Mazda to RG- Hydrogen is coming !!!
#201
Buzz Buzz Buzz
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Posts: 1,931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ha ha ha, he Killacycle! 0-60 in less than a second. And it really is a Killa - there's a video on here where the dude crashes it in a demo and bangs himself up pretty good: https://www.rx8club.com/showthread.p...ght=killacycle
#202
If electricity is clean and cheap. Then why don't all cars run on electricity?
And gasoline is still too cheap to justify more efficient alternatives:
Assuming a sportscar gets 20 mpg and there's an efficient version of the exact same sportscar but making 40 mpg (same performance). If the 40 mpg model would only cost $10'000 more, it would hardly be sellable. At 20'000 miles a year a customer can only save $1500 per year on gas at $3 per gallon.
#204
Registered User
#208
You guys might like to check out the AIR CAR!
http://www.theaircar.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4
http://www.theaircar.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4
Looks promising. Big Oil would hate those cars.
#209
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Portland, ME
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Full electric cars probably won't happen... who wants to charge the car for like 6-8 hours when they need to be somewhere now? or what if u run outa juice mid trip? Plus electricity to charge them will continue to rise and then whats the point. Over the last 2 years our provincial power has increased more then %40 in cost. (It will keep going up).
Hybrid cars have better potential, but as someone mentioned it's still more expensive to produce electric engines/battery combo.
Filling stations are the only way to go with alternative fuels
Alternative combustion fuels would be more feasible on a cost and consumer standpoint. Hybrid combustion engines (Like the hydrogen/fuel rx8 hybrid) are IMO the best way to go considering the infrastructure already in place with gasoline and the growing infrastructure of hydrogen.
The rotary engine is best suited for hydrogen combustion which is great.
BUT when it comes down to it the only way for these things to happen anytime soon is for everyone in the world to stop purchasing gasoline or have a few thousand people go around blowing up gas stations in protest.... cost everyone too much money and force them to do alternative fuels.
Hybrid cars have better potential, but as someone mentioned it's still more expensive to produce electric engines/battery combo.
Filling stations are the only way to go with alternative fuels
Alternative combustion fuels would be more feasible on a cost and consumer standpoint. Hybrid combustion engines (Like the hydrogen/fuel rx8 hybrid) are IMO the best way to go considering the infrastructure already in place with gasoline and the growing infrastructure of hydrogen.
The rotary engine is best suited for hydrogen combustion which is great.
BUT when it comes down to it the only way for these things to happen anytime soon is for everyone in the world to stop purchasing gasoline or have a few thousand people go around blowing up gas stations in protest.... cost everyone too much money and force them to do alternative fuels.
#210
BUT when it comes down to it the only way for these things to happen anytime soon is for everyone in the world to stop purchasing gasoline or have a few thousand people go around blowing up gas stations in protest.... cost everyone too much money and force them to do alternative fuels.
#212
Remember, in the USA not one single relevant functioning internal combustion engine has been invented! Rotarygod and now knowing why!
Americans and Rotorygod have no idea about thermodynamics!
With a faster burning fuel, is the thermal efficiency higher.
Isometric is efficenter as isobaric!
Ignition adavance is need for slow burning fuels, because of the ignitions delay. Peak pressure should with gasoline around ~4°TDC!
More advnce reduces the effective compression this lowered the thermal efficiency
Propane or CNG in a Otto-Cycle need a higher compressions ratio!
Why? This are crappy slow burning fueles!
Wrong! P= 2*Pi*n*M!!! A diesel engine must do 4000 revolution per minute and twice the torque produce as a gasoline engine at 8000 rpm for the same power!
For more torque need you more force F and force F caused more material, more mechanical stress, therfore bigger cross sections, bigger bearings and this all caused more weight!!! The R10 has a displacment of 5,5l and use turbocharging and produce only 650PS. Rember the the 26B has only a camber volumen of 2,6 l, produce 700PS and was natural aspirated! Energy content Diesel 35,3 MJ/L and Gasoline 32 MJ/L! The fuel consumption of a R10 is only 10% lower as a gasoline engine caused by the higher calorific value of diesel fuel!!! Is the calorific value normalized the consumption of Audi R10 equal with the Audi R8. The main advantage of the R10 less fuel stops. The efficiency of a Diesel engine decrease with rising revs! 6000Rpm with a diesel is hopless nonsens!!!
