On 6/24/2021 3:20 AM, Clive Arthur wrote:
> On 24/06/2021 10:32, Don Y wrote:
>> On 6/24/2021 2:04 AM, Clive Arthur wrote:
>>> With clever enough control electronics and a small battery, the
>>> motor/generator can dynamically alter the force on the piston without
>>> wasting energy, other than SMPS-type inefficiencies. You're no longer
>>> constrained by the mechanically-enforced almost sinusoidal motion. On
>>> ignition, for example, in a conventional engine the bang starts more or less
>>> at TDC where the piston is hardest to move - there's no reason why this
>>> should be optimal, it is a consequence of the rotary mechanism and inertia.
>>
>> You also have to take into consideration the fact that combustion doesn't
>> happen coincident with spark. And, doesn't *finish* in zero time.
>>
>> Typically, ignition is advanced "BTDC" to give the air-fuel mixture and
>> spark time to BEGIN combustion while the piston is still coasting up to
>> (and past) TDC. The combustion event must then complete before the
>> piston starts back on the up-stroke (else it is working against the engine)
>>
>> "Tuning" an engine on a dyno you advance the timing until you get
>> maximum torque (retarding in case of knock). If you can do this
>> dynamically and get the most from the engine while asking it for
>> the LEAST you need...
>
> Well yes, in a /normal/ engine, timing (and everything) has to be optimised
> within the constraints of the mechanical motion enforced by the geometry and
> inertia. Without those constraints there are probably ways to improve efficiency.

I'm not sure there are any "big" improvements, left on the table.
Consider diesels operate in a narrower band (RPM) -- moving much
of the vehicle speed/power tradeoff into the gearbox. A gasoline
engine usually has a handful of forward gears (4-6?). Why is
the enhanced tranny functionality that benefits the diesel
not practical for a gasoline powered vehicle?

[dunno, I'm asking; if it was practical, you'd think SOMEONE would
have tried it!]

Blowers give more power -- but are only really practical on
"muscle cars". Why can't a similar technology be practical on
all vehicles (esp with the smarts that are now present in the ECUs)

>>> It /may/ be that it's better to start with eg a lower force and use a
>>> different force profile. At the end of the stroke, the MG stops the piston
>>> and drives it back using battery power with a profile optimised for
>>> exhaust. The induction and compression phases likewise, and these of course
>>> don't need to be the same length as the ignition and exhaust strokes. It
>>> /may/ be advantageous to suck slowly and squeeze quickly - I don't know, but
>>> it seems unlikely that an enforced sinusoid is necessarily optimal.
>>
>> I think the bigger "bang" (no pun intended) is finding more efficient
>> ways of getting air into the mixture. This could let you get by with
>> less fuel per effort-of-mechanical-work.
>
> Again, conventionally you're limited by geometry etc. It /may/ be advantageous
> to suck more slowly than you squeeze, or more quickly, or the whole cycle
> profile could depend on the exact nature of the fuel. The point is, you'd have
> options. You don't even have to use the full stroke for example. Maybe the
> exhaust stroke is improved by a wiggle in the middle or a series of short
> pulses, unlikely, but who knows.

Sure! If you run with straight pipes (less back pressure), performance
increases. But, so does noise.

Could active noise canceling be a more practical solution for the "muffler"?
What role (in back pressure) does the catalytic converter then play?

>> This is the most common
>> efficiency hack seen after-market (e.g., blowers); but, usually, that
>> additional power is "squandered" in enhanced acceleration instead of
>> improved fuel economy.
>>
>> Existing ICE designs do all sorts of wacky things to save on fuel
>> (like running on fewer cylinders when demand is low), managing accessory
>> loads on the engine in periods of high demand, etc.
>>
>> But, the ICE is likely not long-lived in this application. It may
>> see some prolonged "niche" use (e.g., REALLY high power demands)
>> but as a normal means of transport, other options will prevail.
>> (as will the design of cities and living areas)
>
> Yes. I still want the megabucks funding to investigate this, though.

I think we've reached a degree of acceptance with electric vehicles
that they will now be "the mainstream future". With time, gas guzzlers
will be harder to operate and maintain. The only stumbling block
I see (wrt electric) is FUD re: autopilot screwups.

[I am also curious to see how friends with EVs fare with our brutal
heat. If battery lifespan is dramatically shortened (as it is for
lead-acid "starter" batteries), then that can become a costly
maintenance issue.]

