UKC

Retrofit Hydrogen Veedub project

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Seen as your oil burner is now worth nowt, anyone up for donating it to the good of Mother Earth (think about the children) to see if we can get it running on hydroxy?
Lusk 23 Sep 2015
In reply to John Simpson:

From your website ...

"Freelander repairs.
January 19, 2013 1 Comment

Well I’ve had this one a few years now, having done quite a lot of work to it, its true what they say about them, lovely motors, ..."


Have donated yours yet?!
In reply to Lusk:

Freelander is still running on diesel, I probably could get it running on hydrogen quite quckly but it's the works van at present.


 Greenbanks 23 Sep 2015
In reply to John Simpson:

Maybe VAG could do a deal with the Feds - agreeing to convert all miss-sold VWs and A3s to hydrogen gas? Might be cheaper than the $24K per unit fine?
In reply to Greenbanks:

> Maybe VAG could do a deal with the Feds - agreeing to convert all miss-sold VWs and A3s to hydrogen gas? Might be cheaper than the $24K per unit fine?

Maybe there is a plan behind the smokescreen?
 jkarran 23 Sep 2015
In reply to John Simpson:

Why hydrogen? It's a rubbish choice of fuel for a car (supply, safety, storage volume/weight issues) and for a diesel engine (burn rate, ignition, air/fuel mixture control just for starters). Yeah it burns relatively clean (noting the current NOx problem relates to material from the air not the fuel) but it's just not very practical.

The cars are no more or less valuable than they were before the story broke, at least to those already running them. VW has a very serious problem but existing owners are unlikely to be retrospectively penalised.

A drop in electric conversion... that might be interesting if there's going to be funding available for changes.

jk
In reply to jkarran:
> Why hydrogen? It's a rubbish choice of fuel for a car (supply, safety, storage volume/weight issues) and for a diesel engine (burn rate, ignition, air/fuel mixture control just for starters). Yeah it burns relatively clean (noting the current NOx problem relates to material from the air not the fuel) but it's just not very practical.

Any gas is as practical as the next to burn, if all the values are correct. Why hydrogen because its clean and combined with oxygen its very safe to be stored as water, you just need a fuel cell

> The cars are no more or less valuable than they were before the story broke, at least to those already running them. VW has a very serious problem but existing owners are unlikely to be retrospectively penalised.

Yes they are, the stock market tells us if our pound is worth a pound or if we are bankrupt our pound is now worth a penny in the pound

> A drop in electric conversion... that might be interesting if there's going to be funding available for changes.

Yes electric cars are all well and good for new builds but this is not what about all those scrap heat engines which just need a conversion?

> jk


XX
Post edited at 11:58
1
 jkarran 23 Sep 2015
In reply to John Simpson:

> Any gas is as practical as the next to burn, if all the values are correct. Why hydrogen because its clean and combined with oxygen its very safe to be stored as water, you just need a fuel cell

Erm... not sure what to say to this really other than it's basically rather muddled. Fuel cells extract electrical energy from the reaction of hydrogen and oxygen to produce water. To reverse that process producing hydrogen and oxygen from water you need an energy input. Did I miss a clue when you used the word 'hydroxy', is this some secret technology where cars can be made to run on water?

> Yes they are, the stock market tells us if our pound is worth a pound or if we are bankrupt our pound is now worth a penny in the pound

Not sure of the relevance but I'll have a little wager with you the price of used VDub diesels doesn't collapse in the next couple of years. VW share price isn't the same thing as used VW vehicle value, in this context they're barely related.

> Yes electric cars are all well and good for new builds but this is not what about all those scrap heat engines which just need a conversion?

They're not scrap, they work as well this week as they did last week and they're unlikely to be banned or targeted for additional taxes retrospectively. Also it's not a trivial conversion from diesel to hydrogen, contrary to your assertion it really does matter what the gas is that's burning.

jk
Post edited at 12:20
In reply to jkarran:

> Erm... not sure what to say to this really other than it's basically rather muddled. Fuel cells extract electrical energy from the reaction of hydrogen and oxygen to produce water. To reverse that process producing hydrogen and oxygen from water you need an energy input. Did I miss a clue when you used the word 'hydroxy', is this some secret technology where cars can be made to run on water?

It may read as muddled to you because you may need to read about it, there are lots more clues maybe do some reading about fuel cells, perhaps the best place to start is with the prototype cars which have been developed by all the major players in the automotive industry.


> Not sure of the relevance but I'll have a little wager with you the price of used VDub diesels doesn't collapse in the next couple of years.

Of course not and this is not really relevant, just a straw man argument you're setting up, lets keep on about the subject not the economics of it.

> They're not scrap, they work as well this week as they did last week and they're unlikely to be banned or targeted for additional taxes retrospectively. Also it's not a trivial conversion from diesel to hydrogen, contrary to your assertion it really does matter what the gas is that's burning.

I think you need to try reading between the lines, or if the difference of our understandings makes the between the lines too cryptic maybe do some real reading on fuel cells, or if your understanding of fuel cells it sufficient, maybe think about what you would have to do to a diesel engine to get it to burn a gas mixture which the by product of is water.