Gasoline produce 2,4kg/l CO2 and diesel 2,7kg/l CO2!
Hydrogen 0,00000 kg/l CO2!
25% of the hydrogen world production is needed for the gasoline and diesel production!
Americans and Rotorygod have no idea about thermodynamics!
With a faster burning fuel, is the thermal efficiency higher.
Isometric is efficenter as isobaric!
Ignition adavance is need for slow burning fuels, because of the ignitions delay. Peak pressure should with gasoline around ~4°TDC!
More advnce reduces the effective compression this lowered the thermal efficiency
Propane or CNG in a Otto-Cycle need a higher compressions ratio!
Why? This are crappy slow burning fueles!
Who cares if it can't rev to 10000 rpm? It makes more power than gasoline and at lower rpms. That means less stress on rotating parts. Diesel engines can be made to hit 6000 rpms now anyways which is plenty high for any street car. They can also be made light as new ones are starting to be made out of aluminum. Diesel fuel burns slower which means the flame front is easier to control but in addition as you've tried to argue with hydrogen, diesel fuel has more energy potential than gasoline. rpm limits are almost irrelevant too. The only thing that matters is average power through the usable powerband and diesel wins over gasoline. I'm not sure why you don't see this. Don't tell Audi this though. They couldn't win on the track if they knew!
For more torque need you more force F and force F caused more material, more mechanical stress, therfore bigger cross sections, bigger bearings and this all caused more weight!!! The R10 has a displacment of 5,5l and use turbocharging and produce only 650PS. Rember the the 26B has only a camber volumen of 2,6 l, produce 700PS and was natural aspirated! Energy content Diesel 35,3 MJ/L and Gasoline 32 MJ/L! The fuel consumption of a R10 is only 10% lower as a gasoline engine caused by the higher calorific value of diesel fuel!!! Is the calorific value normalized the consumption of Audi R10 equal with the Audi R8. The main advantage of the R10 less fuel stops. The efficiency of a Diesel engine decrease with rising revs! 6000Rpm with a diesel is hopless nonsens!!!
Both fuels will absolutely kick hydrogen's *** all day long in this department. It's not even close. It would actually be a joke to even try. Hydrogen is nice on paper and in our dreams but sadly it is impossible to make it a viable replacement in an internal combustion engine. Use it to store energy to be used in electic power generation but don't use it as a gasoline replacement in engines. It doesn't work good. There is not one single credible source to prove otherwise. It plains sucks when used that way.
Hydrogen 0,00000 kg/l CO2!
25% of the hydrogen world production is needed for the gasoline and diesel production!
#213
HD Paschke,
Do you by chance have any data regarding the flame propagation speed of the different fuels? (diesel, gasoline, propane, cng and hydrogen).
Regarding your energy yield graph per area: If you were to use the electricity produced to power an electric car vs. producing hydrogen to power a hydrogen car, you would need even less area. Also, oil from algae has a much better energy yield per area than oil from soybeans and the like - admitably, still less than PV and wind.
Do you by chance have any data regarding the flame propagation speed of the different fuels? (diesel, gasoline, propane, cng and hydrogen).
Regarding your energy yield graph per area: If you were to use the electricity produced to power an electric car vs. producing hydrogen to power a hydrogen car, you would need even less area. Also, oil from algae has a much better energy yield per area than oil from soybeans and the like - admitably, still less than PV and wind.
#214
Btw, are you somehow related to Hanns-Dieter Paschke - or why do you use his name?
http://www.google.com/patents?q=pasc...Search+Patents
http://www.google.com/patents?q=pasc...Search+Patents
#216
Hydrogen = crap.
Anybody with any concern with protecting the environment, saving fuel, making a convenient "green car", etc.... would go hybrid electric or electric.
