Hydrogen fuel cell vehicle

fishbulb said:
?

Hybrids don't really "run out of juice" in anything resembling normal driving; the electric motor is always available to assist as needed for acceleration or hill climbing.

The torque delivery of electric motors is phenomenal, what with the max output available starting at zero RPM and continuing up to top speed. Also, power that comes as a result of regen braking is effectively free and represents a BSFC of 0.
Click to expand...
I was talking about the fact that hybrids like the Prius having to rely much more on the engine out on the highway. As for torque, etc, the stated 0-60 time of 10.5 seconds for the current Prius is .2 seconds slower than the Jetta diesel.......the OLD Jetta diesel, that is. The new Jetta has 40% more horsepower and 33% more torque. As for regenerative braking and other "kinetic recovery" techniques, you don't need a big expensive battery pack to do that. F1 has discovered that.
 
Another interesting thought: hydrogen burns clear, so no flames are visible. Think of the 3 main engines of the Space Shuttle (not the solid rocket boosters.) The Hindenburg was filled with hydrogen, but the flames that were seen were caused by the skin of aluminum and dope on cloth, which is similar to the rocket fuel in the shuttle boosters. If you were in a car crash, and the high pressure tank didn't rupture, the lines still might break. You might not know your car was on fire until the flames started burning tires, paint, or other stuff. I wonder if there might be something to add to the fuel so that the flames can be seen, but that doesn't cause pollution.
 
Im confused about hydrogen fuel cells. I cant see running a truck on batteries. Why not use hydrogen to fuel the internal combustion engine. A couple of nuclear power plants can generate the electricity needed to create hydrogen.
 
dipbait said:
Im confused about hydrogen fuel cells. I cant see running a truck on batteries.
Click to expand...

Why can't you see a truck running off of electricity? Energy is energy, regardless of whether it comes from a fuel cell or combustion. Plenty of things that are much bigger than a truck have electric drives; to include locomotives, industrial forklifts, and submarines.

Electric drive schemes have some significant advantages over conventional combustion engines. For example, no need for transfer cases and driveshafts and differentials and locking hubs on a 4x4; just give each wheel its own independent electric motor and you have near-infinite control just using software.

You wouldn't even need a transmission. Reverse is just spinning the motors the other way, and the way electric motors deliver power makes it possible to run up to 100 mph or more with a single gear ratio while still maintaining efficiency and good acceleration.

Stuck in snow? Just press the traction control and mash the pedal, let the car feather the power and respond to loss of traction better than a standard car ever could.

You can optimize your prime mover (be it a fuel cell or gas engine, or maybe even something else entirely - like a Stirling engine!) for a single rate of operation, and run it at this most efficient point almost all the time; letting the batteries respond to short-term load fluctuations.

It is difficult to overstate the advantages that an electric propulsion scheme would provide to the driver. The only thing holding this technology back is the energy content per unit volume problem I mentioned earlier, the motors and controls and whatnot already exist. When/if that gets sorted out the days of conventional combustion powertrains are numbered.

I expect that even without some revolutionary battery technology or similar storage scheme we'll see a lot more cars like the Chevy Volt that do not have any mechanical linkage between the gasoline engine and the wheels. The benefits are just too great to ignore.

You can just burn the hydrogen and run the car the usual way, this is what BMW is doing with their hydrogen 7 series:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_Hydrogen_7

But why would you want to?
 
Fuel cells need a hydrogen based fuel. The original fuel cells used platinum as the catalyst and now there are several alternative types.

With suitable cracker units they can run on anything from diesel to whiskey. Coal is used for stationaly units for powering small towns. Methane from waste is also a source. The great advantage is low emmissions and low maintenance. There is a catch is that the catalysts can get poisoned by sulphur etc and you are left with a lump of useless material ex fuel cell. I am trying to get one for my home and one for my office as they provide instant power and clean power to computers.

Some fuel cells can be used in reverse to generate hydrogen from water.

Applying a large motor/regenenerator to each wheel you get 4x4 controled capability with a huge capacity for acceleration (need decent fuel cell). fuel consumption will always be better than a piston vehicle of similar performance.

However the cost is very high to get there.
 
fishbulb said:
Why can't you see a truck running off of electricity? Energy is energy, regardless of whether it comes from a fuel cell or combustion. Plenty of things that are much bigger than a truck have electric drives; to include locomotives, industrial forklifts, and submarines.

Electric drive schemes have some significant advantages over conventional combustion engines. For example, no need for transfer cases and driveshafts and differentials and locking hubs on a 4x4; just give each wheel its own independent electric motor and you have near-infinite control just using software.

You wouldn't even need a transmission. Reverse is just spinning the motors the other way, and the way electric motors deliver power makes it possible to run up to 100 mph or more with a single gear ratio while still maintaining efficiency and good acceleration.

Stuck in snow? Just press the traction control and mash the pedal, let the car feather the power and respond to loss of traction better than a standard car ever could.
Click to expand...

THAT is something I've always wondered about. Living in rural snow country where half the population drives a 4x4, getting out in the winter is a major concern.

Looking at the little prototype vehicles that get the media's attention, the one thing that always bothers me is that these are urban commuter cars (and if you're going to live urban, than why not have better mass transit instead of personal commuter cars?)

Living up here in the sticks, many home-owners have a two-car combiniation of pickup/SUV for the heavy lifting, and a compact for running into town.

I'm still driving a 10-year-old pickup that is not fuel efficient but it is paid for. For the limited amount of driving I do these days, it is more cost effective for me to keep replacing parts as needed than it is to take out a loan and monthly payments for an expensive and small hybrid.

One question, right now across the US, there are many dealership service facilities, mom-and-pop service/gas stations and backyard mechanics who keep us on the road...when we get into high tech energy systems, who will fill the gap for the ever-increasing driving population?

This is a great thread guys :thumbup:, I'm learning a lot, keep the information coming :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top