> jk

xx
 Mr Trebus 23 Sep 2015
In reply to John Simpson:

I am by no way an expert, but would it not burn a bit too hot and too clean for a normal combustion engine? You would need to have hardened pistons and some mechanism to lubricate.
In reply to Mr Trebus:

There's a good chance, the lovely donor project car would have a few internal engine parts destroyed ;+)
 jkarran 23 Sep 2015
In reply to John Simpson:

> It may read as muddled to you because you may need to read about it, there are lots more clues maybe do some reading about fuel cells...

I have a reasonable grasp of how a fuel cell works, thanks. If you're proposing a novel or unconventional use perhaps you could explain it or link to some relevant papers? I know full well they've been used in all sorts of vehicles over the years from spacecraft through cars to submarines but where they have been used successfully it has been without fail in accordance with the laws of physics.

> Of course not and this is not really relevant, just a straw man argument you're setting up, lets keep on about the subject not the economics of it.

Your words from your OP:
> Seen as your oil burner is now worth nowt...

> I think you need to try reading between the lines, or if the difference of our understandings makes the between the lines too cryptic maybe do some real reading on fuel cells, or if your understanding of fuel cells it sufficient, maybe think about what you would have to do to a diesel engine to get it to burn a gas mixture which the by product of is water.

Ok. So let's say I accept you can burn hydrogen and oxygen gas successfully in a reciprocating internal combustion engine, something that is far from trivial but isn't impossible. And I accept that hydrogen and oxygen gas can be derived at a sufficient rate from water by some electrolytic process... Where does the energy come from to run the car?

jk
In reply to jkarran:

> I have a reasonable grasp of how a fuel cell works, thanks. If you're proposing a novel or unconventional use perhaps you could explain it or link to some relevant papers? I know full well they've been used in all sorts of vehicles over the years from spacecraft through cars to submarines but where they have been used successfully it has been without fail in accordance with the laws of physics.

Nothing novel or unconventional, just a fuel cell that converts water to hydrogen and oxygen to be used in a car in accordance with the laws of physics.

> Your words from your OP:

> Ok. So let's say I accept you can burn hydrogen and oxygen gas successfully in a reciprocating internal combustion engine, something that is far from trivial but isn't impossible. And I accept that hydrogen and oxygen gas can be derived at a sufficient rate from water by some electrolytic process... Where does the energy come from to run the car?

Where does the energy in the car come from to run the radio, the sat nav, the air conditioning, the electric windows, the tow bar hitch socket to charge the caravan batteries, the electric sun roof, the car phone, and the electric seat controls?

> jk

xx
1
 jkarran 23 Sep 2015
In reply to John Simpson:

You don't get more energy back from burning the gasses than you put into splitting the bonds in water to generate them, this is inescapable.

The energy to run conventional car electrics (and propel the car) comes from the fuel. There's no fuel in what you appear to be proposing, what you're proposing is a machine with efficiency >1 which isn't feasible.

jk
In reply to jkarran:

> You don't get more energy back from burning the gasses than you put into splitting the bonds in water to generate them, this is inescapable.

You don't get any energy back from having the air con on its gone you just feel cool, why not ditch the air con and put the window down and use the air con pump fixings for a fuel cell generator?

> The energy to run conventional car electrics (and propel the car) comes from the fuel. There's no fuel in what you appear to be proposing, what you're proposing is a machine with efficiency >1 which isn't feasible.

A fuel cell doesn't just have to supply fuel on demand, it can have a tank as well containing gasses, you're looking at a system though you own understanding of what you think the system is like rather than trying to design a system in your mind that would work, I could explain exactly how my proposed design to you would work, but wheres the fun in that, why not try to design a system yourself which could work and build your own retrofit system. I don't need to do your homework for you, I'm just looking for a donordub, like a modern day Herbie that's close to the car graveyard in the sky ;+)

> jk

xx
Post edited at 13:58
1
 jkarran 23 Sep 2015
In reply to John Simpson:

John, lets look at this another way. So far as I understand it you're proposing the fuel for the vehicle be water, right?

I put in 1 kilogram of room temperature water and from that 1kg of water I eventually get out 1 kilogram of steam. That requires a net energy input.

jk
In reply to jkarran:

The fuel cell needs power that is obvious.
 jkarran 23 Sep 2015
In reply to John Simpson:

The system requires a *nett* power input. That is obvious.

Edited for clarity

jk
Post edited at 14:43
In reply to jkarran:

A bit like your car if you don't go to the fuel station it stops working.
 jkarran 23 Sep 2015
In reply to John Simpson:

Bingo.
 stewieatb 23 Sep 2015
In reply to John Simpson:

> Where does the energy in the car come from to run the radio, the sat nav, the air conditioning, the electric windows, the tow bar hitch socket to charge the caravan batteries, the electric sun roof, the car phone, and the electric seat controls?

> You don't get any energy back from having the air con on its gone you just feel cool, why not ditch the air con and put the window down and use the air con pump fixings for a fuel cell generator?

The fuel cell turns water into hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis. This requires a (large) input of electrical energy.

You then burn the hydrogen and oxygen together in the internal combustion engine. This produces an output of mechanical energy.

This amount of energy will be LESS (per quantity of fuel) than the amount used by the electrolysis process to produce that fuel, as dictated by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Therefore, your engine CANNOT power your fuel cell while running on the fuel it produces.