A friend is restoring a '71 cougar. He spends $11/tankful ADDING lead
to his fuel (because it's not available "from a pump"). What similar
sorts of supply chain changes will make operating a gasoline engine
impractical for most folks?

[In Japan, a neighbor says "older" vehicles have all sorts of costly
repair fees/fines imposed as a DISincentive to folks keeping their
vehicles. Interesting way to stimulate the economy, eh? :> ]

On 2021-06-24, Clive Arthur <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:
> On 19/06/2021 12:32, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>> Very good engineering overview of the challenges, hurdles, and performance considerations involved in the development. Hydrogen combustion technology is not going mainstream anytime soon if ever.
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IPR50-soNA
>>
> ISTM that Toyota want to sell EVs and are doing some expensive marketing
> to show that at least one alternative is ineffective.
>
> If you dispense with the crankshaft in a four stroke
> suck-squeeze-bang-whoosh engine and use a linear motor/generator to
> extract electrical energy you may stand a better chance.
>
> With clever enough control electronics and a small battery, the
> motor/generator can dynamically alter the force on the piston without
> wasting energy, other than SMPS-type inefficiencies. You're no longer
> constrained by the mechanically-enforced almost sinusoidal motion. On
> ignition, for example, in a conventional engine the bang starts more or
> less at TDC where the piston is hardest to move - there's no reason why
> this should be optimal, it is a consequence of the rotary mechanism and
> inertia.
>
> It /may/ be that it's better to start with eg a lower force and use a
> different force profile. At the end of the stroke, the MG stops the
> piston and drives it back using battery power with a profile optimised
> for exhaust. The induction and compression phases likewise, and these
> of course don't need to be the same length as the ignition and exhaust
> strokes. It /may/ be advantageous to suck slowly and squeeze quickly -
> I don't know, but it seems unlikely that an enforced sinusoid is
> necessarily optimal.
>
> The piston comes to a halt four times during this cycle when it changes
> direction with no inertia from connected mechanics. At the end of the
> exhaust stroke, for example, it may be advantageous to keep the piston
> stopped if the energy demand is low.
>
> So rather than varying the speed of the engine to vary the power output,
> a cycle may take a fixed optimised time but with pauses, only running
> continuously when needed.
>
> I hereby donate this idea (which has probably been thought of many times
> before) to humanity.

they're already running the Prius engine with an Atkinson cycle by messing
with intake valve timing. there's no need to have a free piston engine.

also I doubt that a battery has high enough efficiency to beat a crank.

--
Jasen.

On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 8:00:57 AM UTC-4, Jasen Betts wrote:
> On 2021-06-24, Clive Arthur <cl...@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:
> > On 19/06/2021 12:32, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> >> Very good engineering overview of the challenges, hurdles, and performance considerations involved in the development. Hydrogen combustion technology is not going mainstream anytime soon if ever.
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IPR50-soNA
> >>
> > ISTM that Toyota want to sell EVs and are doing some expensive marketing
> > to show that at least one alternative is ineffective.
> >
> > If you dispense with the crankshaft in a four stroke
> > suck-squeeze-bang-whoosh engine and use a linear motor/generator to
> > extract electrical energy you may stand a better chance.
> >
> > With clever enough control electronics and a small battery, the
> > motor/generator can dynamically alter the force on the piston without
> > wasting energy, other than SMPS-type inefficiencies. You're no longer
> > constrained by the mechanically-enforced almost sinusoidal motion. On
> > ignition, for example, in a conventional engine the bang starts more or
> > less at TDC where the piston is hardest to move - there's no reason why
> > this should be optimal, it is a consequence of the rotary mechanism and
> > inertia.
> >
> > It /may/ be that it's better to start with eg a lower force and use a
> > different force profile. At the end of the stroke, the MG stops the
> > piston and drives it back using battery power with a profile optimised
> > for exhaust. The induction and compression phases likewise, and these
> > of course don't need to be the same length as the ignition and exhaust
> > strokes. It /may/ be advantageous to suck slowly and squeeze quickly -
> > I don't know, but it seems unlikely that an enforced sinusoid is
> > necessarily optimal.
> >
> > The piston comes to a halt four times during this cycle when it changes
> > direction with no inertia from connected mechanics. At the end of the
> > exhaust stroke, for example, it may be advantageous to keep the piston
> > stopped if the energy demand is low.
> >
> > So rather than varying the speed of the engine to vary the power output,
> > a cycle may take a fixed optimised time but with pauses, only running
> > continuously when needed.
> >
> > I hereby donate this idea (which has probably been thought of many times
> > before) to humanity.
> they're already running the Prius engine with an Atkinson cycle by messing
> with intake valve timing. there's no need to have a free piston engine.
>
> also I doubt that a battery has high enough efficiency to beat a crank.

