Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

After you've inflated your tyres.......Follow

#27 Aug 12 2008 at 3:09 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

If he burns that,


Yeah, he's not. Given the compression diesel engines operate at, he's blowing hydrogen straight into an exhaust header, where it probably does burn, and maybe, possibly, increases turbo pressure a minuscule amount. Not as much as turning a dial a millimeter, but maybe some.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#28 Aug 12 2008 at 3:10 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

A pikey is - not a racial group, the term is used to describe anyone who lives in a caravan or shares the same values and "culture" of "the travelling community", and whose main sources of income are as follows:


Yeah, there's no American equivalent. Gypsy means both. Just as "limey" means Nobby and Margaritas.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#29 Aug 12 2008 at 3:43 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

If he burns that,


Yeah, he's not. Given the compression diesel engines operate at, he's blowing hydrogen straight into an exhaust header, where it probably does burn, and maybe, possibly, increases turbo pressure a minuscule amount. Not as much as turning a dial a millimeter, but maybe some.



/shrug

The technology has potential. My main issue is that a standard motor isn't going to take much advantage of it. There are a number of car companies designing cars specifically to use this sort of system right now, and they are seeing some pretty impressive numbers. I just suspect that most of the benefit from a cheap kit is going to be placebo.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#30 Aug 12 2008 at 3:49 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

The technology has potential. My main issue is that a standard motor isn't going to take much advantage of it. There are a number of car companies designing cars specifically to use this sort of system right now, and they are seeing some pretty impressive numbers.


Really, more impressive than, oh, I don't know, storing the excess electric energy in some sort of battery then using that to power the vehicle?

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#31 Aug 12 2008 at 3:57 PM Rating: Decent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

The technology has potential. My main issue is that a standard motor isn't going to take much advantage of it. There are a number of car companies designing cars specifically to use this sort of system right now, and they are seeing some pretty impressive numbers.


Really, more impressive than, oh, I don't know, storing the excess electric energy in some sort of battery then using that to power the vehicle?



Obviously the more times you change the energy's form, the more impressive it is. Storing it in a battery directly is just boring.

Though, if you are going Electricity -> Hydrogen -> Mechanical... is it really much different than: Electricity -> Battery (Still a form of chemical storage, like Hydrogen would be) -> Electricity -> Mechanical?


Edit:
Ok, so Combustion is really really inefficient. Compared to an easily 90% efficient electrical -> mechanical conversion.

Edited, Aug 12th 2008 7:58pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#32 Aug 12 2008 at 4:14 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

I wonder how much gas we'd save if all cars used a continuously variable transmission. I believe the Honda Civic Hybrid comes with CVT standard, but not many other models have it available.






#33 Aug 12 2008 at 4:19 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

I believe the Honda Civic Hybrid comes with CVT standard, but not many other models have it available.


The Nissan Versa my parents test drove when they were car buying did, as well. Not sure how common it is for them, may have been a particular model.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#34 Aug 12 2008 at 4:27 PM Rating: Decent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

I believe the Honda Civic Hybrid comes with CVT standard, but not many other models have it available.


The Nissan Versa my parents test drove when they were car buying did, as well. Not sure how common it is for them, may have been a particular model.



Hmmm, I've never driven a car with CVT before. I'd imagine it'd be a very different feeling. Not having your engine speed scale the same with with your vehicle's speed...

It's sad, but I use my engine RPM to estimate my speed, since I have a '95 Neon with a gimped instrument cluster. The tachometer is the only reliable gauge.

When ever I'm borrowing or renting a newer vehicle I always find myself doing 90+ mph on the freeway by accident because they drive so much smoother and quieter. I'd image I'd catch myself speeding all the time with a CVT.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#35 Aug 12 2008 at 4:36 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Well this answers my question as to its prevalence, although it looks like about half of those cars are Europe/Japan only.

I've never driven one either, but the concept appeals to me.



Edited, Aug 12th 2008 7:35pm by trickybeck
#36 Aug 13 2008 at 4:35 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

The technology has potential. My main issue is that a standard motor isn't going to take much advantage of it. There are a number of car companies designing cars specifically to use this sort of system right now, and they are seeing some pretty impressive numbers.


Really, more impressive than, oh, I don't know, storing the excess electric energy in some sort of battery then using that to power the vehicle?



Key point being that you don't need a battery with the hydrogen systems. And if you do it right, you don't need a large quantity of hydrogen either. So. Less tanks/weight == more efficient process. More significantly, the only components to the hydrogen system is water and borax. Compared with the need to replace batteries completely every 3-5 years and the toxic materials they're made of, there are some benefits to that.


Ask yourself why almost all hybrids on the road are of the "battery assist" type. They get most of their power from the internal combustion engine and only use the battery for additional power as needed. In practice the most efficient form of hybrid uses a purely electric motor to drive the wheels, and a small gas powered generator to charge the battery (typically about 50 horsepower tops). The advantage is that you can operate your generator as the optimum rpm for maximum fuel efficiency since it only needs to produce as much power as the average you use. It's by far more efficient then how we're running most hybrids today. We don't build them in as great numbers for exactly the reasons that the battery systems involved need to be much more powerful. Which means more expense and more toxic materials in their construction. In otherwords the same problems we run into with fully electric cars. The second you're using a pure electric motor to run a car, the problems with existing battery systems crop up. I know you seem to want to ignore those problems, but they're really what's keeping us behind on this.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#37 Aug 13 2008 at 4:51 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

I know you seem to want to ignore those problems


Sure, I've only posted thirty of fourty times that current generation hybrids were a complete waste of time, and that we'd be better off buying more turbo-diesels.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#38 Aug 13 2008 at 5:38 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Quote:
we'd be better off buying more turbo-diesels.


