Posted on 02/08/2007 12:58:09 PM PST by aculeus
Yea, I know on the six vs. five speeds.
That's a result of someone trying to put a gasoline tranny behind a diesel engine. That's another thing automakers do that frustrates the informed diesel consumer: they use a transmission design for gasoline engine power curves behind a diesel engine.
The situation was at its worst when diesel pickups started becoming popular; the US manufactures would put a automatic tranny in there that was designed for, say, a big-block V-8 gas engine. Same sort of HP? Sure, but at much higher input RPM's. The much higher torque at lower RPM's would tear the guts out of these gas engine trannies in short order, especially when towing a load.
Yes they do. I just was unaware just HOW much better the modern diesels are doing. Like many people, I guess I've still got decades old technology influencing my expectations. When we get passed our egos, this is a great place to learn. Thanks, I do understand Carnot cycle and the associate efficiency limit.
Okay, now that we are past that....
You are absolutely right about the goverments involvement in ethanol. It is a guaranteed boondogle that will screw up the markets, screw over the farmers in the long run and do nothing to make us more fuel independent.
Good night.
The answer is really simple.
Every process we have to break water results in excess heat/energy being lost to the environment rather than being stored in the Hydrogen. when the hydroge recombines with oxygen the energy given up will never make up for that original energy lost. That heat/energy can never be regained when that hydrogen is oxidized. That is entropy.
The second problem is the quality of energy used to create hydrogen. Electricity is high quality energy and very expensive. You can now make hydrogen from water with about 90% efficiency but if you have the electricity where you need energy, you don't need the hydrogen. If you have to move the hydrogen that adds more losses. If you make the electricity from coal, you loose about 60 percent of the energy, another 5% over tranmission lines, 5-15% compressing it and 50% when you run it through a fuel cell. It would be more efficient running a coal powered steam car and cut out all of the steps. It would be even more efficient to make coal gas in the car and burn it in a standard engine.
You could make the hydrogen with nuclear heat but you would loose half your energy trucking it around the country and then loose another half in the fuel cell. If you want to use nuclear power, I think it would probably be more efficient to put the power plants on the shores to run huge desalination plants to grow alge in the deserts. At least that can be turned into diesel and piped to the cities. As a bonus, you would have enough power to never have another Califoria brownout.
Thank you, I understand the various points you have made. I consider them relevant.
The point I make is that you should never underestimate American ingenuity. Nuclear power was impractical up until the 1900s. Using hydrogen as a "fuel transfer" system to power things may become practical one day. In the meantime, if we can use this system (at least for part of our needs) that is some money that doesn't go to the fascist islamics. As long as the energy used to break water does not come from islamofascist oil.
I never do.
Using hydrogen as a "fuel transfer" system to power things may become practical one day.
Sure. When there are no other sources of fuel for vehicles, hydrogen might be useful.
In the meantime, if we can use this system (at least for part of our needs) that is some money that doesn't go to the fascist islamics.
We could burn diamonds for power. Not very efficient or cost effective. LOL!
As long as the energy used to break water does not come from islamofascist oil.
We could use nuclear power to generate electricity and use that to heat our homes. Use the natural gas that we save to power vehicles. Much easier to store, transport, use. Much more energy in natural gas than in H2 and it comes out of the ground already full of energy.
That will reduce our oil usage more than making H2 from scratch.
That's fine. We could just bring flashlights.
I agree with all your points, still think hydrogen may become more attractive. Thank you for your comments.
Why? Because it reduces CO2, reduces dependence on foreign oil or another reason?
There's still that little matter of the 2800 pound fuel tank.
Imagine a collision, should one of those fuel cells rupture, it would be a disaster to all living things within a 100 foot radius.
You're right -- Allison makes trannies designed specifically for diesels.
I own an Allison -- in a piece of farm equipment. Many Allisons are in school buses, big buses, fire trucks, grain trucks, etc.
The Allison that is in the Duramax is a good transmission, but it is nowhere near the transmission that Allison makes for commercial trucks. It is far better than the pieces of crap in the Fords and Dodges, tho. Which is why in our F-350 diesel, we have the 6-speed manual. Wouldn't give Ford's automatic room in the corner of our shop floor.
What is it with lose and loose that's so hard to understand?
You're not grading my paper old professor. Keep your red felt tip pin to yourself.
Everybody signs his own work.
But it isn't good for anything anyway. Takes way too much space to store it, unless it is liquefied, and that process takes more than fifty times as much energy as the hydrogen can produce in combustion.
They're working on it..last I
heard, they had a 200 mile
radius capacity tank in R&D.
Sigh......
Good buy (sic)
Now go ahead, complain about that too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.