The Hydrogen Hoax

The New Atlantis.com ^ | February 8, 2007 | by Robert Zubrin

[Kenny Bunk]

Yo, I dint know that. Ping to ya.

[timer]

Robert Zubrin is the genius who first hit on the idea of using local martian resources for a fueled return trip from mars, instead of lugging it all the way from earth. As he put it, did Lewis and Clarke take all their needed supplies with them for 2 years, or live off the land?

Great post, a SLAM DUNK, exposing the idiots at the DOE and the good old boy network that feeds off of public ignorance. MEG anyone?

[Sherman Logan]

Kipling had the idea, dude. These are the "Lesser breeds, without the law."

Not quite what Kipling said, and certainly not what he meant.

If, drunk with sight of power,

we loose Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe,

Such boastings as the Gentiles use,

Or lesser breeds without the Law

The "lesser breeds" in all likelihood referred to the Germans and other competitors in colonization, NOT to the natives. They were "lesser" because of their triumphalist boasting and "master race" ideas (which were already developing in Germany in 1897), not because of genetic inferiority or lower level of civilization.

Americans today could learn a lot from this poem, but probably not what most think. Certainly not that injustice to less powerful peoples is a good thing.

BTW, my suggestion of conquest and annexation was primarily in jest. I wouldn't really support such a thing at this time.

[dangerdoc]

It will overcome half of the difference leaving a car with nearly the same miliage.

[thackney]

No, it will not even come close to that.

[Kenny Bunk]

my suggestion of conquest and annexation was primarily in jest

And mine only half so.

[dangerdoc]

The higher octane level in Etoh would allow an ethanol fueled engine to run at diesel compression levels allowing an engine that runs at about 40% effiency rather than 30% of typical gasoline engines. It would require an engine redesign with beefier components but not really any different than the engineering required for diesel.

Going from 30% to 40% is about a 30% improvement in effiency which would largely mitigate the lower energetics of the fuel.

Other than disagreeing with me, do you have a point to make?

[thackney]

Other than disagreeing with me, do you have a point to make?

Yes. Increasing compression will NOT make an increase in MPG that you are implying. Many other inefficiencies within an automobile make up the total.

Are you going to reject less ratio of heat to delivered power? Decrease friction? But you will increase weight with a stronger engine to handle the increased pressures.

High compression engines are not new, and they are used in performance vehicles, not low MPG vehicles.

If your claim was true, why doesn't diesel vehicles, using a fuel with an energy content ~60% more than ethanol, have more than double the MPG of gasoline vehicles?

[thackney]

energy content ~60% more than ethanol, have more than double

I should have said 60% more MPG, not double.

[NVDave]

I take it you haven't see the results of a diesel-powered VW car vs. the gasoline engine in the same car recently. For a 2005 Jetta diesel vs. gasoline, we're talking 45 vs 30 MPG (respectively) on the highway.

The recip internal combustion engines with the highest thermal efficiency in the world are diesel cycle engines, with thermal efficiencies over 50%.

From the bold assertions you're spouting, I also take it as a given you don't know what a Miller cycle engine is, nor that they exist and that the Japanese are both experimenting with this engine type and actually delivering this type of engine in some vehicles (Mazda and Prius, for two examples).

Some science for your consideration:

1. Miller cycle engine research and ethanol:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3957/is_200401/ai_n9382369

2. An abstract of research in adding ethanol to diesel fuel for burning in a diesel engine:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V4S-4DFK6BN-1&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F01%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=56e189499ee1d880b8674b1b0e13ea0a

3. Abstract of SAE paper by Mazda engineers on their use of a Miller cycle engine to improve their mileage and lower their emissions:

http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/950974

4. It has been well known by engineers for over 100 years that increasing engine compression (either with longer piston strokes, or with turbo/super charging) does increase thermal efficiency. Diesel engines achieve their high thermal efficiency due to their higher compression, and resulting longer power stroke, which extracts more mechanical power from the thermal power of the fuel.

And before you go off on some rant about the heat content of ethanol vs. gasoline vs. diesel fuel, remember this: thermal efficiency ratings of internal combustion engines makes this "my fuel can beat up your fuel" bickering complete nonsense. When engines are evaluated for thermal efficiency, it is purely an evaluation of "how much of the heat content of the fuel we put in the engine were we able to extract at the crankshaft?" Thermal efficiency testing completely discounts any issue of how much heat is contained in any given unit of the fuel. It is purely a measurement of conversion and is fuel agnostic.

