nuclear power to make hydrocarbon fuels from
water and CO2. The pilot project is using wind turbines, and needs money
to scale up as a proof of concept, but it does work and the heat cam
come from any source.

It won't be economic though, until either nuclear becomes much cheaper,
or fossil oil becomes much more expensive.

Everyone here seems to have overlooked the fact that using fuel cell
technology gives you somewhere in the region of a 90% conversion
efficiency from the energy stored in the hydrogen to the road wheels
as opposed to the more typical 20 to 25% figure for a petrol ICE and
drive train.

There is no regeneration as with battery electric cars



I'm not sure why a common electric motor is being used when each
wheel can have its own built in motor fed from a sophisticated power
management controller with KERS and a modest capacity rechargable
battery to improve stop start urban journey fuel economy. There's no
need for energy inefficient mechanical drive trains with electric
propulsion.

Motor in wheel technology is totally stupid.
The ideal car wheel/suspension would be massless, heavier wheels just make
cars uncontrollable and uncomfortable.
The motor is subjected to all the bumps and jars and also to water and salt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsprung_weight

The motors used are not "common electric motors" either.
They already have a sophisticated control system.

Transporting/storing hydrogen presents almost insurmountable probelms.
And on site generation has problems of its own.
Any cars would likel be more expensive with poorer performance than current
battery electric cars
There is no prospectof regeneration with a hydrogen car.

For transport, hydrogen is a total non starter.

On 24/04/2014 12:10, Tim Streater wrote:


Yes yes yes, thanks for the infomercial, but what's its *range*, eh?
How is it stored in the car itself?


currently 240 mile, stored as compressed gas

--
UK SelfBuild: http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/UK_Selfbuild/

On 24/04/2014 12:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/04/14 12:10, Tim Streater wrote:
Hydrogen no longer needing to be stored as super cooled liquid, with
insulation issues.

Yes yes yes, thanks for the infomercial, but what's its *range*, eh?
How is it stored in the car itself?

--
And what happens in a crash..

Same as for petrol cars ...


the same as happens in any car ... it has to pass crash test and it
meets the EU and US requirements.


--
UK SelfBuild: http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/UK_Selfbuild/

On 24/04/2014 20:32, John Williamson wrote:

It won't be economic though, until either nuclear becomes much cheaper,
or fossil oil becomes much more expensive.

the last part is 100% given



--
UK SelfBuild: http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/UK_Selfbuild/

On 25/04/2014 00:12, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
It only becomes viable where electricity is produced in abundance by
'free' renewables, like wind, water or solar.

ITYM inbcedribly expensive renewables:-)

We were promised 'meter free' electricity when nuclear first arrived.

No we weren't.

Yes we were.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_cheap_to_meter


Which, as the link explains, was based on *fusion*. And no-one has even
produced that commercially yet.

On 25/04/2014 08:38, harryagain wrote:


There is no regeneration as with battery electric cars


No reason why not.

In article ,
newshound wrote:
On 25/04/2014 00:12, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
It only becomes viable where electricity is produced in abundance by
'free' renewables, like wind, water or solar.

ITYM inbcedribly expensive renewables:-)

We were promised 'meter free' electricity when nuclear first arrived.

No we weren't.

Yes we were.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_cheap_to_meter


Which, as the link explains, was based on *fusion*. And no-one has even
produced that commercially yet.

You think politicians of the day knew the difference?

That claim was made publically at the introduction of nuclear. And not
qualified with 'some day if we're lucky'.

--
*I don't have a license to kill, but I do have a learner's permit.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 25/04/14 10:17, Rick Hughes wrote:
On 24/04/2014 12:10, Tim Streater wrote:


Yes yes yes, thanks for the infomercial, but what's its *range*, eh?
How is it stored in the car itself?


currently 240 mile, stored as compressed gas

And that's about as far away from it as I would like to be, when it hits
something.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Thursday, April 24, 2014 8:32:53 PM UTC+1, John Williamson wrote:
On 24/04/2014 20:01, wrote:
On Thursday, April 24, 2014 3:27:51 PM UTC+1, John Williamson wrote:

One way to make it green would be to install one of the small modular
reactors on site to generate the electricity, and pipe the water in.
I believe that the current method in common use, though, is to use heat
to crack methane, using fossil fuel to generate the heat required.

