OT: Hydrogen engines in production
- Thread starter updraught
- Start date
Ray in La Mesa
Well-known member
When I was a volunteer at the San Diego Automotive Museum some years ago they had a a hydrogen powered Model T. It was built by an engineer with plenty of free time and was basically converted to a multi fuel engine. It could still be run on gas or propane. I don't know if they still have it.
rotorwrench
Well-known member
I wonder what type of fuel cell they would have to have to haul around hydrogen. It takes a lot of electricity to produce the stuff too.
A model T will run on distillate and wood gas with no problem. They always make it seem simple to use hydrogen but it's not all that simple.
A model T will run on distillate and wood gas with no problem. They always make it seem simple to use hydrogen but it's not all that simple.
johnneilson
Well-known member
Liquid hydrogen technology has been around for decades
The SR71 development included this at Burbank airport in the late '50s
The SR71 development included this at Burbank airport in the late '50s
ModelA29
Well-known member
Not a lot of science to it. It's just another clean gas - like propane. Store it in a tank then let it flow into the engine at a prescribed rate. There were several Hydrogen cars made in the past 20 years. The problem was the infra structure to fuel them wasn't in place. We tried a couple models (on loan from the manufacturers) at work. I remember one Toyota I was behind on the freeway the license was HNDNBRG
Both Propane & Hydrogen are called dry fuels. They don't put contaminates into the oil. When I had my propane car you changed the oil when it got thicker. Hydrogen does have an octane advantage 130 v 110 for propane. If they come up with a method to create hydrogen from water onboard the car they'll have something.
Now for the shocker: Toyota Mirai:
Holds about 5.6 kg of hydrogen, costing roughly $200 to fill from empty (delivering around 300 to 400 miles of theoretical range). That's 50-65 cents per mile just for the fuel. Over twice the price of gas at $5 a gallon. They cost about 52 grand new and are basically worthless on the resale market - A 2023 is $9,750 with less than 13,000 miles. Real cost for this owner was $3.23 per mile. BTW they only sell this car in Commiefornia.
Both Propane & Hydrogen are called dry fuels. They don't put contaminates into the oil. When I had my propane car you changed the oil when it got thicker. Hydrogen does have an octane advantage 130 v 110 for propane. If they come up with a method to create hydrogen from water onboard the car they'll have something.
Now for the shocker: Toyota Mirai:
Holds about 5.6 kg of hydrogen, costing roughly $200 to fill from empty (delivering around 300 to 400 miles of theoretical range). That's 50-65 cents per mile just for the fuel. Over twice the price of gas at $5 a gallon. They cost about 52 grand new and are basically worthless on the resale market - A 2023 is $9,750 with less than 13,000 miles. Real cost for this owner was $3.23 per mile. BTW they only sell this car in Commiefornia.
nkaminar
Well-known member
The cam has to be ground differently so that the two valves are not open at the same time. If they are open at the same time the hot exhaust can ignite the hydrogen/air in the intake manifold. The timing has to be variable to account for different air/hydrogen ratios. The hydrogen will burn over a wide range of air/hydrogen ratios.
Added: The air/hydrogen ratio is varied depending on the load on the engine. This is an easy way to increase the miles per volume of gas. But, as mentioned above, the timing has to be changed as the ratio is changed.
Added: The air/hydrogen ratio is varied depending on the load on the engine. This is an easy way to increase the miles per volume of gas. But, as mentioned above, the timing has to be changed as the ratio is changed.
Last edited:
Joe K
Well-known member
I always found a "wood gas fired" Model A to be interesting.
Vince Falter has some information about the heads used in this setup - seemingly was common in the German G28 Engines, perhaps others.
And I was surprised at the high compression ratio used with wood gas. (i.e. 7.0 or 8.5 to 1)
Vince:https://www.fordgarage.com/pages/headcompressionratio.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Longest_Hundred_Miles
Joe K
Vince Falter has some information about the heads used in this setup - seemingly was common in the German G28 Engines, perhaps others.
And I was surprised at the high compression ratio used with wood gas. (i.e. 7.0 or 8.5 to 1)
Vince:https://www.fordgarage.com/pages/headcompressionratio.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Longest_Hundred_Miles
Joe K
Synchro909
Well-known member
Hydogen would be about the easiest to produce fuel there is. Any place on earth where there is plenty of sunshine and close to the coast is all you need. Even better if it is windy there too.
IMO, hydrogen is the most environmentally freindly source of energy there could be - even better than batteries. Start with water, end up with water and light years ahead of P!$$ing our children's futures up against the wall by driving "Fossil cars"
As for distribution, when petroleum powered cars bagan to appear in say, the first decade of the 20th century, there was no fuel distribution system as we know it today. Once the need was there and it became commercially viable, service stations popped up everywhere. Who is silly enough to believe that the same thing would not happen again for hydrogen?
Any country not spending on R&D of clean engine technology is going to be left behind, IMO
That's my 2c worth.