How in the hell can you beat just plugging your car into an electric outlet at your home or work? Furthermore there is quick charge technology out for electric cars, so you are talking 30 to 45 minutes to get 50% or greater charge. Something you can do AT HOME, by the way. The range of electric cars are hitting 200 miles and beyond. You can also use solar cell technology to help charge the batteries as well. You can keep extending their range. There are electric cars doing 0-60 in under 5 seconds, but you can do hybrid electric too and just use electrical power in traffic.
The researches that wasted time and money on the Hydrogen RX-8, could have made an hybrid electric or electric assisted turbo version of the RX-8 with 275HP, saved gas, and burned cleaner.
Hydrogen = expensive, no refueling stations, limited storage capacity and travel range, still f*cks up the environment as the plan is to use fossil fuel based plants to make the hydrogen, etc....
Oil companies like hydrogen and there are several customer UNfriendly reasons for this.
Thumbs down to the Hydrogen RX-8
Anybody with any concern with protecting the environment, saving fuel, making a convenient "green car", etc.... would go hybrid electric or electric.
How in the hell can you beat just plugging your car into an electric outlet at your home or work? Furthermore there is quick charge technology out for electric cars, so you are talking 30 to 45 minutes to get 50% or greater charge. Something you can do AT HOME, by the way. The range of electric cars are hitting 200 miles and beyond. You can also use solar cell technology to help charge the batteries as well. You can keep extending their range. There are electric cars doing 0-60 in under 5 seconds, but you can do hybrid electric too and just use electrical power in traffic.
The researches that wasted time and money on the Hydrogen RX-8, could have made an hybrid electric or electric assisted turbo version of the RX-8 with 275HP, saved gas, and burned cleaner.
Hydrogen = expensive, no refueling stations, limited storage capacity and travel range, still f*cks up the environment as the plan is to use fossil fuel based plants to make the hydrogen, etc....
Oil companies like hydrogen and there are several customer UNfriendly reasons for this.
Thumbs down to the Hydrogen RX-8
Last edited by sosonic; 11-29-2007 at 08:56 PM.
#217
However, the countries that are in hydrogen development don't use fossil fuel power.
#219
Can you imagine how much effort it is to replace ALL cars to electricity ?
I don't think so! Hydrogen has the advantage, that a common combustion otto engine can be modified in that way to run with hydrogen. Show me the same with electricitiy. all you have to do is a gas injector, the tank, and the lane between.
Power will be 50% less then with common fuel, but it will run. Thats the point.
Hydrogen from natural gas is not the only way to get it. Its a gas at the conversion of bio mass to waste, or you can split it with electricity out of the water. Even some bacteria can help to get it.
maybe electricity will be better ... maybe. But the world isn't a clear, white shining piece of paper! Even .. how would you like to store the electric power ? A recharable batterie gets poor at low temperatures and recharge /operatin times are still too long at the current technology.
I think hydrogen will be the intermediate and long time kind of fuel to current and future cars.
I don't think so! Hydrogen has the advantage, that a common combustion otto engine can be modified in that way to run with hydrogen. Show me the same with electricitiy. all you have to do is a gas injector, the tank, and the lane between.
Power will be 50% less then with common fuel, but it will run. Thats the point.
Hydrogen from natural gas is not the only way to get it. Its a gas at the conversion of bio mass to waste, or you can split it with electricity out of the water. Even some bacteria can help to get it.
maybe electricity will be better ... maybe. But the world isn't a clear, white shining piece of paper! Even .. how would you like to store the electric power ? A recharable batterie gets poor at low temperatures and recharge /operatin times are still too long at the current technology.
I think hydrogen will be the intermediate and long time kind of fuel to current and future cars.
#220
A Audi NSU H2-Wankel with port blowing H2 reached 1976 already 41% efficiency.
That rose to 51% in 1991.
A Renesis H2 has a greater efficiency as port blowing engine.
The highest electrical efficiency of a H2-fuelcell is ~60% in Idling!
ηges = ηth · ηele · ηu
ηges = 0.8296 (U · ηu) /1,23 V
combustion efficiency ηu
A fuelcell is a stupid idea against a H2 Wankel!