Yeah, the crank is one of the most efficient parts of the engine, however, the fact that the piston is connected to a crankshaft is what creates large side forces that create drag on the piston as well as much of the wear.

The ICE is a very complex and crude device that has been optimized piecewise for over 100 years. It has only been over the last 20 years or so that they are tamed enough that we barely need to think about them. But all ICE have one thing in common, they burn fuel, traditionally hydrocarbon based. So they stink and spew noxious gases and threaten the global climate, even if you improve them incrementally. The time has come to rid ourselves of these things. This will become very apparent over the next 10 years as we transition and the air in our cities becomes as clear as it was from 9/11 or the initial phase of COVID-19.

It will be nice.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 18:15:00 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>How will they make the H2? From CH4? =20
>
>
>Rick C.

Exactly. Where most of it comes from now.

--
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

torsdag den 24. juni 2021 kl. 12.58.21 UTC+2 skrev Don Y:
> On 6/24/2021 3:20 AM, Clive Arthur wrote:
> > On 24/06/2021 10:32, Don Y wrote:
> >> On 6/24/2021 2:04 AM, Clive Arthur wrote:
> >>> With clever enough control electronics and a small battery, the
> >>> motor/generator can dynamically alter the force on the piston without
> >>> wasting energy, other than SMPS-type inefficiencies. You're no longer
> >>> constrained by the mechanically-enforced almost sinusoidal motion. On
> >>> ignition, for example, in a conventional engine the bang starts more or less
> >>> at TDC where the piston is hardest to move - there's no reason why this
> >>> should be optimal, it is a consequence of the rotary mechanism and inertia.
> >>
> >> You also have to take into consideration the fact that combustion doesn't
> >> happen coincident with spark. And, doesn't *finish* in zero time.
> >>
> >> Typically, ignition is advanced "BTDC" to give the air-fuel mixture and
> >> spark time to BEGIN combustion while the piston is still coasting up to
> >> (and past) TDC. The combustion event must then complete before the
> >> piston starts back on the up-stroke (else it is working against the engine)
> >>
> >> "Tuning" an engine on a dyno you advance the timing until you get
> >> maximum torque (retarding in case of knock). If you can do this
> >> dynamically and get the most from the engine while asking it for
> >> the LEAST you need...
> >
> > Well yes, in a /normal/ engine, timing (and everything) has to be optimised
> > within the constraints of the mechanical motion enforced by the geometry and
> > inertia. Without those constraints there are probably ways to improve efficiency.
> I'm not sure there are any "big" improvements, left on the table.
> Consider diesels operate in a narrower band (RPM) -- moving much
> of the vehicle speed/power tradeoff into the gearbox. A gasoline
> engine usually has a handful of forward gears (4-6?). Why is
> the enhanced tranny functionality that benefits the diesel
> not practical for a gasoline powered vehicle?
>
> [dunno, I'm asking; if it was practical, you'd think SOMEONE would
> have tried it!]
>
the relative rpm range isn't that different

diesel have the advantage they stay relatively efficient at part load, something
gasoline engines isn't very good at, and pretty much all you do in a car. It only
takes about 15hp to 90km/h on a flat road

Diesels cannot run a three-way catalytic converter so the need other trick to reduce NOx emmisions

> Blowers give more power -- but are only really practical on
> "muscle cars". Why can't a similar technology be practical on
> all vehicles (esp with the smarts that are now present in the ECUs)

engine driven compressors just add power at the cost of more fuel burned,
a turbo can extract exhaust energy otherwise wasted

> >>> It /may/ be that it's better to start with eg a lower force and use a
> >>> different force profile. At the end of the stroke, the MG stops the piston
> >>> and drives it back using battery power with a profile optimised for
> >>> exhaust. The induction and compression phases likewise, and these of course
> >>> don't need to be the same length as the ignition and exhaust strokes. It
> >>> /may/ be advantageous to suck slowly and squeeze quickly - I don't know, but
> >>> it seems unlikely that an enforced sinusoid is necessarily optimal.
> >>
> >> I think the bigger "bang" (no pun intended) is finding more efficient
> >> ways of getting air into the mixture. This could let you get by with
> >> less fuel per effort-of-mechanical-work.
> >
> > Again, conventionally you're limited by geometry etc. It /may/ be advantageous
> > to suck more slowly than you squeeze, or more quickly, or the whole cycle
> > profile could depend on the exact nature of the fuel. The point is, you'd have
> > options. You don't even have to use the full stroke for example. Maybe the
> > exhaust stroke is improved by a wiggle in the middle or a series of short
> > pulses, unlikely, but who knows.
> Sure! If you run with straight pipes (less back pressure), performance
> increases. But, so does noise.