Last edited:
ModelA29
Well-known member
About 95 percent of current hydrogen production relies on fossil fuels, emitting nearly 920 million tonnes of CO₂ globally each year.
Electric car battery production has a higher carbon footprint and resource cost than making gas-powered cars. Mining and refining raw materials like lithium, cobalt, and nickel release heavy greenhouse gases and use lots of water.
Clean energy to charge the cars is only 20% the rest is natural gas and coal. In the end a gas car over it's life of 7-8 years is far cleaner than an electric with an expected life of only 3 years. And wait until we get the bill for disposing of all those batteries. They're already being shipped to China and India because there is no clean way of getting rid of them.
rotorwrench
Well-known member
As I mentioned before, it's not a simple thing. Hydrogen is volatile and containment has risks in accidents involving fire. The Hydrogen fuel cell technology is there but very expensive to produce. Natural gas would be a lot safer unless we figure out how to run engines on water. Most current hydrogen fuel systems use high pressure gas storage at 5K to 10K psi. The efficiency of hydrogen isn't all that great.
Most folks totally disregard the electricity usage part of electric cars and hydrogen separation processes. More late technology atomic energy needs to be considered but there seems to be a public allergy to the use of atomic energy. Current hydrogen sepertation is coming from natural gas which is also wasteful and not all that clean. There are already natural gas refilling sources but they are very few and far between. It's mostly government vehicles and large fleets that use it. It's a lot easier to adapt than hydrogen for sure.
Most folks totally disregard the electricity usage part of electric cars and hydrogen separation processes. More late technology atomic energy needs to be considered but there seems to be a public allergy to the use of atomic energy. Current hydrogen sepertation is coming from natural gas which is also wasteful and not all that clean. There are already natural gas refilling sources but they are very few and far between. It's mostly government vehicles and large fleets that use it. It's a lot easier to adapt than hydrogen for sure.
Joe K
Well-known member
Uncle remembers running his WWII Model A on kerosene. The dash tank would be filled with kero and a small "pony tank" would be used for gasoline. The gasoline was used only for starting - once warm a "flip over" to kerosene was done.
He said it would run fine on kero, but tended to smoke and smell like the wick was too high on a kerosene lamp.
Uncle would try to remember to flip back to gasoline before shutting down the Model A - it made the next start much easier.
Kerosene then was about half the retail price of gasoline (taxes) plus not subject to "coupons." (Fuel rationing.)
Today kero is usually sold as a "premium fuel." With premium pricing.
Joe K
He said it would run fine on kero, but tended to smoke and smell like the wick was too high on a kerosene lamp.
Uncle would try to remember to flip back to gasoline before shutting down the Model A - it made the next start much easier.
Kerosene then was about half the retail price of gasoline (taxes) plus not subject to "coupons." (Fuel rationing.)
Today kero is usually sold as a "premium fuel." With premium pricing.
Joe K
rotorwrench
Well-known member
Solid fuels may have a problem with leaving unburned solids that could gum things up. Modern coal fired plants pulverize the coal to a fine powder and then use it to make a burnable slurry by mixing it with water and other stabilizing chemicals. The slurry can then be injected to form an atomized mixture that burns very well. This leaves less solids and allows the smoke stacks to pretty well scrub the remaining material out of the exhaust gasses. A lot of what comes out is water vapor but most of that is likely from the remaining moisture from the wet scrubbing process. They use that process to take the SO2 out of the exhaust. It's a far cry from the days when they burned raw coal to fire a boiler. That smoke was black and still had some unburned fuel sparking out of the stacks. The stacks were designed to minimize that but some got out and a person could really smell the sulfur. Smoke stacks on industrial plants were tall so that the nasty smoke would be up high and not so acrid but that didn't work very well as most folks know. The clean air act put a stop to that practice back when the EPA was formed.
Burning plastic would be more acrid than coal smoke.
Burning plastic would be more acrid than coal smoke.
Last edited:
Kurt in NJ
Well-known member
There was a hydrogen powered support truck in the Paris-Dakar rally but the tanks took up so much space they needed another truck to transport the tires and tools.
There was an article on old popular science magazine that showed a guy running his car on coal dust. —-I would think that the coal dust would be abrasive.
For a while I ran my 240d Mercedes on used transmission oil and once by mistake a gallon of pure antifreeze— the next day I realized it and opened the fuel filter drain and fuel tank drain and the antifreeze was not there —I didn’t notice any difference in how it ran.
After a year of the used oil the car got quiet the diesel clatter gone and power was down because ash had mostly closed off the pre chamber holes.
There was an article on old popular science magazine that showed a guy running his car on coal dust. —-I would think that the coal dust would be abrasive.
For a while I ran my 240d Mercedes on used transmission oil and once by mistake a gallon of pure antifreeze— the next day I realized it and opened the fuel filter drain and fuel tank drain and the antifreeze was not there —I didn’t notice any difference in how it ran.
After a year of the used oil the car got quiet the diesel clatter gone and power was down because ash had mostly closed off the pre chamber holes.