POLITICS - oil supply conversation

[Grizz]

KWK, actually water injection is used in some internal combustion engines, namely some propjets, to increase the mass exiting the burners. It might even have been used on the radials, can someone refresh my memory on this?

And the idea of injection hydrogen directly into the intake does have merit, why not, it works to inject nitro. increasing gas milage is just getting more power out of the fuel, or using less of it at fixed speed.

I just question that the tiny jar is going to produce enough hydrogen to make that big a difference.

I would like to see some photos of that rig at church to get some third party input. and I'd like to see some actual mileage numbers from that car, like the odo reading on both sides of a tank of gas.

Not calling anyone a liar, just saying I'd like to see the raw data so I could push the calculator buttons myself before I buy into someone's sales routine.

Grizz

[KWK]

Grizz, water injection works in engines with hot intake charges. The water displaces some air, but in cooling the air, the water makes the total intake of oxygen greater. More oxygen means more fuel can be burned which in turn means more power out of the same displacement. The cooling can also reduce pinging which allows for a slightly higher compression ratio or boost (or both), which ups efficiency a small bit.

Water injection does nothing to improve the efficiency of the burn, like this guy is claiming. It is useful on heavily boosted engines, such as WW-II piston engines, inline or radial. Even better was alcohol injection because it also cooled the charge, but with a liquid that itself was a fuel (water is NOT a fuel). Nitro is also fuel.

You can design a water injected engine that will give you better mileage, but it has to be a small engine heavily boosted. The small engine has lower throttling losses, which is where the efficiency boost comes from. This has to be designed in; it's not some plastic jar you slap on an existing design.

The guy is claiming you can use electricity to split water and the by product will help you burn better, doubling your mileage. Pure B.S. this is. It takes more energy to split water than you'll ever recover in burning the by products--that's basic physics. Nor can the byproducts improve the burn of the gasoline, at least not by much. Modern engines convert nearly 100% of the hydrogen and carbon in the hydrocarbon fuels (ie. gasoline) into their completely burned forms, namely water and CO2. There's almost nothing more to get from it.

The only improvements available in gasoline combustion are 1) getting more power from a smaller displacement, and 2) getting more compression ratio from the available fuels. The latter gives fairly small improvements in efficiency. The former is what has improved mileage ratings over the last two decades, though variable valve timing, improved injection, etc.

Hybrids let you use a very small gasoline engine. The engine works hard, which lowers throttling loses and improves efficiency. Regenerative breaking recovers some of the waste heat in braking, further boosting mileage some. The batteries and motors let the small engine give good acceleration.

[Grizz]

Well KWK,

I think you misread the proposition. The jar is breaking H2O molecules into 2 hydrogen and one oxygen molecule.

This is a legitimate gasifying process that produces Brown's gas. It is used in industrual applications as a heat source for torches. There is tons of information available online about the process. Search for it.

Also, I'm not a can't-do kind of guy. I've practically made my life's work doing things that I've been assured can't possibly be done.

So I will experiment and discover for myself whether this works or not, and how well it works if it does, and if I can improve it somehow if I get it going.

As for your assurance that it can't possibly work, I don't accept it.

If you want to convince me that something doesn't work and won't work and can't work, then build it and show me that it's a failure.

I'm ready to be convinced that it does work or that doesn't work, but your say-so will never pursuade me. I'm a show-me kind of guy. If you build it, I will look at that. Until then the benefit of the doubt rests with the we-CAN crowd.

Regards,

Grizz

[sore shoulder]

I know where there are a couple homeboy hydrogen stills right now up here in the mountains.

KWK, from a BTU standpoint you are right. However from a cost per KWh vs cost per gallon of fuel, you are wrong. And thats only if you are using grid power.Start using PV and your even more off balance.

Ah rekon we'uns up here in the thin air at 8000ft ain't sofisterkated enuff to unnerstand it wont work.