Perhaps, based on your later posts, I've misinterpreted your meaning on this. But if your proposal is to "charge" the car by plugging it in to generate fuel in the fuel cell, then you have all the same problems as those you attempted to originally refute by proposing a fuel cell! (supply, safety, storage)

On top of that, why not simply have a battery and an electric motor? It's lighter and more efficient than your proposed plug-in hydrogen-burning diesel system.
In reply to stewieatb:
> The fuel cell turns water into hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis. This requires a (large) input of electrical energy.

It requires electrical energy yes, large power settings and brute force gives you gas but you tend to overheat your cell very quickly. Square wave chopped DC input tuned to a frequency relativity to the fuel cell gives much better output.

> You then burn the hydrogen and oxygen together in the internal combustion engine. This produces an output of mechanical energy.

Yes

> This amount of energy will be LESS (per quantity of fuel) than the amount used by the electrolysis process to produce that fuel, as dictated by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Therefore, your engine CANNOT power your fuel cell while running on the fuel it produces.

depending on certain variables like size of cell, back up power supply of cell and total power supply to cell, and storage of fuel after cell, this statement can either be true or false.

> Perhaps, based on your later posts, I've misinterpreted your meaning on this. But if your proposal is to "charge" the car by plugging it in to generate fuel in the fuel cell, then you have all the same problems as those you attempted to originally refute by proposing a fuel cell! (supply, safety, storage)

Ideally the system would be hydrogen on demand.

> On top of that, why not simply have a battery and an electric motor? It's lighter and more efficient than your proposed plug-in hydrogen-burning diesel system.


Becuase we have a heat engine in place on millions of cars, a retrofit hydrogen system that is safe and cost effective is one of the great engineering challenges yet to be solved. Think of all the benefits, especially to the developing world.
Post edited at 15:48
In reply to stewieatb:

> The fuel cell turns water into hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis. This requires a (large) input of electrical energy.

Interesting that using urea instead of water reduces the energy requirements substantially.
Back to the OP, I've done a lot of work over the years with teams developing hydrogen systems for burning directly in a heat engine (BMW), and gas turbines (Airbus indirectly) as well as vector conversion both ways with fuel cells and electrolysers.
Not wishing to lead the OP, but I have the sneaking suspicion that Browns Gas generators and free energy are raising their ugly heads, in which case you have to add snake oil to the water to ward off that interminable second law.....
Hope I'm wrong.
In reply to paul_in_cumbria:
> Interesting that using urea instead of water reduces the energy requirements substantially.

> Back to the OP, I've done a lot of work over the years with teams developing hydrogen systems for burning directly in a heat engine (BMW), and gas turbines (Airbus indirectly) as well as vector conversion both ways with fuel cells and electrolysers.

Yes it's interesting that BMW were one of the only manufactures that did any real development with this, most others went down the electric motor path, interesting as well BMW have made several prototype exhaust pipe power converters to covert heat to electricity. As I assume you know all about this process with regards to the space shuttle and the MIT superconductors.

> Not wishing to lead the OP, but I have the sneaking suspicion that Browns Gas generators and free energy are raising their ugly heads, in which case you have to add snake oil to the water to ward off that interminable second law.....

Yes we've all read the snake oil stories, the Legend of Stanley Meyer, and the injection nozzle puzzle, we've all read the Australian University course notes of Hydrogen as a fuel source, spent some time cracking ecu's and fuel maps, built about 5000 turbochargers, got far too close to egr and dpf on a daily basis. You know your average backstreet garage guy.

> Hope I'm wrong.

xx
Post edited at 16:14
In reply to John Simpson:

The low grade heat reclamation off the exhaust doesn't work as well as say a CHP scheme supplying district heating. I've run R&d on electrical and other apps reclaiming from this source, but in reality it's hardly worth it. We had better results on a project for Holset turbochargers regenerating from a machine embedded in the gas stream. Produced about 2kW which is enough to offset cabin load.
Hydrogen is a bit fierce for a heat engine, but works ok mixed with say bio ethanol as a pilot injection. The embrittlement of any metal components in contact with the hydrogen stream can be a major pain, as can storing it for any length of time.
The real beauty of Hydrogen is, as you say, with fuel cells, particularly as a transient storage vector when the renewables are generating while everyone's in bed.
In reply to John Simpson:
> depending on certain variables like size of cell, back up power supply of cell and total power supply to cell, and storage of fuel after cell, this statement can either be true or false.

I'd love to see your justification for this being false.
In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

> The low grade heat reclamation off the exhaust doesn't work as well as say a CHP scheme supplying district heating. I've run R&d on electrical and other apps reclaiming from this source, but in reality it's hardly worth it. We had better results on a project for Holset turbochargers regenerating from a machine embedded in the gas stream. Produced about 2kW which is enough to offset cabin load.

> Hydrogen is a bit fierce for a heat engine, but works ok mixed with say bio ethanol as a pilot injection. The embrittlement of any metal components in contact with the hydrogen stream can be a major pain, as can storing it for any length of time.

> The real beauty of Hydrogen is, as you say, with fuel cells, particularly as a transient storage vector when the renewables are generating while everyone's in bed.


That's intresting information, thanks for taking the time to post this.
 Philip 23 Sep 2015
It's always lovely to watch a thread with a genuine nutter. Please don't stop this guy too soon, I need something funny to read later.