improving peak power is not very useful, what matter it part load efficiency which is
what a car does 99% of the time

>
> Could active noise canceling be a more practical solution for the "muffler"?
> What role (in back pressure) does the catalytic converter then play?
> >> This is the most common
> >> efficiency hack seen after-market (e.g., blowers); but, usually, that
> >> additional power is "squandered" in enhanced acceleration instead of
> >> improved fuel economy.
> >>
> >> Existing ICE designs do all sorts of wacky things to save on fuel
> >> (like running on fewer cylinders when demand is low), managing accessory
> >> loads on the engine in periods of high demand, etc.
> >>
> >> But, the ICE is likely not long-lived in this application. It may
> >> see some prolonged "niche" use (e.g., REALLY high power demands)
> >> but as a normal means of transport, other options will prevail.
> >> (as will the design of cities and living areas)
> >
> > Yes. I still want the megabucks funding to investigate this, though.
> I think we've reached a degree of acceptance with electric vehicles
> that they will now be "the mainstream future". With time, gas guzzlers
> will be harder to operate and maintain. The only stumbling block
> I see (wrt electric) is FUD re: autopilot screwups.
>
> [I am also curious to see how friends with EVs fare with our brutal
> heat. If battery lifespan is dramatically shortened (as it is for
> lead-acid "starter" batteries), then that can become a costly
> maintenance issue.]
>
> A friend is restoring a '71 cougar. He spends $11/tankful ADDING lead
> to his fuel (because it's not available "from a pump"). What similar
> sorts of supply chain changes will make operating a gasoline engine
> impractical for most folks?
>
> [In Japan, a neighbor says "older" vehicles have all sorts of costly
> repair fees/fines imposed as a DISincentive to folks keeping their
> vehicles. Interesting way to stimulate the economy, eh? :> ]

afaiu a few years the cars need extensive checks so it makes more sense to buy new
which is why they are shipping containers full of chopped off front ends to the rest of the world
that wants a replacement engine

torsdag den 24. juni 2021 kl. 14.00.57 UTC+2 skrev Jasen Betts:
> On 2021-06-24, Clive Arthur <cl...@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:
> > On 19/06/2021 12:32, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> >> Very good engineering overview of the challenges, hurdles, and performance considerations involved in the development. Hydrogen combustion technology is not going mainstream anytime soon if ever.
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IPR50-soNA
> >>
> > ISTM that Toyota want to sell EVs and are doing some expensive marketing
> > to show that at least one alternative is ineffective.
> >
> > If you dispense with the crankshaft in a four stroke
> > suck-squeeze-bang-whoosh engine and use a linear motor/generator to
> > extract electrical energy you may stand a better chance.
> >
> > With clever enough control electronics and a small battery, the
> > motor/generator can dynamically alter the force on the piston without
> > wasting energy, other than SMPS-type inefficiencies. You're no longer
> > constrained by the mechanically-enforced almost sinusoidal motion. On
> > ignition, for example, in a conventional engine the bang starts more or
> > less at TDC where the piston is hardest to move - there's no reason why
> > this should be optimal, it is a consequence of the rotary mechanism and
> > inertia.
> >
> > It /may/ be that it's better to start with eg a lower force and use a
> > different force profile. At the end of the stroke, the MG stops the
> > piston and drives it back using battery power with a profile optimised
> > for exhaust. The induction and compression phases likewise, and these
> > of course don't need to be the same length as the ignition and exhaust
> > strokes. It /may/ be advantageous to suck slowly and squeeze quickly -
> > I don't know, but it seems unlikely that an enforced sinusoid is
> > necessarily optimal.
> >
> > The piston comes to a halt four times during this cycle when it changes
> > direction with no inertia from connected mechanics. At the end of the
> > exhaust stroke, for example, it may be advantageous to keep the piston
> > stopped if the energy demand is low.
> >
> > So rather than varying the speed of the engine to vary the power output,
> > a cycle may take a fixed optimised time but with pauses, only running
> > continuously when needed.
> >
> > I hereby donate this idea (which has probably been thought of many times
> > before) to humanity.
> they're already running the Prius engine with an Atkinson cycle by messing
> with intake valve timing. there's no need to have a free piston engine.
>
> also I doubt that a battery has high enough efficiency to beat a crank.

as soon as you burn stuff to make mechanical energy you are throwing away
at least half the energy, in most case more like two thirds

batteries and electric motors are more like 80-90% efficient

On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 12:00:13 PM UTC-4, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 18:15:00 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
> <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >How will they make the H2? From CH4? =20
> >
> >
> >Rick C.
>
> Exactly. Where most of it comes from now.