[KWK]

Grizz, it's no different. You can't split water with electricity generated from an IC engine and then get back out of the IC engine more than what you put in when burning it originally. That's perpetual motion. About the only way to improve the basic thermal efficiency of an IC engine now is to capture the energy in the exhaust. I don't see this fellow is doing any such thing.

Sore shoulder, yes, if you have an otherwise wasted energy source, using it to split water is one (somewhat inefficient) way to store that energy for use later. Sunlight is pretty much wasted. Finding a way to convert sunlight into a fuel has been the focus of much research for decades. If you mountain folks have a breakthrough in thermodynamics, please share it with us flatlanders; we certainly need it.

[sore shoulder]

Sore shoulder, yes, if you have an otherwise wasted energy source, using it to split water is one (somewhat inefficient) way to store that energy for use later. Sunlight is pretty much wasted. Finding a way to convert sunlight into a fuel has been the focus of much research for decades. If you mountain folks have a breakthrough in thermodynamics, please share it with us flatlanders; we certainly need it.

You missed my point. I addressed the thermodynamics when I said from a BTU standpoint you are right. Perhaps I'm not speaking your language. Mus be muh collage larnin slippin out.

From an economic standpoint, it's cheaper to make hydrogen fuel using grid power than it is to buy fossil fuel at the pump.

How is sunlight wasted? I use sunlight to charge a large bank of batteries that I use to power my home. I think that is not wasted. Conversely it is very efficient.

You use photo voltaic energy for the electrolysis needed to seperate the hydrogen atom. It's very simple. One of my neighbors runs his power generator on hydrogen fuel he made using pv induced electrolysis.

One issue being completely overlooked is nuke power. Nuke power can be used to make hydrogen, and all without fossil fuel dependance. It can also be used to charge electric cars, insted of fossil fuel grid power. Just something to think on, because it's really the only viable alternative in our lifetimes IMO.

[KWK]

Sore shoulder, I did miss your point; sorry.

I do find it surprising to hear it pays to split water with electricity generated from coal. Perhaps it is at the moment; the price of oil has raced ahead more than it probably should have.

By "wasted" sunlight, I meant it falling on the sand, roof shingles, etc. Using PV cells to make hydrogen is indeed an old technique. It captures into a fuel (hydrogen) sunlight that otherwise becomes heat. The big utilities are not investing in it, so at the time it must not be economical. In remote locations, that might be a different story. It's also possible to synthesize gasolines using solar heat, but the efficiency is poor.

I agree nukes are the only bright prospect at the moment, but much, much development needs to be done on it. The current technology deployed in the US wastes 99% of the raw fuel. We have the Democrats and the Greenies to thank for that mess. With the current technology, supplies of nuclear fuel don't appear to be enough to warrant the massive investment. Research into improved fuel cycles is need, NOW.

I'm pessimistic about future energy supplies. Coal is filthy. Oil will be getting in short supply. Nuclear needs development. Solar is very diffuse and thus will be expensive to capture. I'm afraid we'll all have to learn to do with less, a lot less. I'm spoiled; I like abundant energy.

[sore shoulder]

Sore shoulder, I did miss your point; sorry.

I do find it surprising to hear it pays to split water with electricity generated from coal. Perhaps it is at the moment; the price of oil has raced ahead more than it probably should have.

By "wasted" sunlight, I meant it falling on the sand, roof shingles, etc. Using PV cells to make hydrogen is indeed an old technique. It captures into a fuel (hydrogen) sunlight that otherwise becomes heat. The big utilities are not investing in it, so at the time it must not be economical. In remote locations, that might be a different story. It's also possible to synthesize gasolines using solar heat, but the efficiency is poor.

I agree nukes are the only bright prospect at the moment, but much, much development needs to be done on it. The current technology deployed in the US wastes 99% of the raw fuel. We have the Democrats and the Greenies to thank for that mess. With the current technology, supplies of nuclear fuel don't appear to be enough to warrant the massive investment. Research into improved fuel cycles is need, NOW.