As an alternative, what about a car that runs on the energy from decomposition of male bovine faeces?
In reply to Fultonius:

> I'd love to see your justification for this being false.

Well basically he's say 'it' violates certain laws without knowing anything of how 'it' operates.
 Hooo 23 Sep 2015
In reply to Philip:

+1
Loads of these out on the wild web, but not seen one on UKC before. What I love is that their project is always easy and will save them a fortune in fuel, but they haven't got round to doing it yet.
In reply to Hooo:

It's not easy, but it's doable, it won't be long till they start to become something you see, generally put together by a few idiots in a shed ;~)
In reply to John Simpson:

Good justification...

So go on, explain this great perpetual motion machine!
 petellis 23 Sep 2015
In reply to John Simpson:

What about if you subjected the hydrogen to a magnetic field before running the engine off it? That would probably help add a big chunk of efficiency.

It's been done before with petrol cars but the oil companies always buy them out and shut them down.
In reply to Fultonius:
> Good justification...

> So go on, explain this great perpetual motion machine!

It's not a perpetual motion machine. It's a fuel cell including a power source and a storage tank for fuel. Sorry to disappoint you and some others who herar the word fuel cell and think somebody said free energy
Post edited at 19:22
1
 Hooo 23 Sep 2015
In reply to John Simpson:

So why did you say you could do it quickly then?

I first came across one of these threads in my earliest days venturing out onto t'internet. That was about 20 years ago. No one has built one yet.
In reply to petellis:

> What about if you subjected the hydrogen to a magnetic field before running the engine off it? That would probably help add a big chunk of efficiency.

I've heard of that before but have no real world experience of what it does.

> It's been done before with petrol cars but the oil companies always buy them out and shut them down.

Yes it's a well told story, alternative fuel system gets shut down by big oil, however due to the trickle down spread of info it's only a matter of time till every diy tuner can solve it.
In reply to Hooo:
> So why did you say you could do it quickly then?

because I can I just don't have the money to fund the project, hence my OP for an donor
Post edited at 19:20
 Ridge 23 Sep 2015
In reply to John Simpson:

> It's not a perpetual motion machine. It's a fuel cell including a power source and a storage tank for fuel.

Nuclear powered?
In reply to Ridge:


> Nuclear powered?

Wasn't that a DeLorean?
 Hooo 23 Sep 2015
In reply to petellis:

> What about if you subjected the hydrogen to a magnetic field before running the engine off it? That would probably help add a big chunk of efficiency.

> It's been done before with petrol cars but the oil companies always buy them out and shut them down.

Ha ha ha, I assume you're taking the piss? That one's been doing the rounds for decades too.
In reply to Hooo:

> Ha ha ha, I assume you're taking the piss? That one's been doing the rounds for decades too.

Meanwhile back in the real world

'In 1807 Francois Isaac de Rivaz designed the first hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engine.'


Source Wikipedia
 Hooo 24 Sep 2015
In reply to John Simpson:

> Meanwhile back in the real world
Glad you could join us
No one is saying you can't run an ICE on hydrogen. We're saying that it's impractical in a car, mainly because hydrogen is bloody difficult to store. Solve the storage problem and hydrogen cars will be a reality. Some big, well-funded teams are working on this, but they haven't done it yet. So, forgive me if I'm suspicious when you claim to have a solution.
While you're browsing Wikipedia, you might want to read the article on fuel cells. I don't think they do what you think they do. I get the impression that you think they can be used as part of a hydrogen storage solution?
In reply to Hooo:
> Glad you could join us

Thanks, but if you didn't notice its my name on the OP

> No one is saying you can't run an ICE on hydrogen. We're saying that it's impractical in a car, mainly because hydrogen is bloody difficult to store. Solve the storage problem and hydrogen cars will be a reality. Some big, well-funded teams are working on this, but they haven't done it yet. So, forgive me if I'm suspicious when you claim to have a solution.

Of course it's been done.

> While you're browsing Wikipedia, you might want to read the article on fuel cells. I don't think they do what you think they do. I get the impression that you think they can be used as part of a hydrogen storage solution?

Well if you're going to the trouble of building a fuel cell, some storage of gas isn't really that much trouble is it. Maybe like some other doubters on here you could put you mind to finding a solution to the problem in the great British spirit of enterprise, rather that somewhat dubiously claiming hydrogen is unpractical to store. Therefore a fuel cell cannot also store fuel.
Post edited at 08:29
 Siward 24 Sep 2015
In reply to John Simpson:

No the DeLorean used a flux capacitor, you will recall.
In reply to Siward:

> No the DeLorean used a flux capacitor, you will recall.

Yes the flux capacitor which made time travel possible was nuclear powered, until Doc Brown brought it back from the future then it ran on recyclables.
In reply to Hooo:
I've conducted long term road testing and analysis for CENEX over the years on both battery and hydrogen fuel cell cars. The H2 storage systems vary from 700 bar standard shaped gas bottles to some fairly exotic carbon fibre designs, but all have been approved for use on the road. I think long term storage is a problem, but that can be addressed by effective management.
There are a number of Fuel Cell designs which are bi-directional and could be used as part of a storage solution. They're characterised by abysmal conversion efficiency, but if you're just soaking up excess generation capacity at night, it doesn't matter.