At Morning the Ballard minute's silence to heat on the fuel cell.
When the temperature drops below zero degrees then the fuelcell must be heated or they will be destroyed by ice.
Also emptied the tank in winter, without the car even moved a feet.
A electric car ist the most stupid idea regarding to efficiency.
Power plant maximal 60% efficiency with natural gas GUD, coal-fired power station 45%. Than transformtion loss and transport loss. The batterie lader has loss, the batterie has loss, the converter has loss, e-motor has loss. etc..
Then more than ten times more power plants are required!
Experience with Wankel since 1954!
That rose to 51% in 1991.
A Renesis H2 has a greater efficiency as port blowing engine.
The highest electrical efficiency of a H2-fuelcell is ~60% in Idling!
ηges = ηth · ηele · ηu
ηges = 0.8296 (U · ηu) /1,23 V
combustion efficiency ηu
A fuelcell is a stupid idea against a H2 Wankel!
At Morning the Ballard minute's silence to heat on the fuel cell.
When the temperature drops below zero degrees then the fuelcell must be heated or they will be destroyed by ice.
Also emptied the tank in winter, without the car even moved a feet.
A electric car ist the most stupid idea regarding to efficiency.
Power plant maximal 60% efficiency with natural gas GUD, coal-fired power station 45%. Than transformtion loss and transport loss. The batterie lader has loss, the batterie has loss, the converter has loss, e-motor has loss. etc..
Then more than ten times more power plants are required!
Experience with Wankel since 1954!
Last edited by HD-Paschke; 12-09-2007 at 01:08 PM.
#222
Administrator
Thread Starter
http://www.der-wankelmotor.de
which many of us have drawn info from over the years. the math available at
http://www.der-wankelmotor.de/Techni...iklexikon.html is extremely helpful in understanding how they have changed the internal dimensions without changing them much externally
and one of the few places (and perhaps only legitimate on line source) where you can still find pics of the Rolls Royce diesel 2 step compression unit that used one rotor to pre-compress the fuel/air mixture into a smaller rotor that compressed it the rest of the way for combustion - one of my particular favorites. i still think that shows promise.
http://www.der-wankelmotor.de/Motore...lls-royce.html
babelfish this site when you have a chance
#223
Registered RX-8 User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: PA/MD
Posts: 718
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GO PENN STATE!!
Penn State makes CHEAP ABUNDANT HYDROGEN
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071112...1IRTTG0jkDW7oF
Penn State makes CHEAP ABUNDANT HYDROGEN
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071112...1IRTTG0jkDW7oF
http://www.psucollegian.com/archive/...er_energy.aspx
BTW did you go to psu, zoom?
Last edited by EdwardsB; 12-10-2007 at 09:39 AM.
#225
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Portland, ME
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How in the hell can you beat just plugging your car into an electric outlet at your home or work? Furthermore there is quick charge technology out for electric cars, so you are talking 30 to 45 minutes to get 50% or greater charge. Something you can do AT HOME, by the way. The range of electric cars are hitting 200 miles and beyond.
Electricity is expensive, batteries are expensive and heavy (sure they're lighter now a days, but yes they're still heavy as ****).
You can also use solar cell technology to help charge the batteries as well. You can keep extending their range. There are electric cars doing 0-60 in under 5 seconds, but you can do hybrid electric too and just use electrical power in traffic.
The researches that wasted time and money on the Hydrogen RX-8, could have made an hybrid electric or electric assisted turbo version of the RX-8 with 275HP, saved gas, and burned cleaner.
an electric hybrid would be too expensive, no one would buy it. Waste of money considering hydrogen hybrid is cheaper to produce.
cleaner, maybe slightly... but mass market wise if people were offered hydrogen vs electric, they'd choose hydrogen due to initial cost. They can convert their car cheaper then if thye had to buy a new one that didnt come in the design they liked.
Hydrogen = expensive, no refueling stations, limited storage capacity and travel range, still f*cks up the environment as the plan is to use fossil fuel based plants to make the hydrogen, etc....
Dont fight it, hydrogen is the way of the future.