hydrogen cell - diesel

[jonamaphone1]

anyone running a hydrogen cell in their diesel?

done a bit of research on the net but mainly came back with ads and no real unbiased info.

[stirlsilver]

Is this the whole thing were you get the cell to produce hydrogen that you then introduce into your intake to get the engine to produce more power?

[-Scott-]

Interesting - I hadn't thought about how this would work on a diesel.

Diesels are an excess air engine. Theoretically, they always burn all the diesel - full throttle should be injecting as much diesel as the available air is capable of combusting.

If old-school diesel pumps are easy to "wind up the fuel" to create a little more power, surely it's equally easy to "wind down the fuel" so that there is always excess air, even at full throttle.

So, my theory* is for somebody (not me - I don't have a diesel) to wind down the fuel a little, then do their regular commuting for a few weeks, recording their fuel economy. This sets the "baseline".

Then, install the best "hydrobooster" system money can buy, (making NO other changes) and resume regular commuting. If economy is measurably improved that should be an encouraging sign - remove the hydrobooster to confirm economy gets worse again.

If economy isn't improved with the "hydrobooster" under this scenario, I can't imagine any way it ever will.

Who wants to try?

Scott

* I have done zero research - it may also be somebody else's theory.

[stirlsilver]

I looked into this hydrogen fumigation thing in a bit of depth just recently and I don't believe that it works.

This is why:
Say you have an engine just running and driving an alternator which is charging a battery until the battery is fully charged. You then turn off the engine and use the battery to run a hydrogen cell to produce hydrogen which is then stored. This is done until the battery is flat.

You then run the engine on just hydrogen that was produced to charge the battery up again using the alternator. Will the battery be charged to the same level by the time the hydrogen runs out? I would say no since there are always losses.

Soo... how can an engine that is running on ordinary fuel (be it diesel or petrol) suddenly produce more power when you turn on one of these systems since you need more energy from the alternator to drive the hydrogen cell than what you will get out from hydrogen produced.

I honestly don't think this system works. The energy used by the alternator will always be greater than the energy in the hydrogen produced.

The only way I can see this being used at all on an engine is if you ran the cell for a while and developed a hydrogen charge which you then consume in all one hit a little like a nitrous shot into the engine.

[-Scott-]

Interesting - I hadn't thought about how this would work on a diesel.

Diesels are an excess air engine. Theoretically, they always burn all the diesel - full throttle should be injecting as much diesel as the available air is capable of combusting.

If old-school diesel pumps are easy to "wind up the fuel" to create a little more power, surely it's equally easy to "wind down the fuel" so that there is always excess air, even at full throttle.

So, my theory* is for somebody (not me - I don't have a diesel) to wind down the fuel a little, then do their regular commuting for a few weeks, recording their fuel economy. This sets the "baseline".

Then, install the best "hydrobooster" system money can buy, (making NO other changes) and resume regular commuting. If economy is measurably improved that should be an encouraging sign - remove the hydrobooster to confirm economy gets worse again.

If economy isn't improved with the "hydrobooster" under this scenario, I can't imagine any way it ever will.

Who wants to try?

Scott

* I have done zero research - it may also be somebody else's theory.

Now that I've thought about it some more, I'm an idiot. Forget all of the above.

[KiwiBacon]

Now that I've thought about it some more, I'm an idiot. Forget all of the above.

No it's fairly accurate.
But my experience of "uprating" my diesel is that it doesn't use a noticable amount more fuel.
The reason being most of my driving is at the same speed (set by govt imposed speed limits) so on any given trip I'm burning roughly the same amount of fuel.
The breif moments of blistering acceleration and higher speeds up hills don't seem to impact my average fuel economy at all.

[Shadow]

I looked into this hydrogen fumigation thing in a bit of depth just recently and I don't believe that it works.

This is why:
Say you have an engine just running and driving an alternator which is charging a battery until the battery is fully charged. You then turn off the engine and use the battery to run a hydrogen cell to produce hydrogen which is then stored. This is done until the battery is flat.

