Underhood versus Onan

[avanti]

For better or worse, I very much doubt that any kind of novel engine technology involving fossil fuels is likely to get much R&D money going forward. Least of all one this specialized.

[GeorgeRa]

Originally Posted by avanti

For better or worse, I very much doubt that any kind of novel engine technology involving fossil fuels is likely to get much R&D money going forward. Least of all one this specialized.

Unless the hybrid is a driver, higher efficiency piston free could help. But any good progress in a battery technology will kill it, I agree.

[booster]

Sooner or later all technologies get displaced, but there may be more market for something like this than it first appears. Emergency back up charging method for a pure electric car, instance, so you could get enough recharge to get off the freeway, out danger, etc if the battery ran out. Similarly for remote power backup if the solar or wind they are using falls short. Our course the big seller would be to put it in the couple hundred class b's they make each year!

[avanti]

I'm not saying such technology wouldn't be useful, or necessarily even that there wouldn't be a market. I am simply predicting that it likely won't attract R&D funding.

No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

[GeorgeRa]

It seems as Israelis have done something real.

http://www.aquariusengines.com/index.html#press_link – roll down to see press announcements.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtWy...ature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdEBG1gDtxw

Added video, note no mechanical valves, "connecting" rods are functioning as valves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2hduhAOxA4

[booster]

That is the style I originally envisioned, in being powered both ways instead of the airspring and single side power.

[cruising7388]

Originally Posted by booster

Sooner or later all technologies get displaced,

Whoa, not so fast. What's arguably the most important technology development in human history that is still alive and well, is..... the wheel and axle.

[jon]

Originally Posted by booster

That is the style I originally envisioned, in being powered both ways instead of the airspring and single side power.

https://www.wattfuelcell.com/uses/rv/

Sent from my LG-TP450 using Tapatalk

[GeorgeRa]

Truma has tried, it died. But, if Mr. Jim Hamill will take it to has talented hands it will be a success for sure, can't wait.

Truma Launches VeGA Fuel Cell for Caravans and Motorhomes

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6...isnt-dead-yet/

[BBQ]

.

RT has delivered a self-driving autonomous RV to WATT Fuel Cell for testing

More news to come.

https://www.wattfuelcell.com/uses/rv/

[jon]

Actually fuel cells are like the holy grail of electrical power generation. Hydrogen combined with oxygen gives electricity and water. Engineers are figuring out how to process or store hydrogen and it'll make generators obsolete, but I'm not holding my breath. Twenty years ago I wrote a big term paper on how fuel cells were going to revolutionize the auto industry and it hasn't happened yet.

[BBQ]

.

Lots of developments showing up

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj_GaJFTD4k

[GeorgeRa]

…..and the question is in hydrogen availability by either distribution a la Schwarzenegger atempt along I5 or in situ from other hydrocarbon fuels.

[BBQ]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDwS31OE7ak

[jon]

Originally Posted by GeorgeRa

…..and the question is in hydrogen availability by either distribution a la Schwarzenegger atempt along I5 or in situ from other hydrocarbon fuels.

Even if the hydrogen comes from hydrocarbon fuels or if they use solar/wind power to process it fuel cells are so much efficient and cleaner than dinosaur engines it would be a win-win.

Sent from my LG-TP450 using Tapatalk

[avanti]

Originally Posted by jon

Even if the hydrogen comes from hydrocarbon fuels or if they use solar/wind power to process it fuel cells are so much efficient and cleaner than dinosaur engines it would be a win-win.

Yes. In addition, the source of hydrogen can evolve over time. The source of gasoline cannot. This is why the arguments of the form "battery/hydrogen... pollutes just as much as as oil because we use oil to produce the electricity" is specious. We may use oil now, but we will have options going forward, which is progress.

[GeorgeRa]

This was published 10 years ago and is still valid, hydrogen economy makes no sense. It takes a lot of energy to break the hydrogen covalent bond so even with theoretically maximum efficiency of 83% for fuel cell it doesn’t make sense from the whole system perspective. https://phys.org/news/2006-12-hydrog...my-doesnt.html

While Elon Musk built the huge Li battery for Australia in less than 100 days capable to power 30,000 households for an hour Tesla Just Activated Its Mega-Battery in South Australia | Fortune

I remember very well the hype of methanol fuel cell for laptops 20 years ago, it died before hit the market, folks got scared after good risk analysis.

Lithium batteries are here, fuel cells still need “invention required” for cheap hydrogen, unfortunately thermodynamics are in the way.

[avanti]

Originally Posted by GeorgeRa

This was published 10 years ago and is still valid, hydrogen economy makes no sense. It takes a lot of energy to break the hydrogen covalent bond so even with theoretically maximum efficiency of 83% for fuel cell it doesn’t make sense from the whole system perspective. https://phys.org/news/2006-12-hydrog...my-doesnt.html

While Elon Musk built the huge Li battery for Australia in less than 100 days capable to power 30,000 households for an hour Tesla Just Activated Its Mega-Battery in South Australia | Fortune

I remember very well the hype of methanol fuel cell for laptops 20 years ago, it died before hit the market, folks got scared after good risk analysis.

Lithium batteries are here, fuel cells still need “invention required” for cheap hydrogen, unfortunately thermodynamics are in the way.

I am not particularly a fan of hydrogen, and I am aware that Elon calls them "fool cells". However, I think the argument that low absolute conversion efficiency automatically disqualifies the technology is specious. It doesn't really matter how efficient it is. We have plenty of energy available. Photosynthesis is pathetically inefficient (depending on how you measure "efficiency", typical estimates are less than 2%. Current solar panels do far better.) Yet, almost the whole world runs on it.

What matters is the pragmatics of the technology. For example, if someone could figure out how to cheaply use sunlight to directly crack water in a way that could be widely deployed, it could be a winner.

I am not putting my money on hydrogen, but I have an open mind.

[GeorgeRa]

I am open minded but realistic, invention which requires exceeding boundaries of physics is not on my list of hopes.

This is what Musk is saying regarding efficiency:
2 x (PV energy > Hydrogen via electrolysis > compressed > transfer > fuel cell > propelling energy) = (PV energy > transfer > Li battery > propelling energy) and he is correct.

Lower efficiency combined with inherent difficulties dealing with compressed or liquefied hydrogen makes the hydrogen fuel cell market penetration very gloomy in my view, time will tell but I have big doubts.

See at 10:05

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

[jon]

Originally Posted by GeorgeRa

I am open minded but realistic, invention which requires exceeding boundaries of physics is not on my list of hopes.

This is what Musk is saying regarding efficiency:
2 x (PV energy > Hydrogen via electrolysis > compressed > transfer > fuel cell > propelling energy) = (PV energy > transfer > Li battery > propelling energy) and he is correct.

Lower efficiency combined with inherent difficulties dealing with compressed or liquefied hydrogen makes the hydrogen fuel cell market penetration very gloomy in my view, time will tell but I have big doubts.

See at 10:05

Wait until some engineers work out a method other than electrolysis to process hydrogen then Elon Musk will look "DUMB."

Sent from my LG-TP450 using Tapatalk