« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 [7] 8   Go Down

Author Topic: the future of car engines?  (Read 2223 times)

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
the future of car engines?
« Reply #90 on: November 08, 2006, 06:01:38 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Viking
You haven't listened at all; internal combustion engines ARE used to generate electricity on land. An LNG gas turbine IS an internal combustion engine. Secondly, diesel fuel is more expensive than LNG. LNG is now available in Norway as car fuel in city areas and it is popular with bus companies and taxis. The only reason I can think of that prevents LNG from fueling ships is that transporting LNG in such quantities is dangerous. What I predict for the future of car engines is multi-fuel engines based on modern turbo-diesels.


Yes? Crankshaft and camshaft With Pistons and valves is what I mean, Not a Turbo. Well I'm stilla bit stuck with the efficiency of powerplants I guess.
As for this:
"The only reason I can think of that prevents LNG from fueling ships is that transporting LNG in such quantities is dangerous. "
I might add something. (Agree with you).
The naval diesel sets are reliable and quite effective. If something is to replace them properly, it should better be good. Even if weight is not the absolute issue as in a car, reliability is a must, or against that, costs.
So, anyway what you said here:
"What I predict for the future of car engines is multi-fuel engines based on modern turbo-diesels."
I pretty much think is right, at least as the next step. Along with Hybrides I guess.

And Nash:
"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
only weak point is the need for better batteries, but that is improving every day, DeWalt now has 36 VOLT portable hand tools.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



They might be 36 volt, but they only provide a bit more power than batteries did 30 years ago. (The higher voltage is just used for marketing, 36 volts does not necessarily provide more power than 12v. The important thing to look at is the wattage)"

30 years ago you did not have tools such as wheel saws powered by rechargable batteries. I am serious, arond here, any carpenter now has the newest DeWalt handtools without a cable, working all day! Bloody incredible stuff. Heck, 30 years? only 5 years ago reality was different!
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Holden McGroin

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8591
the future of car engines?
« Reply #91 on: November 08, 2006, 10:45:40 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Angus
Yes? Crankshaft and camshaft With Pistons and valves is what I mean, Not a Turbo.  




2000 KW Detroit Diesel Generator
Logged
Holden McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!

Offline g00b

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 760
the future of car engines?
« Reply #92 on: November 09, 2006, 01:25:48 AM »
A nice brushless motor can achieve over 90% efficiency. A good Li-Poly battery is also extremely efficent. Modern chargers and controllers are quite efficient. I believe it's possible to build an 80% efficient electric drive with off-the-shelf components. i.e. 1KWH total input energy to the battery, about .8KWH at the wheel. I think even higher efficiencies are possible with deep pockets.

How you get and transport your energy in the first place is a whole 'nother topic.

Besides, who needs a motor anyways? Check out my company's bike :)

http://www.easyracers.com/videos/NissanOneHourChallengeFinish.mov

http://www.easyracers.com/BM2006/fredhelmetcamqtmovie.mov
Logged

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
the future of car engines?
« Reply #93 on: November 09, 2006, 01:45:43 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Holden McGroin


2000 KW Detroit Diesel Generator


Backup generator? I've seen the one they have for emergency backup in a nearby town, but it's only 1000KW.
Anyway, what do you use for 1MW?

Edit: That sould be 1000 MW ;)
« Last Edit: November 09, 2006, 02:03:18 AM by Angus »
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline kamilyun

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1467
the future of car engines?
« Reply #94 on: November 09, 2006, 01:58:58 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by g00b
A nice brushless motor can achieve over 90% efficiency. A good Li-Poly battery is also extremely efficent. Modern chargers and controllers are quite efficient. I believe it's possible to build an 80% efficient electric drive with off-the-shelf components. i.e. 1KWH total input energy to the battery, about .8KWH at the wheel. I think even higher efficiencies are possible with deep pockets.

How you get and transport your energy in the first place is a whole 'nother topic.

Besides, who needs a motor anyways? Check out my company's bike :)

http://www.easyracers.com/videos/NissanOneHourChallengeFinish.mov

http://www.easyracers.com/BM2006/fredhelmetcamqtmovie.mov


Dude, that is insane...

Was there a tailwind at all?  Not that it really matters in the grand scheme of things, b/c a non-paced human being exceeding 60 mph under his/her own power...CRAZY.