You then run the engine on just hydrogen that was produced to charge the battery up again using the alternator. Will the battery be charged to the same level by the time the hydrogen runs out? I would say no since there are always losses.

Soo... how can an engine that is running on ordinary fuel (be it diesel or petrol) suddenly produce more power when you turn on one of these systems since you need more energy from the alternator to drive the hydrogen cell than what you will get out from hydrogen produced.

I honestly don't think this system works. The energy used by the alternator will always be greater than the energy in the hydrogen produced.

The only way I can see this being used at all on an engine is if you ran the cell for a while and developed a hydrogen charge which you then consume in all one hit a little like a nitrous shot into the engine.

They are claiming that the injection of small amounts of hydrogen increases the burning efficiency of the petrol (or diesel???). So you go from like 70% burn of your petrol, to 80%. The gain is not the energy from burning the hydrogen, but the energy from a more complete burn of the petrol.

That said, i think its a load of shit.

[stirlsilver]

Yes I did read something about that. Apparently that is actually true... but you need a lot more hydrogen to do that which still negates the effect since you need a very large amount of energy from the alternator.

Interesting thing though is that none of these systems use the oxygen that is produced?

[jonamaphone1]

in theory all the diesel burns, but real world experience says that ive seen a fair bit of unburnt blow out the exhaust. driving style mostly fixed this.

the concept of mixing hyrdrogen with diesel does work.
http://www.abc.net.au/ra/innovations/st ... 499183.htm

although i think they're talking about a system similar to diesel/gas.

[jonamaphone1]

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=213459

[jonamaphone1]

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=213459

and no. im not a member

[PGS 4WD]

I believe these systems do use the oxygen too, they call it Browns gas after Yull Brown. Given the time I would like to try it. Running on 100% Hydrogen and producing the Hydrogen with the vehicles alternator will never work as energy is lost at every transfere, lost to heat and so on. The ridiculous Yanks have a Highway that you can run your Hydrogen vehicle on with fill stations, the pollution from generating the electricity to make the Hydrogen is greater than what an internal combustion engine would produce.
If the Brown gas actually does improve the efficency of the engine then it might work. There are plenty of people flogging books and kits on the net.
Hydrogen is generated most efficiently between 1.27 and 1.4 volts (from what I've read) otherwise heat is generated as a byproduct. So for maximum efficiency you need a bit of stuff, a regulator that can handle some decent current, but I think most just belt 12v in to a jar of water via two electrodes and some hose off the top into the manifold near the throttle body.
If anyone is keen to make one I'd be happy to give it a blast on the dyno to see if we can notice in increase in power with the system on and off.

Cheers

Joel

[-Scott-]

If anyone is keen to make one I'd be happy to give it a blast on the dyno to see if we can notice in increase in power with the system on and off.

Cheers

Joel

Somebody! Please! This offer is too good to pass up!

[Shadow]

The ridiculous Yanks have a Highway that you can run your Hydrogen vehicle on with fill stations, the pollution from generating the electricity to make the Hydrogen is greater than what an internal combustion engine would produce.

sure about this? an internal combustion engine is at best 30% efficient, and has no method of keeping the pollution from the atmosphere.

A coal fired power station is approximately 70% efficient, and produce much less polution per kw than an internal combustion engine. Somwehre in the order of 5 times less.

A very modern gas fired power station can be as much as 85% efficient and generate closer to 1/10th the polution of an internal combustion engine per kw.

clean coal/gas power stations produce virtually no pollution? (pump it all underground).

nuclear? what pollution????? They just put it in drums and stash it in a shed somwhere.

You do have polution generated throughtn eh combustion of the hydrogen, however, the pollution is alot less except for nitrous oxide which is generally higher than petrol internal combustion engines. (some clean hydrogen cars, such as the bmw's produce very little nitrous oxide aswell, but the process is considerably more complicated).