Not much point in that for reducing carbon footprint. Probably better to burn the CH4 directly except then you have the NOx vs. CH emissions tradeoff.. Or maybe not. I don't know how cleanly CH4 burns. Gasoline is mostly long chain CH compounds so CH4 may inherently burn more cleanly. Don't know. Still, lots of CO2.

--

Rick C.

++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 12:13:06 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> torsdag den 24. juni 2021 kl. 14.00.57 UTC+2 skrev Jasen Betts:
> > On 2021-06-24, Clive Arthur <cl...@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:
> > > On 19/06/2021 12:32, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > >> Very good engineering overview of the challenges, hurdles, and performance considerations involved in the development. Hydrogen combustion technology is not going mainstream anytime soon if ever.
> > >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IPR50-soNA
> > >>
> > > ISTM that Toyota want to sell EVs and are doing some expensive marketing
> > > to show that at least one alternative is ineffective.
> > >
> > > If you dispense with the crankshaft in a four stroke
> > > suck-squeeze-bang-whoosh engine and use a linear motor/generator to
> > > extract electrical energy you may stand a better chance.
> > >
> > > With clever enough control electronics and a small battery, the
> > > motor/generator can dynamically alter the force on the piston without
> > > wasting energy, other than SMPS-type inefficiencies. You're no longer
> > > constrained by the mechanically-enforced almost sinusoidal motion. On
> > > ignition, for example, in a conventional engine the bang starts more or
> > > less at TDC where the piston is hardest to move - there's no reason why
> > > this should be optimal, it is a consequence of the rotary mechanism and
> > > inertia.
> > >
> > > It /may/ be that it's better to start with eg a lower force and use a
> > > different force profile. At the end of the stroke, the MG stops the
> > > piston and drives it back using battery power with a profile optimised
> > > for exhaust. The induction and compression phases likewise, and these
> > > of course don't need to be the same length as the ignition and exhaust
> > > strokes. It /may/ be advantageous to suck slowly and squeeze quickly -
> > > I don't know, but it seems unlikely that an enforced sinusoid is
> > > necessarily optimal.
> > >
> > > The piston comes to a halt four times during this cycle when it changes
> > > direction with no inertia from connected mechanics. At the end of the
> > > exhaust stroke, for example, it may be advantageous to keep the piston
> > > stopped if the energy demand is low.
> > >
> > > So rather than varying the speed of the engine to vary the power output,
> > > a cycle may take a fixed optimised time but with pauses, only running
> > > continuously when needed.
> > >
> > > I hereby donate this idea (which has probably been thought of many times
> > > before) to humanity.
> > they're already running the Prius engine with an Atkinson cycle by messing
> > with intake valve timing. there's no need to have a free piston engine.
> >
> > also I doubt that a battery has high enough efficiency to beat a crank.
> as soon as you burn stuff to make mechanical energy you are throwing away
> at least half the energy, in most case more like two thirds
>
> batteries and electric motors are more like 80-90% efficient

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The end to end efficiency is what's important and hard to get exact figures for. However, the end user cost is a pretty good estimate. In the US gas runs around $0.80 per liter or around $0.10 per mile. EVs get around 4-5 mi/kWh or between $0.02 to $0.05 per mile depending on your location. In Puerto Rico it comes to about $0.05 per mile for EVs because electricity is $0.25 per kWh average. I'd hate to be in the parts where it's more.

If the EV power chain was not more efficient end to end it would be hard to have a lower fuel cost.

--

Rick C.

--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 11:47:12 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Not much point in that for reducing carbon footprint. Probably better to b=
>urn the CH4 directly except then you have the NOx vs. CH emissions tradeoff=
>. Or maybe not. I don't know how cleanly CH4 burns. Gasoline is mostly =
>long chain CH compounds so CH4 may inherently burn more cleanly. Don't kno=
>w. Still, lots of CO2.=20

The idea is to capture the CO2 from the steam-gas reforming process,
leaving H2 which burns cleanly and produces no CO2 at the point of
use.

