Underhood versus Onan

[GeorgeRa]

Originally Posted by avanti

So, if we have an unbounded source of cheap, nuclear energy, doesn't that lead to the mother of all global-warming problems? It would just cut out the solar/carbon middleman.

Indeed, CO2 based global warming would be halted if it happens soon enough. But the impact on our geopolitics would be unpredictable; from the middle east to USA, China or Russia. Could be peaceful or not.

[GeorgeRa]

Originally Posted by Davydd

I have a two year window of opportunity and that may be my last RV if I pull the trigger. So, if it ain't so by then I am not interested.

So far for fuel cells I think the only thing on the market is Efoy and there biggest unit produces 210 amps. It's big and the fuel source is bulky and not readily available. If I want what I have had and enjoyed for the last 3 years, 800ah of battery energy I would need four of them. Ain't gonna fit in a B van, no way. Lithium and second alternator is the way to go for my foreseeable future.

Sometime technology to technology jumps happen faster then wee predicted, Tesla Semi Trucks, when did you last time store information on a DVD, do you still play CD in your car, how do you react to a beep when drifting into another lane, how is your Hasselblad box doing, am I glad I don’t have to change points this weekend, I hate adjusting the dwell, …….

[BBQ]

.

I am waiting for a mini turbine generator

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al8elCF816g

[avanti]

Originally Posted by GeorgeRa

Indeed, CO2 based global warming would be halted if it happens soon enough.

I don't think I was clear:
Won't the heat released directly from all this "free" electricity add dramatically to the earth's thermal problem? Energy is energy, whether it comes from the sun or from atoms.

Just asking...

[GeorgeRa]

Originally Posted by avanti

I don't think I was clear:
Won't the heat released directly from all this "free" electricity add dramatically to the earth's thermal problem? Energy is energy, whether it comes from the sun or from atoms.

Just asking...

The energy generated to induce fusion will be negligible in a large scale comparison to energy generated by fusion.

[avanti]

Originally Posted by GeorgeRa

The energy generated to induce fusion will be negligible in a large scale comparison to energy generated by fusion.

Yes, I know. But all that generated energy will be USED somewhere, and so will end up almost entirely as waste heat escaping into the environment, no? It has to go somewhere. Seems to me that the world will heat up in proportion to the popularity of this technology.

[GeorgeRa]

Originally Posted by avanti

Yes, I know. But all that generated energy will be USED somewhere, and so will end up almost entirely as waste heat escaping into the environment, no? It has to go somewhere. Seems to me that the world will heat up in proportion to the popularity of this technology.

This is a good paper to study deeper. Non-thermal laser driven plasma-blocks for proton boron avalanche fusion as direct drive option - ScienceDirect

Laser ignition is pico-sec. long at about 1/10 of fusion output and the energy released is equal to E=MC^2, just don’t know how much of B + H matter is transformed to energy. In comparison to fission thermonuclear reactors, which heat water to propel turbines, any fusion reactor is more efficient and boron/proton one could be the most efficient because the product is in electron flow - not heat.

I think that energy released as heat could be very close to the level of energy which will be needed by us.

I am optimistic that fusion will prevail, and life extending medication will be distributed tomorrow so I can live for the celebration.

[Davydd]

Originally Posted by GeorgeRa

Sometime technology to technology jumps happen faster then wee predicted, Tesla Semi Trucks, when did you last time store information on a DVD, do you still play CD in your car, how do you react to a beep when drifting into another lane, how is your Hasselblad box doing, am I glad I don’t have to change points this weekend, I hate adjusting the dwell, …….

I am aware of all that, but the only technology I'm interested in right now that I can see in my RVing time frame of plans is Advanced RV's 48v technology but am not even going to worry about it until May if it comes to pass. By that time the new Sprinters will be known and can be ordered. Then it is decision time if I pull the trigger for another RV.

I am more aware of medical advances and the fast rate. As my cardiologist told me, I would not be alive today with medical advances available to my father just 25 years ago.

Meanwhile, I am enjoying facial recognition to turn on my new iPhone X.

[Phoebe3]

Originally Posted by avanti

Yes, I know. But all that generated energy will be USED somewhere, and so will end up almost entirely as waste heat escaping into the environment, no? It has to go somewhere. Seems to me that the world will heat up in proportion to the popularity of this technology.

I'm not sure that's true in the aggregate. "Energy" does not necessarily translate to "heat." For example, sometimes it translates to "light" or "work."

Right now, the generation and use of electricity is very inefficient. For example, we burn fossil fuels to turn turbines to generate electricity to run long distances on wires to light an incandescent light bulb in your house. Energy is wasted in each step along the way and then that light bulb loses almost all of its energy in the form of heat.

But if you generate electricity at the source using a solar cell and then use that energy to power LED lights, much less energy is required for the end result. With a net negative effect compared to the current model.

[avanti]

Originally Posted by Phoebe3

I'm not sure that's true in the aggregate. "Energy" does not necessarily translate to "heat." For example, sometimes it translates to "light" or "work."