An electric motor is as much as 90% efficient, which makes a battery powered electric car charged overnight through a mains source the most efficient and clean technology we have at present. The down side is the relatively small range, around 200km's which is about the only reason these cars havent taken off i believe. That and the massive increase in electricity demand on the grid, which is already overburdened in australia(especially qld)

[KiwiBacon]

A coal fired power station is approximately 70% efficient, and produce much less polution per kw than an internal combustion engine. Somwehre in the order of 5 times less.

A very modern gas fired power station can be as much as 85% efficient and generate closer to 1/10th the polution of an internal combustion engine per kw.

That's the generator.
Your power transmission lines are probably 60% efficient which brings us down to 42% and 51% respectively.
Then you've got the losses involved in electrolysis, lets be generous and say it's 70% efficient.
Now we're down to 29% and 36%

Compress that hydrogen to the pressures needed to get an acceptable energy density, then transport it, transfer pump and lose the stuff that diffuses out through the tank.

You might get 25% and 30% to your vehicle, but you're then either burning it in an internal combustion engine (30% max eff) or oxidising it in a fuel cell to power an electric motor, which is again going to be around 30% efficient all up.

Total conversion efficiency from power plant to vehicle transmission, around 10%.

It's a joke, not a funny one either.

[Shadow]

A coal fired power station is approximately 70% efficient, and produce much less polution per kw than an internal combustion engine. Somwehre in the order of 5 times less.

A very modern gas fired power station can be as much as 85% efficient and generate closer to 1/10th the polution of an internal combustion engine per kw.

That's the generator.
Your power transmission lines are probably 60% efficient which brings us down to 42% and 51% respectively.
Then you've got the losses involved in electrolysis, lets be generous and say it's 70% efficient.
Now we're down to 29% and 36%

Compress that hydrogen to the pressures needed to get an acceptable energy density, then transport it, transfer pump and lose the stuff that diffuses out through the tank.

You might get 25% and 30% to your vehicle, but you're then either burning it in an internal combustion engine (30% max eff) or oxidising it in a fuel cell to power an electric motor, which is again going to be around 30% efficient all up.

Total conversion efficiency from power plant to vehicle transmission, around 10%.

It's a joke, not a funny one either.

oh i forgot magical fairies get tghe crude oil out of the ground and use thier wand to make it into diesel and fill the petrol stations tank's up.

Compare apples to apples much????

i bet a petrol engines efficiency from 5km down a hole ascrude through to turning a wheel on a camry in brisbane would be cl;oser to 3% when you factor everything in.

[KiwiBacon]

oh i forgot magical fairies get tghe crude oil out of the ground and use thier wand to make it into diesel and fill the petrol stations tank's up.

Compare apples to apples much????

i bet a petrol engines efficiency from 5km down a hole ascrude through to turning a wheel on a camry in brisbane would be cl;oser to 3% when you factor everything in.

That's as apples to apples as it gets. I haven't included coal mining or transport to the power station, or oil refining and transport to the station.

I also think your 70 and 85% are too high to be credible, closer to 50%. Sidi Carnot has all the reasons why.

[zagan]

The ridiculous Yanks have a Highway that you can run your Hydrogen vehicle on with fill stations, the pollution from generating the electricity to make the Hydrogen is greater than what an internal combustion engine would produce.

sure about this? an internal combustion engine is at best 30% efficient, and has no method of keeping the pollution from the atmosphere.

A coal fired power station is approximately 70% efficient, and produce much less polution per kw than an internal combustion engine. Somwehre in the order of 5 times less.

A very modern gas fired power station can be as much as 85% efficient and generate closer to 1/10th the polution of an internal combustion engine per kw.

clean coal/gas power stations produce virtually no pollution? (pump it all underground).

nuclear? what pollution????? They just put it in drums and stash it in a shed somwhere.

You do have polution generated throughtn eh combustion of the hydrogen, however, the pollution is alot less except for nitrous oxide which is generally higher than petrol internal combustion engines. (some clean hydrogen cars, such as the bmw's produce very little nitrous oxide aswell, but the process is considerably more complicated).