However you generate it, you're still using high price electricity to replace low cost oil, you've still got 1 or 2 lossy conversion steps, and the extra costs of generation mean consumed energy. It so doesnt add up.


Granted, but as it's not recommended to fit nuclear reactors into road
vehicles, it's a reasonably sensible way to transfer the power from the
reactor to the wheels.

It isnt sensible to use the output of nukes to run cars, its more cost. Much more.

About the same efficiency overall as batteries,
but with less pollution as a by product.

Cost is the number 1 issue

An alternative is to use nuclear power to make hydrocarbon fuels from
water and CO2.

oil's far cheaper

The pilot project is using wind turbines, and needs money
to scale up as a proof of concept, but it does work and the heat cam
come from any source.

Anyone that thinks that remotely realistic is being taken in

It won't be economic though, until either nuclear becomes much cheaper,
or fossil oil becomes much more expensive.

Yes, in 2100 maybe it'll be the best bet


NT

On 23/04/2014 14:36, Nightjar wrote:


One thing I noticed is that it has a single, asymmetric counterbalance
weight, which must make it inherently unbalanced.
Colin Bignell



However it runs with almost zero vibration ... so they must have fixed
that ....... watch the coin balance on the vid on main page ...
http://www.dukeengines.com/

The big advantage I think they have on balance is that the con rods only
move off line by 3% ....

" An almost perfectly sinusoidal piston motion leads to a near absence
of secondary and higher-order unbalanced piston/conrod forces.

• Counter-rotating cylinder groups and crankshart provide cancellation
of torque reactions and gyroscopic forces during engine speed
flutuations and vehicle maneuvers. " (sp)



Maybe it will never be adopted, I had a rotary engine in my RX8 ....
fantastic piece of engineering, so small so powerful, incredible rev
range, just just not taken off with anybody other than Mazda.


--
UK SelfBuild: http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/UK_Selfbuild/

On Friday, April 25, 2014 2:46:45 AM UTC+1, Johny B Good wrote:

HMG would have to use a more honest means of extracting each
citizens' contribution to the nation's infrastructure and services

That should delay things by a few million years then


NT

On 25/04/2014 12:14, Rick Hughes wrote:

Maybe it will never be adopted, I had a rotary engine in my RX8 ....
fantastic piece of engineering, so small so powerful, incredible rev
range, just just not taken off with anybody other than Mazda.

How efficient was it? What were service intervals like compared to a
conventional engine? How long would it last before a rebuild? An engine
needs to do well at these as well as size and power in order to be truly
successful.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Yes we were.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_cheap_to_meter

Yes, I've posted a link to this before, when harry was also trying the
same b/s. Suggest you read it more carefully:

1) The klod was a yank, nothing to do with us in the UK, so we were not
"promised" anything.

You think something has to be original? I don't care who first used the
expression - it was used here by politicians and in the press and radio.
Without any qualification about the type of reaction.

--
*A closed mouth gathers no feet.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
You think something has to be original? I don't care who first used
the expression - it was used here by politicians and in the press and
radio. Without any qualification about the type of reaction.

So, said originally by someone who should have known better, and then
picked up by dumb clucks who didn't know any better.

Just the same as today. Those who advocate the use of nuclear can't
foresee the future and the possibility of a disaster. And the costs of
decommissioning old plant etc. All of which can add to the unit cost of
electricity. It's pretty well as saying renewables are free.

"Too cheap to meter" is in the same category as "in 30 years, we won't
be eating meals as we know them today, there'll be a pill for your
meat, another for the spuds, and a third for the veg".

Well, for a very long time we had 'free' water. Or rather a fixed price
regardless of use. Not too difficult to imagine something like the same
could be applied to electricity. Remember at one time petrol in some
countries was cheaper than water. Even in the US at one time it was very
low cost. So going back 60 years or so it wasn't an unreasonable guess.

--
*Why is it that to stop Windows 95, you have to click on "Start"?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 08:38:34 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

====snip===


There is no regeneration as with battery electric cars

I made no reference to KERS until the paragraph below.


