[QUOTE=Birdman101;52125985]Hydrogen is dumb because if you count the energy it takes to produce it with hydrolysis, you might as well just drive a gasoline car and not have to worry about the special snowflake infrastructure.[/QUOTE]
Hydrogen does have the speed to refill though, compared to pure electric. It should also required less room and less weight compared to an EV. Seems they also have longer range as well. I think it should be possible to convert petrol stations to hydrogen stations, same with the fuel trucks/trains.
[QUOTE=Gulen;52126240]Hydrogen does have the speed to refill though, compared to pure electric. It should also required less room and less weight compared to an EV. Seems they also have longer range as well. I think it should be possible to convert petrol stations to hydrogen stations, same with the fuel trucks/trains.[/QUOTE]
Well yeah, but its completely pointless compared to gasoline, because of the immense power it takes to produce hydrogen, which, surprise, comes from the grid. 30% coal, 34% natural gas, 20% nuclear, only 15% renewable. Now im a total supporter of nuclear power, but thats another topic for another time. The point is, in the long run, hydrogen is not better for the environment than gasoline, and its certainly not more efficient.
[QUOTE=Birdman101;52125985]Hydrogen is dumb because if you count the energy it takes to produce it with hydrolysis, you might as well just drive a gasoline car and not have to worry about the special snowflake infrastructure.
Corn alcohol is dumb because even with cars built to run on it, even in its current demand with all the corn subsidies and shit, it really fucks over corn farmers. Sustainable, yes. Efficient on a large scale, hell no.
Even with all the problems of EV infrastructure, its the most developed and practical alternative to gasoline so far.
..except if you count biodiesel or other alt-diesels. With most diesel engines, it just takes some new seals, a tune, some extra filters, and maybe a tank heater to make it run on anything from corn oil, animal fat, or post fast food fryer schmoo to waste motor oil, transmission fluid, candle wax, or even magical shit made from algae. Sure, this takes production, but a lot of the materials have already been processed and used for other purposes, so i see it more as a recycling process than feom-scratch fuel production.
[editline]19th April 2017[/editline]
And, you know, gas vapor or woodgas, but we dont talk about that.[/QUOTE]
Most modern diesels also need new injectors with nozzles designed for the different viscosity of biodiesel compared to regular diesel.
The problem with that is price and availability, but that's pretty much a supply/demand problem and nothing more.
Which is still far more favorable problem to solve for any vehicle driving long distances.
[QUOTE=butre;52126198]I have no doubt that gas vapor works in theory and in some specific circumstances but its not gonna ever happen in a full scale production vehicle and even in one-offs its iffy at best.
you have problems with fuel sloshing, nvh, safety, reliability, and all sorts of other shit[/QUOTE]
Looking back through the history of car development, youre right. There has never been a more insane engineering hurdle than putting some open cell polyurethane foam in the bottom of the canister. Fuel slosh aside, you can get a sorta same result by doing something similar to throttle body injection, but letting the charge go through a long heated chamber before entering the engine, so the droplets of fuel actually get a chance to completely vaporize.
heating the fuel is an old old trick but you lose density and thus power doing that. the old amc straight sixes did that but it was nasty and didn't work well
poly foam solves the sloshing problem but not nvh or safety.
[QUOTE=butre;52126302]heating the fuel is an old old trick but you lose density and thus power doing that. the old amc straight sixes did that but it was nasty and didn't work well
poly foam solves the sloshing problem but not nvh or safety.[/QUOTE]
By nvh you mean noise vibration and harshness? I dont really see how thats a problem caused by running gas vapor. Safety i agree is a downside, but if ziptie wizard birdman can figure out that if you put garden hose screens in the fittings that it works as a flame arrestor and stops a backfire from blowing up the whole thing, think what professional engineers with real time and motivation could come up with.
[QUOTE=Birdman101;52125985]Hydrogen is dumb because if you count the energy it takes to produce it with hydrolysis, you might as well just drive a gasoline car and not have to worry about the special snowflake infrastructure.
Corn alcohol is dumb because even with cars built to run on it, even in its current demand with all the corn subsidies and shit, it really fucks over corn farmers. Sustainable, yes. Efficient on a large scale, hell no.
Even with all the problems of EV infrastructure, its the most developed and practical alternative to gasoline so far.