It's certainly not practical to capture the CO2 when it's produced at
the point of use.

https://www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001013/options-for-co2-capture-from-smr#.YNTWOr5KjAQ
--
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

In article <68l9dg1cvgduaii9rltp1sm0rvrvsksadp@4ax.com>,
Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 11:47:12 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
><gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Not much point in that for reducing carbon footprint. Probably better to b=
>>urn the CH4 directly except then you have the NOx vs. CH emissions tradeoff=
>>. Or maybe not. I don't know how cleanly CH4 burns. Gasoline is mostly =
>>long chain CH compounds so CH4 may inherently burn more cleanly. Don't kno=
>>w. Still, lots of CO2.=20
>
>The idea is to capture the CO2 from the steam-gas reforming process,
>leaving H2 which burns cleanly and produces no CO2 at the point of
>use.
>
>It's certainly not practical to capture the CO2 when it's produced at
>the point of use.

I did an audit in the 80's for a factory in the North of the Netherlands,
burning CH4, producing energy, using the waste heat, and using the
CO2 in producing stuff (IIRMC sodium bicarbonate).

So, it depends.

>
>https://www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001013/options-for-co2-capture-from-smr#.YNTWOr5KjAQ
>--
>Best regards,
>Spehro Pefhany

Groetjes Albert
--
"in our communism country Viet Nam, people are forced to be
alive and in the western country like US, people are free to
die from Covid 19 lol" duc ha
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 3:03:09 PM UTC-4, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 11:47:12 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
> <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Not much point in that for reducing carbon footprint. Probably better to b=
> >urn the CH4 directly except then you have the NOx vs. CH emissions tradeoff=
> >. Or maybe not. I don't know how cleanly CH4 burns. Gasoline is mostly =
> >long chain CH compounds so CH4 may inherently burn more cleanly. Don't kno=
> >w. Still, lots of CO2.=20
>
> The idea is to capture the CO2 from the steam-gas reforming process,
> leaving H2 which burns cleanly and produces no CO2 at the point of
> use.
>
> It's certainly not practical to capture the CO2 when it's produced at
> the point of use.
>
> https://www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001013/options-for-co2-capture-from-smr#.YNTWOr5KjAQ

No one is talking about capturing CO2 at the point of use. Currently it is not captured at the point of H2 production. We can talk about a possible future, but without data to support any financial matters. Hydrogen propulsion in cars has many issues. EVs are essentially practical now and will be even more so in the near future based on the many improvements in battery technology.

By using the existing infrastructure on the slack hours EVs can be fueled without spending any more than the cost of the home charging unit, around $1-2k installed. In fact, over the long run gas stations will be replaced with pretty much anything else since large amounts of charging facilities are not needed, at least not on the huge scale of ICE fueling facilities anyway. As EVs become mainstream every home parking spot will have them, not just garages.

--

Rick C.

--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 4:11:47 PM UTC-4, none albert wrote:
> In article <68l9dg1cvgduaii9r...@4ax.com>,
> Spehro Pefhany <spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
> >On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 11:47:12 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
> ><gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Not much point in that for reducing carbon footprint. Probably better to b=
> >>urn the CH4 directly except then you have the NOx vs. CH emissions tradeoff=
> >>. Or maybe not. I don't know how cleanly CH4 burns. Gasoline is mostly =
> >>long chain CH compounds so CH4 may inherently burn more cleanly. Don't kno=
> >>w. Still, lots of CO2.=20
> >
> >The idea is to capture the CO2 from the steam-gas reforming process,
> >leaving H2 which burns cleanly and produces no CO2 at the point of
> >use.
> >
> >It's certainly not practical to capture the CO2 when it's produced at
> >the point of use.
> I did an audit in the 80's for a factory in the North of the Netherlands,
> burning CH4, producing energy, using the waste heat, and using the
> CO2 in producing stuff (IIRMC sodium bicarbonate).
>
> So, it depends.
> >
> >https://www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001013/options-for-co2-capture-from-smr#.YNTWOr5KjAQ

How many miles per mole?

--

Rick C.

-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On 24 Jun 2021 20:11:42 GMT, albert@cherry.(none) (albert) wrote:

>
>I did an audit in the 80's for a factory in the North of the Netherlands,
>burning CH4, producing energy, using the waste heat, and using the
>CO2 in producing stuff (IIRMC sodium bicarbonate).
>
>So, it depends.