That and the massive increase in electricity demand on the grid, which is already overburdened in australia(especially qld)

That internal combustion engine is at best 30% efficient.

isn't quite true, Hyundai have a 100% efficient diesel engine sure the pistons are 9.9 feet wide but hey we can't all have everything in a motor.

a diesel motor has a much higher combustion efficiency than a petrol motor anyway.

hydrogen is flammable when in concentrations of 4% or more H2 in air.

also at 560C hydrogen will burn regardless, a diesel motor would be able to compress to this temp.


So it's pretty easy to burn in a motor, also it can burn in the UV spectrum so it can burn invisibly.

some bacteria also produce hydrogen as well and this could be what the water cars could be using?

I don't think hydrogen has any pollution as it will combine with just about anything else, it's also the the only atom that is in the highest amount in nature anyway, 79% of nature has some part of hydrogen in it.

[-Scott-]

isn't quite true, Hyundai have a 100% efficient diesel engine sure the pistons are 9.9 feet wide but hey we can't all have everything in a motor.

Doesn't produce any heat? Amazing!

a diesel motor has a much higher combustion efficiency than a petrol motor anyway.

Yes. Why do you choose to mention this now?

hydrogen is flammable when in concentrations of 4% or more H2 in air.

Yes. Again, why do you mention this now?

also at 560C hydrogen will burn regardless, a diesel motor would be able to compress to this temp.

No. It will require oxygen to burn. No oxygen, no burn.

So it's pretty easy to burn in a motor, also it can burn in the UV spectrum so it can burn invisibly.

Interesting. But so what?

some bacteria also produce hydrogen as well and this could be what the water cars could be using?

Possibly. How many kilograms of this bacteria would be required to produce sufficient hydrogen to run a car? What else does this bacteria need to feed on as it produces this hydrogen?

I don't think hydrogen has any pollution as it will combine with just about anything else, it's also the the only atom that is in the highest amount in nature anyway, 79% of nature has some part of hydrogen in it.

Huh? Carbon is in EVERY living entity on the face of this earth - does that mean that CO2 isn't a problem for the environment?

Burn anything in air and you run the risk of creating oxides of nitrogen - that's generally considered to be a pollutant.

Have a look at the chemical formula of just about any acid or alkali you can think of - find me one which doesn't contain hydrogen.

[ISUZUROVER]

The ridiculous Yanks have a Highway that you can run your Hydrogen vehicle on with fill stations, the pollution from generating the electricity to make the Hydrogen is greater than what an internal combustion engine would produce.

sure about this? an internal combustion engine is at best 30% efficient, and has no method of keeping the pollution from the atmosphere.

A coal fired power station is approximately 70% efficient, and produce much less polution per kw than an internal combustion engine. Somwehre in the order of 5 times less.

A very modern gas fired power station can be as much as 85% efficient and generate closer to 1/10th the polution of an internal combustion engine per kw.

clean coal/gas power stations produce virtually no pollution? (pump it all underground).

nuclear? what pollution????? They just put it in drums and stash it in a shed somwhere.

You do have polution generated throughtn eh combustion of the hydrogen, however, the pollution is alot less except for nitrous oxide which is generally higher than petrol internal combustion engines. (some clean hydrogen cars, such as the bmw's produce very little nitrous oxide aswell, but the process is considerably more complicated).

An electric motor is as much as 90% efficient, which makes a battery powered electric car charged overnight through a mains source the most efficient and clean technology we have at present. The down side is the relatively small range, around 200km's which is about the only reason these cars havent taken off i believe. That and the massive increase in electricity demand on the grid, which is already overburdened in australia(especially qld)

Most coal power stations in OZ are old and inefficient.

A little known fact is that coal fired power stations release MORE RADIOACTIVITY (in the form of radon gas) than produced by a nuclear power plant.