I'm not sure why a common electric motor is being used when each
wheel can have its own built in motor fed from a sophisticated power
management controller with KERS and a modest capacity rechargable
battery to improve stop start urban journey fuel economy. There's no
need for energy inefficient mechanical drive trains with electric
propulsion.

You should have noticed that I alluded to the modest sized
rechargable mentioned by Honda which is used to flatten the peak
demand on the fuel cell which nicely lends itself to this function.
Admittedly, the gains seen in F1 aren't going to be as great since
normal driving doesn't routinely involve rapid decelerations from
200mph down to 50 or 60mph but it can help mitigate braking energy
losses in stop start traffic as well as improve energy consumption
when travelling a hilly route involving uphill ascent and downhill
descent.


Motor in wheel technology is totally stupid.
The ideal car wheel/suspension would be massless, heavier wheels just make
cars uncontrollable and uncomfortable.

I'm totally aware of the detractions of "Unsprung mass" but a modern
pancake electric motor is surprisingly light for its power output and
a lot of the structural mass of the wheel can form the major
components of the motor. Properly integrated, a 'Power Wheel' need not
have to weigh any more than a cheap pressed steel wheel in common use
today.

When the over-riding need is for efficiency rather than sports car
type performance, the slight trade off in handling and ride comfort is
well worth accepting.

The motor is subjected to all the bumps and jars and also to water and salt.

As is the case for brake lines and calipers and disks. A program of
R&D will nicely take care of those issues, including the unsprung mass
issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsprung_weight


The motors used are not "common electric motors" either.
They already have a sophisticated control system.

That is a 'given' but a seperate motor in each wheel eliminates the
mass associated with CV joints in the mechanical drive train and
reduces the 'gearbox' to a matter of electrical contactors and
switchmode voltage control from the controller unit. No space
consuming prop shafts and bulky differential transfer boxes and you
get the benefit of "All Wheel Drive" (AWD). A common[1] motor is just
an intermediate 'proof of concept' proving technology at the moment.


Transporting/storing hydrogen presents almost insurmountable probelms.
And on site generation has problems of its own.
Any cars would likel be more expensive with poorer performance than current
battery electric cars

That's total and utter bollicks.

There is no prospectof regeneration with a hydrogen car.

I assume you're referring to KERS. Again, you're only right in that
there currently isn't an effective way to turn the electrical energy
back into hydrogen fuel but totally wrong in thinking that KERS can't
be used when Honda have provided a modest capacity rechargable battery
to smooth out the demand peaks on the fuel cell which can do double
duty for KERS.


For transport, hydrogen is a total non starter.

In the context of today's antique nuclear power generation capacity,
that's largely true right now but it won't be too long before the cost
of such convenience fuels overtakes that of a hydrogen fuel generated
by modern power stations in a properly thought out system of the
future.

Don't diss Honda's efforts out of hand just because there are still
quite a few (not insurmountable) problems to be addressed before it
makes sound economic and good 'eco' sense. The lessons being learned
by such a project will prove valuable to the future of personalised
road transport in a world without cheap liquid fuels.

Even if, in the end, it just proves that the practicality of such a
solution fails to live up to its promise, it will still have proved
its worth in providing data that will assist alternative developments.

[1] When I used the phrase "Common Motor", I was referring to the use
of a single high power high efficiency motor as being a common source
of the mechanical power via a conventional transmission system rather
than as a derogatory "common as muck" term as I'm sure most others in
this discussion thread don't need telling.
--
Regards, J B Good

On Friday, April 25, 2014 5:08:37 PM UTC+1, Johny B Good wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 08:38:34 +0100, "harryagain" wrote:
====snip===

There is no regeneration as with battery electric cars
I made no reference to KERS until the paragraph below.

I'm not sure why a common electric motor is being used when each
wheel can have its own built in motor fed from a sophisticated power
management controller with KERS and a modest capacity rechargable
battery to improve stop start urban journey fuel economy. There's no
need for energy inefficient mechanical drive trains with electric
propulsion.