Sure, if it's a large-scale installation. But not for a car, aircraft
or home.

--
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

In article <9fc44321-79a8-42cc-ba62-933ce03aa357n@googlegroups.com>,
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

>How many miles per mole?

That depends on whether it's burrowing, walking, or skateboarding.

On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 8:24:36 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 9:32:53 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > Very good engineering overvie> It's a silly idea anywhere where except in aviation, and even there liquid hydrogen is voluminous enough to call for much more The TV news showed the new hydrogen fueled double decker buses in London.w of the challenges, hurdles, and performance considerations involved in the development. Hydrogen combustion technology is not going mainstream anytime soon if ever.
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IPR50-soNA
> It's a silly idea anywhere where except in aviation, and even there liquid hydrogen is voluminous enough to call for much more
> It's a silly idea anywhere where except in aviation, and even there liquid hydrogen is voluminous enough to call for much more The TV news showed the new hydrogen fueled double decker buses in London.
The TV news showed the new hydrogen fueled double decker buses in London.

Dan
> For vehicles, electrolysing water to hydrogen then burning it in an engine delivers about 25% of the electrical energy you used up in creating it. Batteries and the like give you back about 85% of what you stored.
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 5:15:08 AM UTC+10, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
> On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 8:24:36 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 9:32:53 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > Very good engineering overview
>
> It's a silly idea anywhere where except in aviation, and even there liquid hydrogen is voluminous enough to call for much more The TV news showed the new hydrogen fueled double decker buses in London.w of the challenges, hurdles, and performance considerations involved in the development. Hydrogen combustion technology is not going mainstream anytime soon if ever.
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IPR50-soNA
> > It's a silly idea anywhere where except in aviation, and even there liquid hydrogen is voluminous enough to call for much more bulbous aircraft than the one we are used to.
>
> The TV news showed the new hydrogen fueled double decker buses in London.

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/06/20210627-london.html

"new hydrogen fuel cell double decker buses".

This isn't hydrogen combustion technology, unless you regard an electrochemical process as "combustion". It doesn't take place at any kind of high temperature. so you shouldn't.

As usual, Dan made a mess of the formatting as well.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 10:22:47 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 5:15:08 AM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 8:24:36 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 9:32:53 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > Very good engineering overview
> >
> > It's a silly idea anywhere where except in aviation, and even there liquid hydrogen is voluminous enough to call for much more The TV news showed the new hydrogen fueled double decker buses in London.w of the challenges, hurdles, and performance considerations involved in the development. Hydrogen combustion technology is not going mainstream anytime soon if ever.
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IPR50-soNA
> > > It's a silly idea anywhere where except in aviation, and even there liquid hydrogen is voluminous enough to call for much more bulbous aircraft than the one we are used to.
> >
> > The TV news showed the new hydrogen fueled double decker buses in London.
> https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/06/20210627-london.html
>
> "new hydrogen fuel cell double decker buses".
>
> This isn't hydrogen combustion technology, unless you regard an electrochemical process as "combustion". It doesn't take place at any kind of high temperature. so you shouldn't.
>
Bill you need to practice reading. I said the new buses were hydrogen fueled. I did not say they were hydrogen combustion technology buses.

Still higher IQ along with more money and better college.

Dan

> As usual, Dan made a mess of the formatting as well.
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 9:50:25 AM UTC-4, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
> On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 10:22:47 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 5:15:08 AM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:
> > > On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 8:24:36 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 9:32:53 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > Very good engineering overview
> > >
> > > It's a silly idea anywhere where except in aviation, and even there liquid hydrogen is voluminous enough to call for much more The TV news showed the new hydrogen fueled double decker buses in London.w of the challenges, hurdles, and performance considerations involved in the development. Hydrogen combustion technology is not going mainstream anytime soon if ever.
> > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IPR50-soNA
> > > > It's a silly idea anywhere where except in aviation, and even there liquid hydrogen is voluminous enough to call for much more bulbous aircraft than the one we are used to.
> > >
> > > The TV news showed the new hydrogen fueled double decker buses in London.
> > https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/06/20210627-london.html
> >
> > "new hydrogen fuel cell double decker buses".
> >
> > This isn't hydrogen combustion technology, unless you regard an electrochemical process as "combustion". It doesn't take place at any kind of high temperature. so you shouldn't.
> >
> Bill you need to practice reading. I said the new buses were hydrogen fueled. I did not say they were hydrogen combustion technology buses.
>
> Still higher IQ along with more money and better college.