Edit:  What was the wattage he was producing during that hour?
« Last Edit: November 09, 2006, 02:22:07 AM by kamilyun »
Logged

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
the future of car engines?
« Reply #95 on: November 09, 2006, 02:13:08 AM »
Power plant. Thermal one, wonder what the typical efficiency is:


Linkie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_station

Then the Stirling. Wikipedia sais this:
"The ideal Stirling engine cycle has the same theoretical efficiency as a Carnot heat engine for the same input and output temperatures. The thermodynamic efficiency is higher than steam engines (or even some modern internal combustion and Diesel engines)."

Linkie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine

And another:
http://www.howstuffworks.com/stirling-engine.htm
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Holden McGroin

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8591
the future of car engines?
« Reply #96 on: November 09, 2006, 02:17:34 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Angus
Power plant. Thermal one, wonder what the typical efficiency is:


Ours does about just under 50% and it is state of the art circa 2002

(Combined cycle gas turbine/steam turbine)



A good supercritical pressure coal plant is in the mid to high forties.
Logged
Holden McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
the future of car engines?
« Reply #97 on: November 09, 2006, 04:39:01 AM »
That's a far way from 8%.
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Holden McGroin

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8591
the future of car engines?
« Reply #98 on: November 09, 2006, 05:22:16 AM »
8% was typical for a piston steam engine which did not have a condenser.

In 1915, Stanley put condensers on their Steamer automobiles, so the technology is not all that revolutionary.... James Watt patented the condenser in 1760 something and it was the condenser, not the engine itself that made James Watt the father of the steam engine.

The condenser lowers the exhaust temperature to maybe 30C instead of 100C so the Carnot efficiency increases tremendously by that extra 70C cooling.
Logged
Holden McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!

Offline Viking

  • Personal Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2867
the future of car engines?
« Reply #99 on: November 09, 2006, 06:41:40 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Angus
Power plant. Thermal one, wonder what the typical efficiency is:


Linkie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_station
 


I bet that power station has similar efficiency as a modern diesel engine, perhaps not quite as efficient though.

HOWEVER … it is easy to get efficiency when you can use thousands of tons of insulation on the boilers and have unlimited space. Try scaling that monster down to something that can be used in a moving vehicle and see how efficient it will be.

That's what we were discussing here remember: Engines, not electric power plants.


Quote
Originally posted by Angus
Then the Stirling. Wikipedia sais this:
"The ideal Stirling engine cycle has the same theoretical efficiency as a Carnot heat engine for the same input and output temperatures. The thermodynamic efficiency is higher than steam engines (or even some modern internal combustion and Diesel engines)."

Linkie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine

And another:
http://www.howstuffworks.com/stirling-engine.htm


The Stirling was discussed on page one of this thread.
Logged

Offline Viking

  • Personal Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2867
the future of car engines?
« Reply #100 on: November 09, 2006, 06:54:09 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Angus
(Agree with you).


See, we can agree on something! :)
Logged

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
the future of car engines?
« Reply #101 on: November 09, 2006, 07:00:40 AM »
Yes, but yet here:
"I bet that power station has similar efficiency as a modern diesel engine, perhaps not quite as efficient though."

Why would a power station not be run by diesels rather than turbos if that was the case??????????
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Holden McGroin

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8591
the future of car engines?
« Reply #102 on: November 09, 2006, 07:54:42 AM »
We run our turbines 24/7 for 11 months and then inspect...  We have 24,000+ hours on one of the gas turbines, and it is still producing well.  The steamer has been going since start up in 2002.

The same thing happened in the airline industry. Maintenance costs dropped precipitously when they swicthed to turbine engines.

Time Between Overhaul on an aircraft piston engine is 2000 hours (+/-)
Logged
Holden McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
the future of car engines?
« Reply #103 on: November 09, 2006, 08:01:33 AM »
Diesels are very much more stable and last longer. Not sure how long if they are always used on Max performance, but on a typical say tractor engine you have some 10.000 hrs?
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Viking

  • Personal Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2867
the future of car engines?
« Reply #104 on: November 09, 2006, 01:09:44 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Angus
Yes, but yet here:
"I bet that power station has similar efficiency as a modern diesel engine, perhaps not quite as efficient though."

Why would a power station not be run by diesels rather than turbos if that was the case??????????


Diesel and heavy fuel oil is more expensive than LNG or coal, so even if the diesel engine is more effective it will cost more to run. Also the gas turbine allows for a secondary stream cycle to be run off its exhaust heat increasing the efficiency slightly above that of a pure diesel. The maintenance costs are also obviously less for a turbine, like Holden said.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 [7] 8   Go Up
« previous next »