I'm pessimistic about future energy supplies. Coal is filthy. Oil will be getting in short supply. Nuclear needs development. Solar is very diffuse and thus will be expensive to capture. I'm afraid we'll all have to learn to do with less, a lot less. I'm spoiled; I like abundant energy.

All we need do is look to France for clean nuke power. Even the greenies are coming online with nuke power.

I think you may be behind the curve on PV. The new panels are very efficient and do not require the direct sunlight the old ones needed to make peak power. I took a measurement on some silicon microcrystaline panels I was installing and face down on a cloudy day they were putting out around 5%.

Imagine a car who's body and windows are constructed entirely of high efficiency PV panels and either used to charge batteries or generate hydrogen. This would be particularly effective for commuters who's vehicles sit in a parking lot all day. Simply make all the parking lots on the south side of the buildings. An onboard power generator would make up the difference. No oil changes or fluid maintenance because the entire drivetrain would be electric. Only wheel bearings would need lubricating.

And that right there is exactly why we still drive cars with transmissions and gears that use lubricants. Something that should have been obsolete 50 years ago. Gear and lubricant manufacturers are making money off technology that should be history, and the automotive manufacturers are whoring themselves out at our expence.

[Blackhawk]

New Car Ideas:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automot ... 51491.html

May not be the fastest thing around but I'm keeping an eye on'em anyway.

Johnny

[sore shoulder]

New Car Ideas:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automot ... 51491.html

May not be the fastest thing around but I'm keeping an eye on'em anyway.

Johnny

Johnny, read the commentaries at the bottom of the article. This car is pure snake oil. I laugh every time I read about it.

[Blackhawk]

Frank,

There going to enter it in the $10 Million X-Prize contest to find out what it will do. Either way I'm glad to see company like Progressive holding such an event. Helps to look out for our childrens future.

http://www.progressiveautoxprize.org/au ... ails/teams

Johnny

[KWK]

Sore shoulder, France's program is indeed better than what we use in the US, but it still won't get us where we need to be. Fast reactors, or "breeders", are needed because uranium isn't abundant enough for the long run.

The car you describe will barely work. A car has what, the equivalent of about 6 sq m of area to absorb sunlight. Even in AZ that's about only about 40 kW-hr per day of solar influx into the panels. Let's say you have a most impressive 15% storage. Now we have 6 kW-hr per day. For a half hour of total driving time over the day, we get a mean draw of 12 kW or 16 hp. That much power will suffice, but people will be griping. They'll get used to it.

I'm not sure why you feel mechanical transmissions are 50 years out of date. They transmit power at better than 90% efficiency. Even in mining trucks, mechanical transmissions outperform electric drive. If you're starting with an electric motor, there's no compelling reason to use a mechanical transmission, but if you're not, you want a tranny. All my manual transmissions have had 100% up time.

But we digress...

[Blackhawk]

Here's something I found on www.youtube.com while searching for new energy devices. Don't know anything about other than the video, but thought it was at least on topic.

A genertor to power your home.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efCelx7qe_M


Johnny

[sore shoulder]

Sore shoulder, France's program is indeed better than what we use in the US, but it still won't get us where we need to be. Fast reactors, or "breeders", are needed because uranium isn't abundant enough for the long run.

The car you describe will barely work. A car has what, the equivalent of about 6 sq m of area to absorb sunlight. Even in AZ that's about only about 40 kW-hr per day of solar influx into the panels. Let's say you have a most impressive 15% storage. Now we have 6 kW-hr per day. For a half hour of total driving time over the day, we get a mean draw of 12 kW or 16 hp. That much power will suffice, but people will be griping. They'll get used to it.

I'm not sure why you feel mechanical transmissions are 50 years out of date. They transmit power at better than 90% efficiency. Even in mining trucks, mechanical transmissions outperform electric drive. If you're starting with an electric motor, there's no compelling reason to use a mechanical transmission, but if you're not, you want a tranny. All my manual transmissions have had 100% up time.

But we digress...