That you keep repeating this shows a much lower emotional IQ. It makes you look rather pathetic, in fact.

--

Rick C.

-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 11:54:55 PM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 9:50:25 AM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 10:22:47 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 5:15:08 AM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 8:24:36 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 9:32:53 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > > Very good engineering overview
> > > >
> > > > It's a silly idea anywhere where except in aviation, and even there liquid hydrogen is voluminous enough to call for much more The TV news showed the new hydrogen fueled double decker buses in London.w of the challenges, hurdles, and performance considerations involved in the development. Hydrogen combustion technology is not going mainstream anytime soon if ever.
> > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IPR50-soNA
> > > > > It's a silly idea anywhere where except in aviation, and even there liquid hydrogen is voluminous enough to call for much more bulbous aircraft than the one we are used to.
> > > >
> > > > The TV news showed the new hydrogen fueled double decker buses in London.
> > > https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/06/20210627-london.html
> > >
> > > "new hydrogen fuel cell double decker buses".
> > >
> > > This isn't hydrogen combustion technology, unless you regard an electrochemical process as "combustion". It doesn't take place at any kind of high temperature. so you shouldn't.
> > >
> > Bill you need to practice reading. I said the new buses were hydrogen fueled. I did not say they were hydrogen combustion technology buses.

But the thread was about hydrogen combustion technology. If your IQ was a high as you claim, you would have noticed that.
> >
> > Still higher IQ along with more money and better college.
>
> That you keep repeating this shows a much lower emotional IQ. It makes you look rather pathetic, in fact.

He doesn't know how much money I've got, so he's parading something that he imagines to be true. He may have scored well on some IQ test or other when he was much younger, but he certainly comes across as pretty dim now. The "better college" may be more reliable, but merely demonstrates that educational establishments with even the highest prestige still can't make a silk purse out of sow's ear. You'd imagine that they'd pay him to deny the connection.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

That you keep repeating this shows a much lower emotional IQ. It makes you look rather pathetic, in fact.

What ever. I will quit when Bill stops denigrating me.

Dan

>

On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 11:42:41 AM UTC+10, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
> That you keep repeating this shows a much lower emotional IQ. It makes you look rather pathetic, in fact.
>
> Whatever. I will quit when Bill stops denigrating me.

Dan denigrates himself, but lacks the sense to realise what he is doing.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

iew hydrogen fuel cell double decker buses".
> > > >

> But the thread was about hydrogen combustion technology. If your IQ was a high as you claim, you would have noticed that.
> >

I noticed , but thought the thread ought to include uses of hydrogen in mobile applicataions.

> > > Still higher IQ along with more money and better college.
> >
> > That you keep repeating this shows a much lower emotional IQ. It makes you look rather pathetic, in fact.
> He doesn't know how much money I've got, so he's parading something that he imagines to be true.

And you do not know how much money I have and you say you will not say how much you do have? So I am assuming that you have maybe a couple of million dollars and I have more than that.

Dan

On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 12:10:39 PM UTC+10, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
> iew hydrogen fuel cell double decker buses".
> > > > >
> > But the thread was about hydrogen combustion technology. If your IQ was a high as you claim, you would have noticed that.
> > >
> I noticed , but thought the thread ought to include uses of hydrogen in mobile applications.

But you didn't say so.

> > > > Still higher IQ along with more money and better college.
> > >
> > > That you keep repeating this shows a much lower emotional IQ. It makes you look rather pathetic, in fact.
>
> > He doesn't know how much money I've got, so he's parading something that he imagines to be true.
>
> And you do not know how much money I have and you say you will not say how much you do have?

Sensible people don't advertise how much they own.

> So I am assuming that you have maybe a couple of million dollars and I have more than that.

And it's still an assumption.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 9:42:41 PM UTC-4, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
> That you keep repeating this shows a much lower emotional IQ. It makes you look rather pathetic, in fact.
> What ever. I will quit when Bill stops denigrating me.

So you are going to keep punching yourself in the face until Bill cries "uncle"? Ok, fine.

BTW, your point of fact is pretty silly. The conversation had included both previous posters talking about "combustion". While you didn't mention that, it was the topic of conversation... apparently. I'm not entirely clear on what Fred meant when he mentioned it.

But then "silly" fits in with 90% of the posts here, so have at it. I'll try not to disrupt you further.

--

Rick C.

+-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209