Ok, apologies to the OP if I've misinterpreted his idea, but here goes in clarifying it.
Relatively small amounts of hydrogen introduced as a pilot injection into spark or compression ignition engines can (with quite a lot of reworking of the engine and maps) enhance mpg from the core fuel. Obviously if you take electrical energy from the rotational energy the engine is producing, you run up against our old friend the second law. If however you scavenge the part of 60% (ish) of the thermal energy which is dumped from the engine as waste (cooling system and exhaust) through peltier devices or even from an electrical turbocharger system etc. then you can perform electrical splitting (at modest voltages) of water into hydrogen to inject into the engine. No breaking of thermodynamic laws or what's practically achievable (I've done this stuff as part of funded programmes or consultancy).

Now the down side. This kind of stuff isn't buried by multinationals or big brother or cabals. I do R&D across the aero and auto sectors with the 'big boys' and have found them to be voracious appliers of novel IP to give themselves a competitive edge. Ideas are buried because of practicalities. The flame temperature and flame dynamics of hydrogen are very different to gasoline or diesel and it's not impossible, but very expensive to deliver an engine with long-term reliability which can live with this gas. Introduction of the gas into (say) a compression ignition engine makes control of the NOx/particulates levels and balance "challenging" even for VW. Onboard generation of electrical power from scavenged thermal energy works well in the lab, but doesn't translate well to on the road. The added weight of a device to generate sufficient power from the manifold and down pipe (the rest of the exhaust is too cool compared to ambient) including heat sinks, power electronics etc plus hydroliser and ancillaries is significant in terms of cost, complexity and added mass which negates the benefits of the hydrogen mpg assist on a standard EC driving cycle. I could go on (and on) but this is the stuff which isn't considered on the inventors and conspiracy websites. Not impossible, but not practical. If however you make hydrogen at home, or fill up at a gas station and run a fuel celled car, that's a different proposition and will now become more commonplace.
Post edited at 09:18
 Hooo 24 Sep 2015
In reply to John Simpson:

> Meanwhile back in the real world
Glad you could join us

> Thanks, but if you didn't notice its my name on the OP

Whoosh...
 Hooo 24 Sep 2015
In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

That's a very interesting post, thanks. While I always assumed that the big boys were testing out every possible idea they could think of and putting the ones that work into production, it's great to hear some detail of what actually gets done.
In reply to paul_in_cumbria:
Another excellent and informative post, once again thanks for taking the time to share. So basically I read it as; And likewise apologies if I've misread you.

Currently not practical to tool up to produce OE internal combustion engines burning clean fuel which do not harm to the environment, because there is a cheap abundant fuel, that we fully understand and it does some damage to the environment but such is life.
Post edited at 09:43
In reply to Hooo:

I was sitting next to BMW's technical director at a UK energy systems meeting when he made the announcement that they were dropping fuel cells and were going to burn hydrogen in engines. You could hear a pin drop as everyone did a silent WTF?
In reply to John Simpson:

> Another excellent and informative post, once again thanks for taking the time to share. So basically I read it as; And likewise apologies if I've misread you.

> Currently not practical to tool up to produce OE internal combustion engines burning clean fuel which do not harm to the environment, because there is a cheap abundant fuel, that we fully understand and it does some damage to the environment but such is life.

basically spot on. I think the IC engine running on hydrocarbons is around for a long time as a downsized range extender for plug in battery hybrids (with a sizeable battery pack), as it's possible to make an engine optimised for a torque speed set point to run a generator. Lotus made a sweet little 3 cylinder engine for this application which one person could pick up, and had absurdly low emissions (genuine test on a verified Horiba emissions tower). I've bobbed about doing my commute to work in pure electric vehicles which were ok in the summer, but a bit challenging when you have to make the get home or heater and lights decision! However energy density of batteries is constantly improving.
FWIW, I transformed a mild hybrid Toyota by bolting in a chunky additional battery pack and reprogramming the power controller. The engine very rarely cut in, but the number of pedestrians throwing themselves in front of a vehicle they couldn't hear increased exponentially!
 jkarran 24 Sep 2015
In reply to John Simpson:

Well John, to be honest I see almost nothing but problems in what you appear to be proposing. The part of this I do know a little about as a result of my job is electrical safety around explosive gas mixtures and Hydrogen is in a class of it's own at the top of the risk tree so if you're serious about experimenting with this please be very careful. Experimenting at model scale will be cheaper and significantly safer.

I'm happy to discuss any actual plans you may have but I'm not going to play the guessing game.

jk
Post edited at 10:02
In reply to paul_in_cumbria:


> FWIW, I transformed a mild hybrid Toyota by bolting in a chunky additional battery pack and reprogramming the power controller. The engine very rarely cut in, but the number of pedestrians throwing themselves in front of a vehicle they couldn't hear increased exponentially!


To me it seems that this is one of the reasons for the lasting love of the internal combustion engine is the sound when you press the loud pedal, never going to be the same with an electric motor.
In reply to jkarran:

> Well John, to be honest I see almost nothing but problems in what you appear to be proposing. The part of this I do know a little about as a result of my job is electrical safety around explosive gas mixtures and Hydrogen is in a class of it's own at the top of the risk tree so if you're serious about experimenting with this please be very careful. Experimenting at model scale will be cheaper and significantly safer.