Well, at the risk of drifting into exotic territory:
For all practical purposes, ALL energy used for any kind of work ends up as waste heat. The Second Law guarantees it. Most of the energy that goes into your body via food, or your vacuum cleaner or computer via electricity is converted directly or indirectly to waste heat. You can't do any kind of work without generating waste heat. It is true that a (tiny) amount of energy can end up as things like light or sound, but even then the emitted energy is mostly absorbed by walls and other objects, heating them up a bit in the process. It (almost) ALL ends up as heat.

The exceptions? A few rays of light might end up escaping into outer space; a bit of heat ends up being converted to chemical bonds as (for example) plastic ages. But these are trivial.

Right now, the generation and use of electricity is very inefficient. For example, we burn fossil fuels to turn turbines to generate electricity to run long distances on wires to light an incandescent light bulb in your house. Energy is wasted in each step along the way and then that light bulb loses almost all of its energy in the form of heat.

But if you generate electricity at the source using a solar cell and then use that energy to power LED lights, much less energy is required for the end result. With a net negative effect compared to the current model.

Efficiency is a different matter. Yes, we can reduce the amount of energy we use to do a given amount of work. LEDs are a great example. But, whatever energy we DO use FAPP ends up as heat.

The real point I was trying to make was that if (a) we start getting lots of energy from atomic sources and (b) it becomes cheap enough, we might start using too much of it (because it is too cheap), which could actually CONTRIBUTE to global warming. I was mostly being cute, though. The trapped solar energy due to atmospheric carbon is immensely greater than the total energy used by humans for work, so we can afford to solve one problem at a time.

[Phoebe3]

Thanks for the clarification! I find these discussions entertaining and enlightening but just realized we probably hijacked the OP's thread - apologies to the OP!

[booster]

Yes, what Avanti says, and even the chemically stored energy is really heat and if it is used by burning, chemically converting, etc it will wind up as heat again. Coal and oil are prime examples that were stored eons ago.

Would having abundant, clean generated, energy, actually increase warming? IMO, maybe, depending on how crazy everyone went in wasting it on things. If it didn't generate lots of waste heat in generating, like burning does, you would reduce by that much. No CO2, you would gain in solar heat being trapped in the atmosphere and get that reduction. If the energy is so easy and cheap to get that you use million times more of it, you could cancel out the other gains. Of course if energy is that easy to get maybe they will be able to power a heat radiator to beam excess heat out to space.

[GeorgeRa]

Until now the energy required by our human population is not in the level of causing the global warming, indeed, it can change with abundant availability and population growth. The key issue is for today is the need for energy generation which doesn’t emit global warming gases, we are not there yet.

The best shot would be to have energy limited by renewable sources; solar, wind, water kinetic energy of rivers and oceans, then there is no extra energy.

[<<B-Guy>>]

OP here! No problems! We still don't have a class B yet and will be using our Airstream trailer for at least one more winter getaway, but have been learning all I can from this forum and from manufacturers brochures etc. I think I have boiled things down now to a few models that would suit our needs and the next phase is to go look at them in person to confirm that we do want to make the switch!

When I started out, I really felt that the underhood generator was they way to go. Now however I have reached the conclusion that, for us at least, it probably isn;t a big deal either was as we probably wold not make a lot of use of any generator! So it won't be a deal breaker for us to go either route!

I did have a rep from one manufacturer (who does not offer underhood generators) that
Mercedes do no condone use of the underhood generators / voltstart and will be soon taking a stronger position in this regard. Who knows?! I really wouldn't think that Hymer/RT would install this sort of equipt without MB's blessing.

I did in fact write MB (twice) to ask if installation of such equipment would in any way impact the usual MB warranty - excluding of course the underhood generator components which for which I assume RT would be accountable.

Maybe not surprisingly, although my messages were acknowledged and an answer promised, I never did hear anything further on the subject from MB.


There is another subject that I am wrestling with at present. I seem to hear of many issues and complexities with the Alde and Truma heating equipt. It is hard to know how to put the comments in perspective, but I'm almost thinking that if I had a choice at this point, I'd almost prefer to stick with the old standby products of old!

Brian.

[avanti]

Originally Posted by Wingeezer

I did have a rep from one manufacturer (who does not offer underhood generators) that
Mercedes do no condone use of the underhood generators / voltstart and will be soon taking a stronger position in this regard.

Underhood generators and voltstart are two completely different issues:

Your source's claim is totally false WRT the former. The engines are explicitly designed with provisions for such a takeoff, and Mercedes sells brackets for the purpose.

Voltstart is more nuanced: MB is not fond of direct connections to the CANbus, which is more or less necessary for remote start. That doesn't mean that an upfitter can't get approval for such a thing, but it is not black-and-white.

I did in fact write MB (twice) to ask if installation of such equipment would in any way impact the usual MB warranty - excluding of course the underhood generator components which for which I assume RT would be accountable.