Australian coals have high sulphur levels, yet NO power stations have SOx scrubbers (but they are mandatory in china - go figure) - so are releasing MUCH MORE SOx than modern low sulphur diesels.

Lots of other nasties in coal, but let's not go there.

Fly-ash is a HUGE problem. About 5% of production can be used in cement, but the resr is landfilled.

[PGS 4WD]

Its not just the generating of the Hydrogen, don't forget you have to compress it, potentially cryogenically cool it for mass storage, the enviromental cost of production of Hydrogen storage.
At the end of the day you don't get something for nothing. The electrical energy required to generate the hydrogen is greater than the return. Energy is neither lost or gained it just changes state. The electrical energy required to generate the hydrogen if converted back to electrical energy would be less as generators and combustion engines produce heat and noise and sometimes light, not all the energy will become electrical energy again. They will only ever convert a percentage of the energy no matter how efficient.

Unless we are talking Fission reactors.

Joel

[zagan]

Huh? Carbon is in EVERY living entity on the face of this earth - does that mean that CO2 isn't a problem for the environment?

Burn anything in air and you run the risk of creating oxides of nitrogen - that's generally considered to be a pollutant.

Have a look at the chemical formula of just about any acid or alkali you can think of - find me one which doesn't contain hydrogen.

What does heat... have to do with 100% combustion efficiency.

Haven't you looked around the web and seen these mining engines? they have been on the history channels world's biggest/longest/etc shows.

There's 2 piston each 1 is 9.9 foot wide 1 cycle from start to finish takes around 40mins to complete, it's about 5 stories tall and 40 meters wide a stroke is 20-30 meters long.

Small motors aren't efficient because of their size.

Older diesel motors are around 70% combustion efficient, the rest is chucked out the back end, it's only when you start to add in ECUs and stuff that you actually start to increase it a bit more but it's never be 100%.

petrol motors are worse than small diesel motors.

As for the hydrogen stuff have you looked up about it?

It's number 1 gas on the periodic table, it's more explosive than oxygen, and when you mix more than 4% of hydrogen with oxygen, the hydrogen will ignite straight away, also pure hydrogen will ignite at 560C with out oxygen.

pure hydrogen is used as part of the the space shuttle rocket fuels, apparently if you watch a space shuttle launch you'll see a slight flicking behind the shuttle rockets this is the heat/flame produced from the pure hydrogen being burned.

Also you talk about carbon, hydrogen isn't carbon.

You have hydrogen in spray cans
you probably have eaten hydrogen in food as well

as hydrogen combines every easily with a lot of chemicals which then form a sub-set of hydrogen chemicals.

Hydrogen is one of the base gases in the whole of nature, this means no only do you get hydrogen on earth but it's also in space and on other planets as well.

Carbon might exist here but doesn't always exist on other planets.

[-Scott-]

Huh? Carbon is in EVERY living entity on the face of this earth - does that mean that CO2 isn't a problem for the environment?

Burn anything in air and you run the risk of creating oxides of nitrogen - that's generally considered to be a pollutant.

Have a look at the chemical formula of just about any acid or alkali you can think of - find me one which doesn't contain hydrogen.

What does heat... have to do with 100% combustion efficiency.

Haven't you looked around the web and seen these mining engines? they have been on the history channels world's biggest/longest/etc shows.

There's 2 piston each 1 is 9.9 foot wide 1 cycle from start to finish takes around 40mins to complete, it's about 5 stories tall and 40 meters wide a stroke is 20-30 meters long.

Small motors aren't efficient because of their size.

Older diesel motors are around 70% combustion efficient, the rest is chucked out the back end, it's only when you start to add in ECUs and stuff that you actually start to increase it a bit more but it's never be 100%.

petrol motors are worse than small diesel motors.

As for the hydrogen stuff have you looked up about it?

It's number 1 gas on the periodic table, it's more explosive than oxygen, and when you mix more than 4% of hydrogen with oxygen, the hydrogen will ignite straight away, also pure hydrogen will ignite at 560C with out oxygen.

pure hydrogen is used as part of the the space shuttle rocket fuels, apparently if you watch a space shuttle launch you'll see a slight flicking behind the shuttle rockets this is the heat/flame produced from the pure hydrogen being burned.