I realize the panelized body would not supply all the energy needs of the car. However it would offset a great deal of the cars requirements, use being a major factor of how much.

I'm not sure where you get 90% efficiency with transmissions. I'm a gear head and every horsepower table showing percent of parasitic loss from crank to wheel that I've seen is 15% or more. Using an onboard engine (deisel would be best) as a charger means it does not need to run all the time, and braking and idling is an opportunity to recover some of the power used, not to mention it does not require the complex fuel control programming since it will not need to rapidly rev up and down, which is where a lot of fuel is wasted in a combustion engine.

In addition, electric drive will be cheaper and have less maintenance. Electric drive also has way more torque, an unlimited power band, and traction control is as easy as sensing voltage spikes. Years ago they ran an S-10 pickup against a Camaro Z28 in the 1/4 mile. The truck had electric drive to the front wheels and it spanked the muscle car.

Most mining equipment that I'm aware of uses electric or hydrostatic drive. Locomotives have been using electric drive for 50 years.

An electric car could be driven with a joystick, a much safer arrangement IMO.

[KWK]

Sore shoulder, 15% loss for an entire driveline sounds a trifle high, but I can believe it. Regardless, I was talking about the transmission alone, and I'll stand by my 90%+ number. I think they usually reckon 2% loss per gear interface, and there's only 2 under load in a manual transmission; bearing and slosh losses account for the rest.

The truck engineers I worked with while at Caterpillar assured me the mechanical drives were more efficient overall than the electric drives, at least as of 15 years ago. It was a selling point for their vehicles. Perhaps the advances in power electronics have changed that. The newest models are electric, but these are huge machines, and the previous models were already at the limits of torque converters. In locomotives, electric drive won out in the 1950s because at that time it was cheaper and more rugged. Again, the new AC machines may be more efficient as well.

I agree electric cars are likely the future, for many of the reasons you cite. For city cars, a pure electric vehicle seems more likely, perhaps with a panel on the roof for a wee boost. Hybrids are excessively complicated for a city commuter car, and they don't do much better than a small turbo-diesel for road trips. If you have to burn gasoline, though, it's another matter, and you can't turn a barrel of oil solely into diesel fuel.

[sore shoulder]

Sore shoulder, 15% loss for an entire driveline sounds a trifle high, but I can believe it. Regardless, I was talking about the transmission alone, and I'll stand by my 90%+ number. I think they usually reckon 2% loss per gear interface, and there's only 2 under load in a manual transmission; bearing and slosh losses account for the rest.

.

I believe I missed part of that 15% loss. You also have to take into account input and output shaft bearings, universal joints, differential bearings, ring and pinion or planetary gears, wheel bearings, etc, some of which will be dictated by drive type, then if it's four or all wheel there is a transfer case. Much more than just those 2 loaded gears. Also not taken into account is the total mass, which for a commuter is a big deal, since all that mass has to be put into motion. Most of that is eliminated by electric drive.

[KWK]

Agreed; these are where one can start to add up to 15%, but the differential (a big loss), CVTs, etc. are not traditionally considered part of the tranny; they are components of the entire driveline. The current hybrids keep a driveline to handle the power from the piston engine when the batteries are low. There have been proposals to eliminate the entire driveline from electric cars by building a motor into each wheel. I haven't followed such developments and don't know how economical that currently is. I believe most still use a differential, etc.

I checked through my notes, and FWIW, the all mechanical locos of the 50s were reported to be more efficient than their electric drive counterparts in all operating regions. Most of the designs had reliability problems, and this sullied the reputation of those that weren't. They had other shortcomings, but efficiency wasn't one. I read somewhere the modern AC drives made a big improvement in efficiency.

[sore shoulder]

Agreed; these are where one can start to add up to 15%, but the differential (a big loss), CVTs, etc. are not traditionally considered part of the tranny; they are components of the entire driveline. The current hybrids keep a driveline to handle the power from the piston engine when the batteries are low. There have been proposals to eliminate the entire driveline from electric cars by building a motor into each wheel. I haven't followed such developments and don't know how economical that currently is. I believe most still use a differential, etc.