You should have noticed that I alluded to the modest sized
rechargable mentioned by Honda which is used to flatten the peak
demand on the fuel cell which nicely lends itself to this function.
Admittedly, the gains seen in F1 aren't going to be as great since
normal driving doesn't routinely involve rapid decelerations from
200mph down to 50 or 60mph but it can help mitigate braking energy
losses in stop start traffic as well as improve energy consumption
when travelling a hilly route involving uphill ascent and downhill
descent.

Motor in wheel technology is totally stupid.
The ideal car wheel/suspension would be massless, heavier wheels just make
cars uncontrollable and uncomfortable.

I'm totally aware of the detractions of "Unsprung mass" but a modern
pancake electric motor is surprisingly light for its power output and
a lot of the structural mass of the wheel can form the major
components of the motor.

its still heavy

Properly integrated, a 'Power Wheel' need not
have to weigh any more than a cheap pressed steel wheel in common use
today.

I cant agree

When the over-riding need is for efficiency rather than sports car
type performance, the slight trade off in handling and ride comfort is
well worth accepting.
The motor is subjected to all the bumps and jars and also to water and salt.
As is the case for brake lines and calipers and disks.

items where corrosion is easy to deal with. Thats not true of motors

A program of
R&D will nicely take care of those issues, including the unsprung mass
issue.

impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsprung_weight

The motors used are not "common electric motors" either.
They already have a sophisticated control system.
That is a 'given' but a seperate motor in each wheel eliminates the
mass associated with CV joints in the mechanical drive train and

yes - but the upside is outweighed by the downside

reduces the 'gearbox' to a matter of electrical contactors and
switchmode voltage control from the controller unit. No space

'eliminates the practical implementation of gears' would be closer

For transport, hydrogen is a total non starter.

In the context of today's antique nuclear power generation capacity,
that's largely true right now but it won't be too long before the cost
of such convenience fuels overtakes that of a hydrogen fuel generated
by modern power stations in a properly thought out system of the
future.
Don't diss Honda's efforts out of hand just because there are still
quite a few (not insurmountable) problems to be addressed before it
makes sound economic and good 'eco' sense.

well, theyre insurmounted. And we agree it doesnt make sound economic sense.. Really any idea that doesnt is as productive as fiddling with yourself.


The lessons being learned
by such a project will prove valuable to the future of personalised
road transport in a world without cheap liquid fuels.

ie not the world we live in. And no, they wont.

Even if, in the end, it just proves that the practicality of such a
solution fails to live up to its promise, it will still have proved
its worth in providing data that will assist alternative developments.

cobblers. Come up with a system that has a chance of working out and implement that.

If society were serious about changing things, we'd have gokart lanes round towns, allowing local short range transport on a variety of buggies/karts/etc. Energy consumption, cost and congestion would drop considerably. A barrier between them and large vehicles is needed. Buggies could be powered by electricity, conventional liquid fuels, scrap timber & slash, household garbage, bagged mains gas, dog, pedal, etc.


NT

On 25/04/14 12:14, Rick Hughes wrote:
On 23/04/2014 14:36, Nightjar wrote:


One thing I noticed is that it has a single, asymmetric counterbalance
weight, which must make it inherently unbalanced.
Colin Bignell



However it runs with almost zero vibration ... so they must have fixed
that ....... watch the coin balance on the vid on main page ...
http://www.dukeengines.com/

The big advantage I think they have on balance is that the con rods only
move off line by 3% ....

" An almost perfectly sinusoidal piston motion leads to a near absence
of secondary and higher-order unbalanced piston/conrod forces.

€¢ Counter-rotating cylinder groups and crankshart provide cancellation
of torque reactions and gyroscopic forces during engine speed
flutuations and vehicle maneuvers. " (sp)



Ah hadnt seen that. That sorts that one out at the expense of turning a
5 cylinder into a 10 cylinder.

So expense, many wears surfaces more and many frictional; surfaces more
are still left.

Still 10 x 10cc cylinders should make a compact road engine.




Maybe it will never be adopted, I had a rotary engine in my RX8 ....
fantastic piece of engineering, so small so powerful, incredible rev
range, just just not taken off with anybody other than Mazda.




--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.