Also you talk about carbon, hydrogen isn't carbon.

You have hydrogen in spray cans
you probably have eaten hydrogen in food as well

as hydrogen combines every easily with a lot of chemicals which then form a sub-set of hydrogen chemicals.

Hydrogen is one of the base gases in the whole of nature, this means no only do you get hydrogen on earth but it's also in space and on other planets as well.

Carbon might exist here but doesn't always exist on other planets.

zagan, it would really help if you understood high school physics and chemistry.

First, let's talk about heat. We're talking about energy efficiency in an internal combustion engine. These engines burn fuel, which releases energy in the form of heat. This heat is used to perform work. For an engine to be 100% efficient it can release no heat, it must capture it all and use it to perform work. If you insist on making claims about a 100% efficient engine please provide a link, as something is getting lost in your translation.

Hydrogen is an element, the first element on the periodic table. It isn't explosive, it's combustible. And, given that combustion generally refers to an element combining with oxygen to form a compound, I'm not sure how oxygen would combust?

Hydrogen combustion characteristics. Go back and read your previous post - you had it right there. 4% hydrogen in air is combustible, but I think you'll find 560 degrees is the ignition temperature. As for pure hydrogen igniting without oxygen?

And thanks for the tip about carbon, but I already knew it wasn't hydrogen. Carbon is element no. 6 on the periodic table (nitrogen, which is roughly 78% of our atmosphere, is no. 7 and oxygen, roughly 21% of our atmosphere, is no. 8 - it's all high school chemistry) and everything living on this planet is made of hydrocarbons - that's compounds consisting of chains of carbon atoms, lots of hydrogen atoms, and generally a few others as well.

Your claim that "79% of nature has some part of hydrogen in it" is mystifying - what does that mean? 79 parts per 100 what? (That's what "percent" means - "per hundred"). I can only presume it's a reference to hydrocarbons, claiming that there's roughly 4 hydrogen atoms to one of everything else. Not sure that's right. By mass, no way - one carbon atom is roughly 12 times more massive than hydrogen, so I'd say not. It's hard to know what you're trying to say - got that link handy?

Perhaps you're talking about all the hydrogen atoms in the water molecules in the oceans as well? Yes, that's a lot of hydrogen, but you still haven't explained how anybody can take water, split it into hydrogen and oxygen, re-burn it and end up with enough energy left over to do some actual work.

Oh, and carbon doesn't always exist on other planets? You know this how?

Edit: correction - made an elementary error.

[KiwiBacon]

What does heat... have to do with 100% combustion efficiency.

Haven't you looked around the web and seen these mining engines? they have been on the history channels world's biggest/longest/etc shows.

There's 2 piston each 1 is 9.9 foot wide 1 cycle from start to finish takes around 40mins to complete, it's about 5 stories tall and 40 meters wide a stroke is 20-30 meters long.

Small motors aren't efficient because of their size.

Older diesel motors are around 70% combustion efficient, the rest is chucked out the back end, it's only when you start to add in ECUs and stuff that you actually start to increase it a bit more but it's never be 100%.

petrol motors are worse than small diesel motors.

As for the hydrogen stuff have you looked up about it?

It's number 1 gas on the periodic table, it's more explosive than oxygen, and when you mix more than 4% of hydrogen with oxygen, the hydrogen will ignite straight away, also pure hydrogen will ignite at 560C with out oxygen.

pure hydrogen is used as part of the the space shuttle rocket fuels, apparently if you watch a space shuttle launch you'll see a slight flicking behind the shuttle rockets this is the heat/flame produced from the pure hydrogen being burned.

Also you talk about carbon, hydrogen isn't carbon.

You have hydrogen in spray cans
you probably have eaten hydrogen in food as well

as hydrogen combines every easily with a lot of chemicals which then form a sub-set of hydrogen chemicals.