..except if you count biodiesel or other alt-diesels. With most diesel engines, it just takes some new seals, a tune, some extra filters, and maybe a tank heater to make it run on anything from corn oil, animal fat, or post fast food fryer schmoo to waste motor oil, transmission fluid, candle wax, or even magical shit made from algae. Sure, this takes production, but a lot of the materials have already been processed and used for other purposes, so i see it more as a recycling process than feom-scratch fuel production.
[editline]19th April 2017[/editline]
And, you know, gas vapor or woodgas, but we dont talk about that.[/QUOTE]
I have heard about the algae diesel. Don't know much about it. Also have heard plenty of times about the cooking oil alternative, although I'm pretty sure making that "fuel" isn't efficient, nor would it work large scale.
Hell, on a related note, Bridgestone is trying to develop tires in Germany made partly from fucking ground-up daisy flowers.
On the topic of efficiency, why not turbines again? Turbines are by nature very efficient, especially a modern one. Spin it at a constant rpm and hook it to a tranny like Chrysler did, or hook it to a hybrid system. A small one can spin a pretty big generator. A simple centrifugal turbine would make plenty of power and be low maintenance.
Turbines could work, you'd just have to make them easier to maintain.
Modern steam engine, isn't there a guy in here designing one?
Also. I fucking snapped one of the rocker arms bolt into the head. 3/4 of it in the rocker pedastal. Fuck me.
My friend might be buying a $300 Mercedes 300e. Thought?
[QUOTE=Savage Octane;52127107]On the topic of efficiency, why not turbines again? Turbines are by nature very efficient, especially a modern one. Spin it at a constant rpm and hook it to a tranny like Chrysler did, or hook it to a hybrid system. A small one can spin a pretty big generator. A simple centrifugal turbine would make plenty of power and be low maintenance.[/QUOTE]
Takes a lot of power to start the turbine
[QUOTE=Code3Response;52127556]Takes a lot of power to start the turbine[/QUOTE]
And the throttle response is abysmal.
turbines are probably more useful as a generator for an electric drive hybrid than a drive source
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52126043]I am surprised there have been no modern takes on the steam car. Jay Leno's video on the 1920s Doble makes it sound like it was pretty practical then, so the tech could probably be modernized. Then again you'd probably be using electricity to make the steam in the first place so maybe it's just a pointless extra step.
Great lookin cars though.
[img]https://a.d-cd.net/d08bbc8s-960.jpg[/img]
Mmmm[/QUOTE]
Trilby Harlow is designing a fully modern steam car.
[t]https://i.imgur.com/Pw81ugI.jpg[/t]
Order #1 of 2 comes in. Monday is planned to get them installed. #2 comes next week for the other side.
[QUOTE=butre;52127730]turbines are probably more useful as a generator for an electric drive hybrid than a drive source[/QUOTE]
Having an ultra efficient turbine running a generator or alternator setup would be alot better then running a turbine like Chrysler did. A proper setup to a generator at the right RPMs would in theory make enough power to either charge a battery bank or power an electric motor to properly drive a car.
The only problem I can see is the weight of the car and all the hardware in it, that would be the "MPG" killer there, unless the efficiency exceeds the power to weight ratio of the turbine making power for the battery bank or motors driving the wheels.
On the topic of hydrogen, making your own is easy but the electrodes fade a fairly short order to even make the stuff, not to mention storage of it. It's to volatile to really bother with IMO, then theres the issue of another wear part of the electrodes to make it. Hydrogen is simply not as feasible as one might think as a fuel source for DD type vehicles.
Wood gas, as good as it is is just to damn hard to make and store, unless you have a pickup that can store the needed hardware to make it. Gas vapor just needs some more trial and error to figure out how to make it so an engine doesn't run lean, or an engine/carb that can measure the air intake to gas vapor to avoid that entirely.
/2cents
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52126043]I am surprised there have been no modern takes on the steam car. Jay Leno's video on the 1920s Doble makes it sound like it was pretty practical then, so the tech could probably be modernized. Then again you'd probably be using electricity to make the steam in the first place so maybe it's just a pointless extra step.
Great lookin cars though.