Rate ups for me then, 'cos I drive one.Smiley: smile
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#39 Aug 13 2008 at 5:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

I know you seem to want to ignore those problems


Sure, I've only posted thirty of fourty times that current generation hybrids were a complete waste of time, and that we'd be better off buying more turbo-diesels.



And yet you also argued with me for like a week over whether McCain's idea to put money specifically towards developing new batteries that would solve those limitations was a good idea. Yeah. I know that the bulk of the argument was over the distance an electric car would need to go, but the core point that I made then and am making again is that it's the battery technology that's hindering us here. We can debate the exact specs, but ultimately that's why people are trying all these other technologies.

I happen to agree that most of what's going on is wasteful. Certainly, the standard hybrid car isn't worth it either in terms of cost or environmental impact. In the meantime though, anything that improves fuel economy that *doesn't* create more environmental impact then it saves (like existing batteries powerful enough to be used as the primary power source for a car) is a decent idea. The idea of on-demand hydrogen production isn't a bad in-between idea. It's just not as well developed or implemented as it could be is all...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#40 Aug 13 2008 at 6:00 PM Rating: Decent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
You've all got it wrong.

We shouldn't waste money on developing cleaner modes of transportation. We need to instead put all our money into developing instant teleportation. Then we wouldn't need to drive anywhere.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#41 Aug 13 2008 at 6:43 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

And yet you also argued with me for like a week over whether McCain's idea to put money specifically towards developing new batteries that would solve those limitations was a good idea.


1. No, I didn't

2. McCain hasn't advocated putting money towards developing new batteries that would solve those limitations. He's advocated a moronic "prize" that would go uncollected to be awarded to companies who build magical cars. Which is ludicrous for a dozen reasons we can discuss at length if you want to continue this idiocy.

3. If McCain makes it a platform plank to allocate $100 Billion to DARPA to do battery research, I'll vote for him. He won't though, because we'll need that money for another 8 months of stroking Ibrahim al-Karbouli's dead balls, or whatever it is he thinks we're doing in Iraq.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#42 Aug 14 2008 at 1:26 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
Even if generating hydrogen from water could produce energy, it can't by the way, you'd have to have a sealed system to pump that hydrogen into the cylinders. You're not burning it in the engine, the second it hits the intake it's turning back into water. You're basically pouring water, albeit a small amount, into your engine not hydrogen. All this is going to do is get little pieces of mayonnaise glass all over your engine, which has the added benefit of making your car smell tangy when you turn the heat on in the winter.
#43 Aug 14 2008 at 2:02 PM Rating: Decent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
Even if generating hydrogen from water could produce energy, it can't by the way, you'd have to have a sealed system to pump that hydrogen into the cylinders. You're not burning it in the engine, the second it hits the intake it's turning back into water. You're basically pouring water, albeit a small amount, into your engine not hydrogen. All this is going to do is get little pieces of mayonnaise glass all over your engine, which has the added benefit of making your car smell tangy when you turn the heat on in the winter.


I don't follow you here. You'd need a spark (like lightning) or combustion to turn hydrogen into water. Once seperated from oxygen, it takes more than just moving the hydrogen to turn it back into Water.

Edited, Aug 14th 2008 6:02pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#44 Aug 14 2008 at 2:14 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

You'd need a spark (like lightning) or combustion to turn hydrogen into water.


Well, "combustion" is just being in the presence of oxygen under the right conditions. A hot intake manifold probably suffices.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#45 Aug 14 2008 at 2:22 PM Rating: Decent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

You'd need a spark (like lightning) or combustion to turn hydrogen into water.


Well, "combustion" is just being in the presence of oxygen under the right conditions. A hot intake manifold probably suffices.



I guess... but this Hydrogen Data Sheet says that hydrogen ignites at 560C, gasoline at 260C. Now, I'm not sure how the oxygen content affects this, I'm just going by what it says.



Edit:
I'm not a chemist... most places seem to have a high ignition temperature for hydrogen, but others seem to show a low (80-125C) temperature. I don't know who to believe.

Edited, Aug 14th 2008 6:29pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#46 Aug 14 2008 at 2:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Quote:
I guess... but this Hydrogen Data Sheet says that hydrogen ignites at 560C, gasoline at 260C. Now, I'm not sure how the oxygen content affects this, I'm just going by what it says.


How hot does gasoline burn after it's ignited?

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#47 Aug 14 2008 at 3:07 PM Rating: Decent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Samira wrote:
Quote:
I guess... but this Hydrogen Data Sheet says that hydrogen ignites at 560C, gasoline at 260C. Now, I'm not sure how the oxygen content affects this, I'm just going by what it says.


How hot does gasoline burn after it's ignited?



Fairly hot, yes. But if the heat left over from the combustion of the previous cycle was enough to ignite the small amount of hydrogen being injected in the next cycle, then it would also ignite the gasoline being injected in the next cycle, which does not happen, since you still need to spark the ignition (or compress it to make it explode in a diesel).
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 312 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (312)