Ok thank you for the genuine concerns of my safety, it's appreciated

> I'm happy to discuss any actual plans you may have but I'm not going to play the guessing game.



> jk
In reply to John Simpson:
> To me it seems that this is one of the reasons for the lasting love of the internal combustion engine is the sound when you press the loud pedal, never going to be the same with an electric motor.

Long time ago we produced an electric go cart for Top Gear (pre-Clarkson) and Tiff Nidell did some lap times in it vs petrol engined two stroke carts. Tiff was disappointed that the electric had fared so badly against the petrol carts until we showed him the lap times. The electric cart was significantly faster around the track than the standard carts, but appeared slower to the driver because it was virtually silent....
Post edited at 11:09
In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

> Obviously if you take electrical energy from the rotational energy the engine is producing, you run up against our old friend the second law.

Indeed.

> If however you scavenge the part of 60% (ish) of the thermal energy which is dumped from the engine as waste (cooling system and exhaust) through peltier devices or even from an electrical turbocharger system etc.

What is the efficiency of a Peltier cell? Of the waste thermal energy in the exhaust system, how much electrical energy will you recover? A: a tiny fraction.

> then you can perform electrical splitting (at modest voltages) of water into hydrogen to inject into the engine.

But, the fundamental problem is that in order to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, you have to supply enough energy to break the bonds. And that process is not 100% efficient.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water

When you then burn that hydrogen in the presence of the oxygen, you only get the same bond energy back. And, since the splitting process wasn't 100% efficient, you get back less energy from burning than you had to expend in splitting.

> No breaking of thermodynamic laws or what's practically achievable

Laws of thermodynamics smashed to pieces, I'm afraid.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Water_powered_car#Bullshit

 Hooo 24 Sep 2015
In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

> I was sitting next to BMW's technical director at a UK energy systems meeting when he made the announcement that they were dropping fuel cells and were going to burn hydrogen in engines. You could hear a pin drop as everyone did a silent WTF?

WTF indeed! It sounds bizarre that there would be any advantages to using an ICE over an electric motor. So what was the reasoning behind it? Are they still pursuing the same path?
 Hooo 24 Sep 2015
In reply to captain paranoia:

I think you've misunderstood Paul's post. It actually sounds very plausible, and like he knows what he's talking about. The crucial bit is this:

Relatively small amounts of hydrogen introduced as a pilot injection into spark or compression ignition engines can (with quite a lot of reworking of the engine and maps) enhance mpg from the core fuel.

So he's not running an engine from water, he's increasing the efficiency of the petrol burning by adding a small amount of hydrogen. This could be generated from waste heat as he describes, but as he says, not efficiently enough to make it worthwhile.
I assume this sort of story is where the nutters get their free energy ideas from, but it's perfectly reasonable itself.
In reply to Hooo:
Thanks; you're right. My apologies to Paul.

Change my 'In reply to paul_in_sheffield' to 'In reply to the water-powered car proponents'...

We could get the water from the vehicle exhaust, too.
Post edited at 19:44
In reply to Hooo:

> WTF indeed! It sounds bizarre that there would be any advantages to using an ICE over an electric motor. So what was the reasoning behind it? Are they still pursuing the same path?

Hi whilst not at all wanting to answer Pauls question for him, as I'd also like to hear his reply as he's made this thread so far very interesting for me at least, something of progress to get past the usual second law shut down of topic. So my take on this would be:

The internal combustion engine has been around for a very long time and is much more used than electric motors to power vehicles, and all the tooling is there to cast blocks, crankshafts, drop forge rods and pistons, machine cylinder heads, then you've got all the injection, ignition, hot end recycling devices, emissions control systems etc, plus the compression ignition lump in things like super tankers isn't going to be replaced by a 30m diameter electric motor anytime soon, so at least one manufacture was going to run a heat engine on hydrogen, Good old Beemer

As all we're talking about is a fuel change, Paul mentions the main reasons about why this isn't very practical for OE manufacturers right now and everything he listed is generally as I assumed plus more.

Just to clear a couple of points up here, the Jokey OP about someone giving me their pride and joy was a bit of a light hearted way of waiting for the usual second law shut down tactic, so to clarify what Paul said wrote up thread. Yes I have some ideas of a small fuel cell scavenging as much of the excess power from the motor, effectively only to raise the octane of the fuel more than likely on a petrol engine, as it's just easier to use a water injection system on a diesel to get the Nox emissions down. However later stages of development would primarily be using hydrogen as a main fuel source.

The Big boys and us backstreet tuners are looking at the problem from opposite ends, and what is listed as not very practical to some has no real relevance to others, consider the example if you've spent the best part of 700 hours restoring a car shell to show condition having put about £700 into the shell in panels and paint, and If that shell was listed on ebay right now as a 0.99p auction, I'd be lucky to get £350 back for this, terms like practicality have a complete different meaning.