[IMG]https://a.d-cd.net/d08bbc8s-960.jpg[/IMG]
Mmmm[/QUOTE]
Y'all forget my hobby is designing a modern steam car?
presuming a minimum 10% heat retention/recycling rate through feedwater heaters and the condensor and double expansion with negligible backpressure, i expect my design to get 25%ish thermal efficiency at the wheels, which is competitive with any car on the road today. And 10% would be a moderate estimate for an Elesco style open feedwater heater with no condensor. I wanna use a Worthington Sa style feedwater heater, which is far more reliable in terms of sustained efficiency without matinence, and the condensor is going to return water at around 90c to the feed tank anyway. So i'd expect it to be closer to 30%
[QUOTE=butre;52126059]
the problems with steam cars in a modern setting is that nobody wants to operate a boiler and that conservation of energy says you can't use electricity unless you want to carry a whole lot of batteries
plus do you have any idea how long it takes to heat up 100 gallons of water?
external combustion is rad but just not practical today.[/QUOTE]
The doble was automated in 1924. Compared to a modern car engine, it's incredibly simple to program an ECU to control a water tube burner. Control for air through a butterfly valve and airflow sensor, meter the amount of fuel going in, monitor the mixture and check combustion efficiency with a carbon sensor on the out pipe. No variation in the burn, no variable or quickly changing demands, static combustion enviroment, no problem to deal with.
secondly, steam cars use water tube boilers, not fire tubes. The obvious benifits being space, reduced complexity, better effective heating surfaces, "integration" of the superheater (in this configuration), way higher operating pressure (750+PSI compared to 350PSI tops), ease of automation and not being liable to blowing up and killing everyone.
[T]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Aufgeschnittener_Kessel.jpg[/T] [T]http://www.virtualsteamcarmuseum.org/images/vscmimages/stewart_h_h_steam_stewart/websized/doble_material/doble_e_series_steam_generator_cut_away_front.png[/T]
In a firetube, the combustion happens in the firebox and the heat is transferred through the tubes, with all the space taken up by a large amount of water. Technically you can conciser this an energy battery of sorts, where the quasi-supercritical water held in liquid form by the pressure retains a great deal of energy in "static" form in the boiler until the pressure drops and it manifests as actual steam. So the boiler can hold a great deal more energy for it's pressure and volume. Which is ideal for locomotive use because it needs to convert a vast amount of energy into a vast amount of work over a long period of time, and was far easier to build in the 1900's. I think the firetube is still viable if you were to apply Porta's third gen theory to it. Someone did the calculations on the big boy, and the numbers said that just modifying the boiler and front end to meet porta's model would basically double the horsepower and quadruple the thermal efficiency. From 6,000 to 11,500 and 6% to 18-20% under real world circumstances, respectively. But that's another topic.
For steam cars though, you have the water tube. You can basically think of this as taking the most efficient evaporative surface/part of the boiler, the firebox, sticking a coil full of water/steam into it and scrapping the rest. So while you loose the large energy cache nature of the fire tube, you have a much safer, much easier, more efficient and far higher pressure little vessel. The nature of firetubes and the firebox are what limit the firetube boiler to 300PSI, whereas the monotube can handle pressures in the thousands of PSI, and the extreme boost in efficiency that comes with it. In this application the only limiting factor on your pressure and steam temperature is your piston lubricants, which break down past 450c/800psi, which is why i went with 750 psi.
And here's the thing. ICE's suffer from extraordinarily short combustion time, meaning you have an upper limit of about 60% combustion efficiency. An external combustion burner like the doble here doesn't have that problem. You can have a 100% combustion efficiency and wring out far more energy from your fuel. And even with an 85% boiler efficiency, which was regularly observed to be exceeded in real world conditions on old ass locomotive boilers back in the day, the added combustion efficiency still means that you get more of the energy from the gas into the water than you get from the gas into the crank on an ICE engine. The maximum theoretical efficiency for an ICE is around 42% at the crank. Whereas locomotive boilers have an efficiency of around 85%. Plus the theoretical limit of a steam style heat engine is around 63% as modeled by the Rankaine cycle. And while you can only get near that with a turbine engine and not a reciprocating engine, it's still a fantastic difference.
So basically, the difference between the two is that in the water tube, you're converting a moderate amount of energy efficiently into a little bit of water, which then flashes almost instantly into superheated steam. And only firing the burner when that low threshold of energy needs refreshing. Which is a far more efficient, reliable, trouble free and fast way of raising steam compared to the fire tube way of putting a tremendous amount of energy into a tremendous amount of water and using a great deal more energy to constantly maintain that level of energy in the boiler for future use. Porta's revisions does make that a hell of a lot more viable, but not for a car.
And yes, the mechanical efficiency of steam does let that down, which is why the ultimate at the wheel effiency is going to be around 25-30%, but the point stands.