Hydrogen is one of the base gases in the whole of nature, this means no only do you get hydrogen on earth but it's also in space and on other planets as well.

Carbon might exist here but doesn't always exist on other planets.

I think you should bow out of this discussion.

[PGS 4WD]

The ridiculous Yanks have a Highway that you can run your Hydrogen vehicle on with fill stations, the pollution from generating the electricity to make the Hydrogen is greater than what an internal combustion engine would produce.

sure about this? an internal combustion engine is at best 30% efficient, and has no method of keeping the pollution from the atmosphere.

A coal fired power station is approximately 70% efficient, and produce much less polution per kw than an internal combustion engine. Somwehre in the order of 5 times less.

A very modern gas fired power station can be as much as 85% efficient and generate closer to 1/10th the polution of an internal combustion engine per kw.

clean coal/gas power stations produce virtually no pollution? (pump it all underground).

nuclear? what pollution????? They just put it in drums and stash it in a shed somwhere.

You do have polution generated throughtn eh combustion of the hydrogen, however, the pollution is alot less except for nitrous oxide which is generally higher than petrol internal combustion engines. (some clean hydrogen cars, such as the bmw's produce very little nitrous oxide aswell, but the process is considerably more complicated).

That and the massive increase in electricity demand on the grid, which is already overburdened in australia(especially qld)

That internal combustion engine is at best 30% efficient.

isn't quite true, Hyundai have a 100% efficient diesel engine sure the pistons are 9.9 feet wide but hey we can't all have everything in a motor.

a diesel motor has a much higher combustion efficiency than a petrol motor anyway.

hydrogen is flammable when in concentrations of 4% or more H2 in air.

also at 560C hydrogen will burn regardless, a diesel motor would be able to compress to this temp.


So it's pretty easy to burn in a motor, also it can burn in the UV spectrum so it can burn invisibly.

some bacteria also produce hydrogen as well and this could be what the water cars could be using?

I don't think hydrogen has any pollution as it will combine with just about anything else, it's also the the only atom that is in the highest amount in nature anyway, 79% of nature has some part of hydrogen in it.

If Hyundai have a 100% effiecient that means it generates no heat has no cooling system and it silent, is this the case as in order to turn 100% fuel energy to mechanical energy there can be no other forms of energy genearted?....I'd like to see that

Joel

[KiwiBacon]

If Hyundai have a 100% effiecient that means it generates no heat has no cooling system and it silent, is this the case as in order to turn 100% fuel energy to mechanical energy there can be no other forms of energy genearted?....I'd like to see that

Joel

I want to talk to their bearing supplier.

I heard they have an engine that uses no fuel at all, it's powered by bulls**t.

[-Scott-]

Obviously, I suck at the internet. I went googling for this ground-breaking perfectly efficient diesel engine, and couldn't find a single hit.

40 minute cycle time? Power is a product of torque and engine revs. To produce significant power from such a low engine speed requires massive torque. So that suggests they're using a gearbox to produce useful shaft speeds. A 100% efficient gearbox is impossible, so this mythical level of efficiency must exclude the gearbox. I wonder if that's how they make their claim? Measure what's coming out of the gearbox, and blame all the energy losses on the drivetrain?

[KiwiBacon]

40 minute cycle time?

Smells like BS to me too.
In 40 minutes the heat from your combustion has cooled completel and there's nothing left to drive the expansion and push the piston down.

[yamaha__308]

I think you should bow out of this discussion.

x2

[-Scott-]

40 minute cycle time?

Smells like BS to me too.
In 40 minutes the heat from your combustion has cooled completel and there's nothing left to drive the expansion and push the piston down.

Well, 5 stories tall and 20 metre stroke, it must be a horizontal bore - so it wouldn't be pushing the piston "down". That aside, I'm mystified too. Unless it's a diesel fired Stirling engine or similar?

I really would like to read the source of zagan's information - something has been lost somewhere...