But let's say that you're going to take the position that this is all "engineering gobblegook", which so many uninformed, non-engineers seem to take about these things. Engineers have to study thermodynamics, which is the engineering way to look at internal combustion engines. As a result of this, engineers are acquainted with things like the Carnot cycle and so on, and are on pretty firm foundations about compression ratios and efficiency in internal combustion engines. So let's just dispense with all that "technical mumbo-jumbo" that people seem to pooh-pooh and go back to basics:

1. Will increasing the compression ratio in a conventional gasoline engine increase the MPG?

2. Has someone done this, ie, not some theory, but actually built an engine?

2. And if so, why haven't we seen these results in the car/engine market?

#1 Yes. #2 Yes, it has been done. #3 It never came to fruition because of the oil companies (and not because of some conspiracy).


Oliver Tractor Company, which was one of the larger ag manufactures until the 1960's, when it was sold to the White Truck company, experimented with a 12.5:1 compression ratio conventional gasoline engine. This resulted in a significant reduction in fuel use, almost 20%.

GM experimented with increased compression ratios in the same time period, and found the same thing.

So why don't we see these results in our cars today?

Because in a gasoline-burning engine, when you crank up the compression ratio, you run into something called the "ping limit" -- the point at where today's gasoline mixtures start to pre-detonate in the engine. To use a 12.5:1 compression ratio, more anti-knock additives need to be put into the fuel. The oil companies refused to create such formulations due to the expense (which would have made common road gasoline as expensive as WWII aviation gasoline, which was 130 to 150 octane by the end of WWII) and the Oliver and GM projects were shelved.

As a result of this, BTW, farmers went from gasoline engines in their tractors to almost all diesel engines in their tractors, starting in the 1950's and by the late 1960's, almost all ag tractors sold were diesels. This happened mostly for issues of fuel consumption.

So, I can now anticipate your next question: "Why aren't we looking at this again today?"

We are. There is still the issue of the "ping limit" and how do we prevent pre-detonation in the engine.

The bright boys and girls up at MIT appear to have a start on this issue: they're preventing pre-detonation in high-compression engines by carefully timing the injection of (drum roll please) ethanol into the engine to prevent pre-detonation:

http://techfreep.com/mit-ups-mpg-30-percent-with-ethanol-injected-engine.htm

[Leatherneck_MT]

I'm certainly glad that men like Henry Ford didn't listen to people who said "It's impossible".

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm certainly glad that men like Henry Ford didn't listen to people who said "It's impossible".

There is a huge difference between "impossible" and "doesn't make sense when you take into account the increased (not decreased) energy usage needed".

[Leatherneck_MT]

and if we never try we'll never know.

[Toddsterpatriot]

and if we never try we'll never know.

We already know that it takes more energy to, for example, split hydrogen from water than we get out of the hydrogen when we use it as fuel.

[Leatherneck_MT]

You're talking about current technology.

Based on that argument, we should still be using 286 computers with floppy or 10 meg hard drives connecting to the internet on 1200 Baud modems.

No I'm not being sarcastic, I'm simply arguing that things change. What's current today won't be current tomorrow and if we never explore and test and try we'll be saddled with oil until we go into the dustbin of history.

There ARE ways of getting hydrogen cheaper.

We just haven't discovered them yet.

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're talking about current technology.

I'm talking about thermodynamics.

There ARE ways of getting hydrogen cheaper.

I wasn't talking about price, I was talking about energy.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Great post!

[Leatherneck_MT]

"I wasn't talking about price, I was talking about energy."

Sorry yes you were, doesn't matter whether it's price or energy. There still is a way, we just haven't discovered it yet.

same goes for thermodynamics. We've used technology to overcome gravity, I'm sure we can find a way to use technology to overcome most anything else other than death.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry yes you were, doesn't matter whether it's price or energy. There still is a way, we just haven't discovered it yet.

There is a way to overcome the laws of thermodynamics?

same goes for thermodynamics. We've used technology to overcome gravity,

We didn't overcome the laws of gravity.

I'm sure we can find a way to use technology to overcome most anything else other than death.

Let me know when they come out with the technolgy to make 5-2=5.

[Leatherneck_MT]

ok I see all you want to do is argue. I'm not a scientist, but I have faith in Man's ability to overcome any obstacle. Obviously you do not.

I'll never change your way of thinking and you'll never change mine. But history is on my side. Sooner or later someone will figure out a way to make it work

Mankind always has.