Contrary to the constant Internet litany, NOTHING "voids" your OEM warranty. Ever. That would be against US law. You are correct that any aftermarket parts are not covered under the warranty (obviously). Also, any damage caused by aftermarket modifications are excluded from the warranty. But these are exclusions; i.e, they were NEVER covered in the first place. Your warranty
continues in effect, and covers everything that it ever covered.

[GeorgeRa]

Originally Posted by Wingeezer

…………………..
There is another subject that I am wrestling with at present. I seem to hear of many issues and complexities with the Alde and Truma heating equipt. It is hard to know how to put the comments in perspective, but I'm almost thinking that if I had a choice at this point, I'd almost prefer to stick with the old standby products of old!
Brian.

Truma and Alde are very different.
Truma is similar to Webasto Dual Top except in NA it is only LPG powered. In EU it is either diesel or LPG and diesel technology is from Eberspacher as far I remember. LPG furnace heats air and hot water tank directly. It is very similar to Eberspacher/Espar Airtronics D2/D4 heater plus it has a hot water tank.

Alde is hydronic heating, LPG (I think they have diesel as well) furnace heats coolant which heats air and water via heat exchangers. Rixen is similar using Espar D5 hydronic heater, it is used by Advance RV. It is much more complex due to coolant circulation through the van. But, for winter camping it could be unbeatable.

I have Espar Airtronics D2 to heat our well insulated van (Thinsulate), it is by far the best RV heater we ever had. It operates on 4 heat output levels. All 4 levels have different fan RPM so at low level it is practically silent. Truma space heating should be very similar, it has similar technology of furnace heating air directly.

For water heating I have Espar Hydronic D5 circulating coolant through marine water heater, similar to Alde. I could extend this hydronic heating for additional heating in very low temperatures or for winterizing under the floor heating (in works). Alde is the same, it could be use for under the floor tanks via coolant.

If I would be converting another van I would choose a Truma, a much simpler system. I was evaluating a Webasto Dual Top but in my van, it would require eliminating of the spare tire.

I think that the Alde System is an absolute overkill for a van, for a large RV when heat needs to be distributed throughout larger distances hydronic heating makes more sense.

Truma electric energy consumption is most likely lower, (needs verification), coolant doesn’t need to be circulated so there is no coolant pump. One issue with Webasto Dual Top and likely with Truma as competing needs for air and water heating, so starting from cold you need to wait for water to heat-up.

[Phoebe3]

The Truma Combi heats both air (furnace) and water using propane. Low setting of 7,500 BTU consumes 5.3 oz/hr and high setting of 14,300 BTU consumes 10 oz/hr.

The "plus" models will also heat using 120 AC (shore power or generator). Electric furnace heating uses 7.1 A (850 W) on Low and 14.2 A (1,700 W) on High.

Both settings also use approximately 1.7 A from the 12V system for the blower.

[<<B-Guy>>]

OP here again!

Thanks guys, I guess if when I buy a "B," from what I've learned, I wont be too bothered whether we wind up with a U.H. generator or an Onan - for the amount we will use it.

I don't think we'd use Voltstart a whole lot. I note that PW now offer their version on Voltrstart but with an Onan. Called AGS ("Auto generator start" I guess)


As for heating systems I think I'd be ok with Truma but maybe less so with Alde, not sure I need the added complexity.

The way we use our RV at present, AC seems more a concern than heat and our heat pump in our present trailer is all we need as a rule. About the only time we use our furnace is at a Flying J when heading N or S on our winter getaways!

For our last 19 yrs of RV'ing since retirement I would guess 90% of our sites have had full hookups.

I suspect if we change our 31ft trailer and truck for a "B" we will be spening more time in State and Provincial parks, but even then, most parks we have stayed at have water and elec if not sewer.

I could be wrong, but doubt we'll do a whole lot of boondocking if we make the switch - although more than we do now I'm sure!

Brian


PS - can anyone tell me if these elec awnings that now seem on almost all "B's"
can be tilted fore and aft in the event of rain?

I am guessing that maybe the ones with legs acn and those without legs perhaps cannot so you need to bring them in during any significant rain?


But I'm not sure - our son in law has a fifth wheel with a large elec awning. It not only retracts in strong wind automatically, but also dumps rain by temporarily lowering one end when it senses the wait of accumulated water!

[Phoebe3]

You should start a new thread for the awning question. But in the meantime - we have the Carefree legless power awning and it is only for shade - not to be used in wind or rain - which really cuts down on the utility, IMO.

[roadbot]

Can someone share a photo of Control Panel in 210P with UG? I am looking at buying a 2016 with UG and here is the photo of panel. The plastic panel above the 2nd row seat shows the 'placeholder' cutouts that would have been used for the Onan switch and meter. I think it so very odd that RT would left the control panel so half as**d -- so am suspecting this is an after market UG -- dealer doesn't know and original window sticker not available.