But when it comes to my design, The Wyvern, i'm also doing a lot of work to maximize the mechanical work of the steam in the engine. Primarily because i'm using my own derivative of the Franklin B2 valve gear, which has all sorts of advantages over traditional piston valves, but the #1 advantage being it's far more economical use of steam. It requires only a few hundred pounds of force to operate, currently i think it can use cutoffs as low as 3% for maximum expansion, and above all, the admission and exhaust events are separate, which means theoretically zero back pressure working against the piston, which is the #1 efficiency/power killer in steam engines. PRR recorded an across the board 20% increase in power/efficiency when they fitted a prototype of the type A gear to their K4's.
In short, steam is great fight me.
Also as for electrically heated boilers on steam engines, Switzerland tried it. It sucked.
[T]http://douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/swisselec/swisselec6.jpg[/T]
All you're doing is transferring energy through a redundant median and losing a fuckload of energy for no reason, and then putting what energy is left to work in a mechanism that's inferior to a straight electric motor. The problem with electric, besides the plateau in the power curve, is getting energy in a usable median to begin with, which is why you outsource it to a giant ass building 500 miles away.
Steam sounds great from a efficiency standpoint, but what are you using to create the steam in the first place? What are you burning?
Also, you didn't talk about his point that it takes forever to boil a lot of water. What is the throttle response on such a car?
Well, the last practical steam car was made in 1925, so that's all we have to go by, but like I said, that car makes a great argument for the practicality of steam with modernization.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUg_ukBwsyo[/media]
As usual Jay Leno does a great video on it and you should watch it. I would never have expected a steam car to be so practical - powerful, responsive, and [I]fast[/I]. 1000 ft-lbs of torque, 125 mph with no transmission.
If I remember right throttle response isnt tied to steam production, there is a sort of surplus of steam pressure built up so you can hit the pedal and GGOOOOOOO
[editline]20th April 2017[/editline]
And you could probably burn a whole range of fuel, gasoline, diesel, kerosine, white gas, ect, am I right?
[QUOTE=FlandersNed;52128546]Steam sounds great from a efficiency standpoint, but what are you using to create the steam in the first place? What are you burning?
Also, you didn't talk about his point that it takes forever to boil a lot of water. What is the throttle response on such a car?[/QUOTE]
It does take a long time to boil a lot of water. That's why you flash steam a small amount of it. On a double type steam car it's not called a boiler, it's called a steam generator. It flash boils a relatively tiny amount of water very quickly and cycles through a large volume.
[editline]20th April 2017[/editline]
Think of it as the difference between using electricity to charge a battery to power your car vs just having an electrical generator in the car.
Ahahah, the Win10 creators update broke elsawin 5.2, and I can't even reinstall because it fails on the 5.0 install. Time to install a win7 VM and then re-install it I guess.
Wrong thread mang
Looks like it's some Audi software.
Yeah, it's the maintenance manual / everything guide to everything Audi/VW/German
Rad stuff.
Looks like an issue specific to SQL 2008 and it not being supported on win10 in the first place. I'd hazard a guess that the creators update just finally broke everything completely for it.
Some things have been bought.
[t]https://puu.sh/vqFOE.png[/t]
[t]https://puu.sh/vqFNn.png[/t]
Not pictured: New parts for the pedals including a brand new throttle pedal, and a throttle cable shortening thing.
[editline]20th April 2017[/editline]
Those big boxes have some chrome trim in them for the window seals
Aw yiss
[QUOTE=F.X Clampazzo;52130018]Yeah, it's the maintenance manual / everything guide to everything Audi/VW/German
Rad stuff.
Looks like an issue specific to SQL 2008 and it not being supported on win10 in the first place. I'd hazard a guess that the creators update just finally broke everything completely for it.[/QUOTE]
And ETKA is the parts catalogue.
[QUOTE=Ldesu;52130069]Some things have been bought.
[t]https://puu.sh/vqFOE.png[/t]
[t]https://puu.sh/vqFNn.png[/t]
Not pictured: New parts for the pedals including a brand new throttle pedal, and a throttle cable shortening thing.
[editline]20th April 2017[/editline]
Those big boxes have some chrome trim in them for the window seals
Aw yiss[/QUOTE]
Hey i just got beetle brakes and tie rob ends too
[QUOTE=Birdman101;52130361]Hey i just got beetle brakes and[b] tie rob ends[/b] too[/QUOTE]
Bondage?
Yeep, looks like SQL 2008 R2 finally bit the dust for win10 with the latest update. If anyone else is using any software for car stuff that requires SQL 2008 and you're for some reason in win10 now, don't take the creator's update, it's bad news.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