A tear down and rebuild of an engine, with selected pistons, possible ceramic coating of head and other engine parts, changes to combustion chambers, stand alone fuel and management systems, or even go back a generation and don't even worry about fuel maps, just modify something like Kjet, time the cams up, and set the ignition timing and once you'd got your motor suitably tested you could knock 5 of those engines out a week, running on hydrogen, scrap yards are filled with old early fuel injection due to the scrappage scheme of a few years ago.
Post edited at 09:22
In reply to John Simpson:

Hi John,
Will get back on your post ASAP,
In the meantime, your comment about supertankers needing cathedral size Diesel engines...
Didn't have anything to do with the full size machines, but the outfit I was working with developed the scale prototype and did the development work for the electric propulsion on the Type 45 Destroyer with Rolls Royce

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_45_destroyer

I just reviewed a paper for the optimal deployment of photovoltaics on the superstructure of an oil tanker. Also looks like emissions legislation for marine is close, so maybe the all electric supertanker isn't absolutely out of the question. I'm pretty sure legislation will at least require a move towards electric manoeuvring in port in the near term.
 Hooo 25 Sep 2015
In reply to John Simpson:

Hopefully Paul will come back with some more fascinating stuff in reply to your post, but I just wanted to comment on your bit about "usual second law shut down of topic". If people are regularly quoting the laws of physics at you, it's because it sounds like your project is intended to break them. If they are reading you wrong, then you should take the time to carefully describe what you want to do. Otherwise, you'll just be taken for a free-energy nutjob.
This comment of yours from early on makes absolutely no sense: " Why hydrogen because its clean and combined with oxygen its very safe to be stored as water, you just need a fuel cell". I can't work out what on earth you meant by this, but it sounds like you think you can combine H2 with O2 and store it as water and then get them back as required. This is utterly wrong, and reading it makes me think that you don't understand basic physics. If I've misunderstood you (and I wouldn't be the only one), then please explain what you really meant.
In reply to Hooo:

> Hopefully Paul will come back with some more fascinating stuff in reply to your post, but I just wanted to comment on your bit about "usual second law shut down of topic". If people are regularly quoting the laws of physics at you, it's because it sounds like your project is intended to break them. If they are reading you wrong, then you should take the time to carefully describe what you want to do. Otherwise, you'll just be taken for a free-energy nutjob.

Yes there's a lot of history on this forum when this happens, it's just the way that it is if you want the think this, it's fine by me, I know what I'm doing and if people can't understand it because I haven't told them how it works, it doesn't mean it violates any laws and been told it does is just plain wrong and if then you want to think I'm crazy fine by me

> This comment of yours from early on makes absolutely no sense: " Why hydrogen because its clean and combined with oxygen its very safe to be stored as water, you just need a fuel cell". I can't work out what on earth you meant by this, but it sounds like you think you can combine H2 with O2 and store it as water and then get them back as required. This is utterly wrong, and reading it makes me think that you don't understand basic physics. If I've misunderstood you (and I wouldn't be the only one), then please explain what you really meant.

Maybe you should read up about fuel cells.

 Andy Hardy 25 Sep 2015
In reply to John Simpson:

> Maybe you should read up about fuel cells.

Every time someone asks a straightforward question, you resort to this tactic. It's why I think you're firmly on the troll spectrum.

 spenser 25 Sep 2015
In reply to paul_in_cumbria:
You've put some very interesting posts on this thread Paul, thanks for that.
In general to the thread: Here are a couple of papers which are relevant to the subject and quite interesting:
http://brucelin.ca/scooters/pdf/thesis.pdf
http://environment.yale.edu/gillingham/hydrogenICE.pdf
I've only read short sections of them myself as I found them while working on university projects but what I read seemed quite well written/ researched at the time.
Water is an absurd storage medium for a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, however if you want to do away with fuel stations then a small electrolysis plant running on a supply of salinated water siphoning off the hydrogen into a fuel tank would be a decent way of doing it.
The discussion about quiet electric cars mowing people down isn't just a problem for cars, it's a serious problem with electric trains moving round depots too (not saying that lots of people die by this method, more that it is very easy to die this way).
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> Every time someone asks a straightforward question, you resort to this tactic. It's why I think you're firmly on the troll spectrum.

I see, is that like a zx spectrum,? maybe we could use one as the fuel cell control unit.
 Hooo 25 Sep 2015
In reply to John Simpson:

Oh well, never mind. You come across as a nutjob or rubbish troll. I thought I'd give you the benefit of the doubt in case that was just your manner. I'm definitely going for nutjob now.
 Hooo 25 Sep 2015
In reply to Andy Hardy:

I don't think he's a troll, I think he really believes it. I'd like to see what he's read on fuel cells though
In reply to Hooo:
use a fuel cell to obtain hydrogen, and then hydrogen is burnt in a internal combustion engine. I don't think it's very complex.
 Hooo 25 Sep 2015
In reply to John Simpson:

Seriously, what have you read about fuel cells? Because it's bollox. Try the Wikipedia article for a start.
In reply to Hooo:
So just to clarify are you saying a fuel cell cannot produce hydrogen?
Post edited at 20:03
 elsewhere 25 Sep 2015
In reply to John Simpson:
Fuel cells consume hydrogen or another fuel to produce electricity.

Why are you talking about fuel cells running in reverse to electrolyse water?

Why not just call it electrolysis?
In reply to elsewhere:

> Fuel cells consume hydrogen or another fuel to produce electricity.

> Why are you talking about fuel cells running in reverse to electrolyse water?