I checked through my notes, and FWIW, the all mechanical locos of the 50s were reported to be more efficient than their electric drive counterparts in all operating regions. Most of the designs had reliability problems, and this sullied the reputation of those that weren't. They had other shortcomings, but efficiency wasn't one. I read somewhere the modern AC drives made a big improvement in efficiency.

Yes, reliability is a big issue for mechanical drivetrains. Electric drive at the wheels is the future. Forward and reverse become braking for the opposite directions. Vehicle configuration is not dictated by drive lines and axles. R&D will be easier and less expensive than trying to create a bullet proof mechanical drivetrain. I envision urban 3 wheel commutor cars using a motorcycle type rear swingarm (its being done, but not very well, and not enclosed) which reduces drag and manitenance. More traction could be obtained by making it three wheel drive.

[DanWalker]

Hi,
I guess I got in on this a bit late.
Just a few things to share, if no one minds.
#1. I work in the oil industry too. I'm an engineer for a directional drilling company. I'm currently on a rig in ND drilling 9700 feet deep and 6000' horizontally through the Bakken shale you guys were talking about earlier.
What we do at my company is on the cutting edge of technology as far as this industry goes.
We'll be drilling this well horizontally for 11,000 feet. It's just one example of extended reach horizontal drilling that we're able to do. People make drilling under a lake sound difficult, it really isn't. Drilling under a mountain cain be a pain though.
Drilling horizontally through a pay zone is exponentially more productive than the old fashioned way of just drilling vertically. Just imagine the difference in production between a 12" diameter hole drilled through a pay zone that's 12' thick. Now imagine the same 12" hole drilled through that 12' thick zone horizontally for over a mile. THAT yields an enormous increase in exposed surface area of that formation.
As oil prices remain high, we're busier than ever, drilling new wells, and re entering old vertical wells and drilling multiple horizontal shafts from them. There are enormous numbers of poorly producing wells that we can get back into production utilising this technology.
Ok, rant over.
Now, for my question for you guys more mechanically inclined than me.
Why not just disconnect the internal combustion engine in a car from the transmission?
Use a motor to drive a hydraulic pump, and use that pump to power a hydraulic motor coupled to the car's transmission? Make the whole thing adaptable to EXISTING vehicles, so guys could just take their dodge,ford,chevy to a shop and have the conversion done.
There's a hydraulic motor the size of your thigh that powers the ENTIRE turret of an Abrams tank(I worked on them in USMC). I'd think we could use something even smaller for a passenger vehicle.
Aren't heavy machines like the giant mine trucks, and dozers and trenchers driven this way?
I know that the torque produced from the hydraulic motor would be great for trucks and tow vehicles.
I'd also bet that a 18hp motor would produce enough grunt to run the hydraulic pump. I'd also bet it'd get much better mileage than the 360 cubic inch v8 in my dodge too.
Convert the motor to run on LP gas, and you could really see some fuel cost savings.
OK, now you smart guys go ahead and shoot holes in my dreams with facts and logic.

[KWK]

Both railroad locomotives and earthmoving machines have used hydraulic drives. While rugged and versatile, energy efficiency suffers. Sloshing all that oil around generates a lot of waste heat. With the warning that my memory is hardly infallible, my recollection is that all-hydraulic drives on track loaders suffered a whopping 50% loss in transmission (or was it just double what a solid driveline does?).

[Grizz]

KWK nailed it. I used a lot of small scale hydraulic equipment on my fishing boats. They generate enormous amounts of heat, which is wasted energy. Fuel costs go up, not down.

As far as being able to control where stuff happens and how, almost nothing can compete with hydraulics, but they suck for primary propulsion if you're concerned about miles per gallon.

[Grizz]

Here's a writer who claims the high energy prices are the fault of one political party, what'dya think?

http://www.politicalgateway.com/main/co ... ml?col=341