> Why not just call it electrolysis?

You don't say what is that device, it's electrolysis do you, you say its a fuel cell.
 elsewhere 25 Sep 2015
In reply to John Simpson:
The device is a electrolye with 2 electrodes.

Generating hydrogen and consuming electricity then it is an electrolytic cell.

Consuming hydrogen and generating electricity then it is a fuel cell.

You use fuel cell for something producing hydrogen which is contrary to the accepted meaning of the term.

> You don't say what is that device, it's electrolysis do you, you say its a fuel cell.

So what is your meaning of fuel cell and what are the inputs when it is producing hydrogen.

In reply to elsewhere:

> and what are the inputs when it is producing hydrogen.

That would be the Naquadah generator.
In reply to elsewhere:

> The device is a electrolye with 2 electrodes.

> Generating hydrogen and consuming electricity then it is an electrolytic cell.

> Consuming hydrogen and generating electricity then it is a fuel cell.

If your fuel is electric yes

> You use fuel cell for something producing hydrogen which is contrary to the accepted meaning of the term.

The term gets used both ways, just because you may be more familiar with one way doesn't mean the doesn't apply

> So what is your meaning of fuel cell and what are the inputs when it is producing hydrogen.

Water, electrolyte, and power are supplied to the cell and hydrogen and oxygen are produced by the cell.

 elsewhere 25 Sep 2015
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
LOL, you got me there!
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> That would be the Naquadah generator.

Producing naquadria maybe?
 elsewhere 25 Sep 2015
In reply to John Simpson:
> If your fuel is electric yes

> The term gets used both ways, just because you may be more familiar with one way doesn't mean the doesn't apply

> Water, electrolyte, and power are supplied to the cell and hydrogen and oxygen are produced by the cell.

That sounds familiar, I think I did that as a kid at home with power stepped down from the mains and rectified. I vaguely remember bubbles and electricity.

What supplies the power to your cell?
Post edited at 20:42
In reply to elsewhere.

Easiest way is the national grid, cleanest way would be wind, or solar.
 jkarran 25 Sep 2015
In reply to John Simpson:

So you're planning to plug in your on-board electrolyser which presumably you run at very high pressure to generate compressed hydrogen (and the oxygen so you can do direct injection eliminating the pre-ignition risk?) which you'll store to burn in an old spark ignition engine?

Does this mean you've ditched the hydrogen-on-demand idea?

I'm still at a loss as to why you wouldn't pick a better energy storage system, they all have flaws but at least a hydraulic accumulator, compressed air, flywheel or a battery is comparatively safe. You can run a modified ICE on compressed air. The only real thing going for hydrogen as a storage medium is the ability to relatively easily convert it to electricity.

jk
Post edited at 21:21
In reply to jkarran:
> So you're planning to plug in your on-board electrolyser which presumably you run at very high pressure to generate compressed hydrogen (and the oxygen so you can do direct injection eliminating the pre-ignition risk?) which you'll store to burn in an old spark ignition engine?

Come on JK keep up you've already advised safety first, seperate the processes, optimise the system, miniaturise, this is what we discuss things for isn't it?

> Does this mean you've ditched the hydrogen-on-demand idea?

No, need to get the basics together before the zero point is reached.



> I'm still at a loss as to why you wouldn't pick a better energy storage system, they all have flaws but at least a hydraulic accumulator, compressed air or a battery is relatively safe. You can run a modified ICE on compressed air. The only real thing going for hydrogen as a storage medium is the ability to relatively easily convert it to electricity.

Well maybe you can build it and they'll come

> jk

Xxx
Post edited at 21:27
In reply to jkarran:

Hi JK,
You're absolutely right that all the energy storage vectors have their flaws and there is absolutely no free lunch. The best solution is usually to take advantage of economies of scale for production and grid distribution, whether that be fuel or electrical energy. The only exception is kinetic energy recovery under braking, and even then it's a difficult balance depending on depth of regen and driving cycle (offsetting the additional mass/Inertia, complexity and cost of the regen system and transient energy storage against downsized prime mover/long term energy storage and fuel costs.
You cite flywheels, and I worked in the team producing the prototypes (40kg mass external rotor, embedded drive, magnetic bearings, 120,000 rpm - you work out how many MJ), for Urenco back in the 90's. They did find applications as transient storage for trains coming into and out of stations, in Germany and the States I think. However, on the auto side, the disaster in the BMW lab where the out of balance rotor sheared the tensile bolts, lifted a 5 tonne concrete lid and grenaded, taking out the control room and personnel put paid to a lot of serious flywheel research, even though the problems were addressable. The F1 KERS flywheel system is relatively tame.
Another great idea was a project we conducted for Messier-Bugatti looking at energy recovery from landing aircraft. This fits with the EU directive that somehow we'll achieve widespread engineless taxi by 2050. There's 3.2MW peak available from a landing A320, however the cables to transmit the energy into the aircraft are so thick that under any reasonable undercarriage design, it won't retract. Also the sheer mass of copper and transient storage makes carrying passengers "challenging". As far as engineless taxi is concerned, it's eminently doable, but the mass of the machines embedded in the wheel hubs plus energy store has to be paid for either in increased fuel burn (not good) or fewer passengers (not economically viable). No free lunch.....

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...