A car that saves fuel by turning water into hydrogen. - Page 2 - Science and Technology - HWzone Forums
adplus-dvertising
Skip to content
  • Create an account
  • About Us

    Hello Guest!

     
    Please note - in order to participate in our community, comment and open new discussions, you must join as a registered member.

    Our members enjoy many advantages, including the ability to participate in discussions, enjoy raffles and promotions for members of the site, and receive our weekly content directly by email.

    Do not like being harassed by email? You can register for the site but do not submit your registration to the weekly email updates.

A car that saves fuel by turning water into hydrogen.


benor

Recommended Posts

  • תגובות 44
  • Opens on
  • Last comment

There are many processes in the car that expend wasted energy.

For example the braking process "Fuel Burning> Acceleration> Braking> Heat" but if you put a thermoelectric panel between the physical braking layer and the cooling sides of the heat brake can be used to create a beauty of electrical energy .. : jump:

The radiator can also incorporate such a thermoelectric mechanism.

This way we can generate electricity in the car and use the excess electricity to drive an electric motor or a hydrogen cell.

To conclude the idea is this:

The energy that is wasted to the car for the production of heat will be converted into electrical energy with a thermoelectric mechanism and will help save fuel.

Link to content
Share on other sites

Even if this is true (and this is not - since when did the oil companies become weak?), The car companies do not really care what vehicles will fuel as long as they manage to sell.

They do not "become weak" - there are simply bodies that are much stronger than them with different interests.

And car companies do not care what they sell, but they do mind selling. Imagine Toyota could market Which does 100 per liter of gasoline without affecting the other characteristics of the existing vehicles (performance, safety, price, etc.), you do not know that they would take over the market, so what if it beats the fuel companies? When does Toyota care less? Toyota cares about Toyota's profits.

And imagine that General Motors could have marketed Which does not use the product of oil as fuel, but rather something cheaper and more available like water, and as a bonus it is not even polluting (something that is becoming increasingly important to customers and therefore very useful for marketing). Do not you see how it would boost company profits to the sky when the rest of the car manufacturers had no way to compete with them? True, this will screw up the fuel companies, but since when did General Motors invest in the profits of the fuel companies?

You're actually claiming that car manufacturers shoot themselves in the foot to please the fuel manufacturers. Hmm, that's probably why hybrid cars with particularly low fuel consumption are so popular and that all car manufacturers are investing capital in developing alternative propulsion systems (especially fuel-efficient fuel cells, electricity and hydrogen). Because they maintain the interests of fuel corporations. Arrer, that does not really make much sense, does it? :P

Link to content
Share on other sites

No manufacturer will be able to maintain such groundbreaking technological developments in his own ownership. If Toyota sells cars that make 100 a liter, they will control the market at the moment, but in another year or two everyone will line up.

But if you still want an example of fuel saving technology / increasing the efficiency of the engine that you did not grasp for an inexplicable reason, here is one:

The internal combustion engine 4 typical moves is not particularly effective. Only one move from the 4 invests in engine work, and in addition to the mechanical energy that the engine develops, it also generates a lot of heat, which is eliminated by the system . Exists Which partially solves these two problems in one fell swoop. Add to each cylinder a pair of additional valves, entry and exit, but they are not connected to the fuel and exhaust assemblies. Instead, the extra entry valve puts into the engine ... water. The idea is that instead of at the end of the exhaust drive you inject fuel directly into the suction of a new cycle, injecting water into it. In contact with the boiling engine, the water evaporates immediately and the resulting steam provides additional work, without the use of any energy other than the heat of the engine which must be removed anyway. After this work the steam is emitted through the exit valve (or to the environment or returned to use through a heat exchanger). Thus, instead of 4, only 25 moves, 6 moves two of which are 33 (16%), but only one of them needs fuel (XNUMX%).

Of course, this idea has its drawbacks: there is no efficiency in the additional steps. When the engine is still cold, much more water is required from each fuel during this course of work (which requires carrying with a large water tank or building an efficient heat exchanger to cool the steam at the end of the work) Will cause limescale and corrosion problems. However, I am sure that if the car companies took this development seriously, most of the problems can be overcome .... Still, I guess none of you have even heard of this development.

Link to content
Share on other sites

It's true that it's a nice idea, but the engine needs to be at a certain temperature to work efficiently, and the cooling and heating of the metal will shorten the life of the engine (perhaps because of the idea of ​​raising water prices?)

Link to content
Share on other sites

^^^

That's nothing else. On the Winkel engine you heard? Relative to its four-stroke efficiency efficiency is amazing. Except what, producing one such a headache is not small.

No manufacturer will be able to maintain such groundbreaking technological developments in his own ownership. If Toyota sells cars that make 100 a liter, they will control the market at the moment, but in another year or two everyone will line up.

Pest, has a wonderful new invention called "patent". If you invent a new idea, you can register this "patent" and no one can use this idea without your permission for 20 year! Great, right?

IPhone - - iphone manufacturer That you can patent your innovative engine or use it only for the vehicles it manufactures and run the market (Toyota could not meet demand for the Prius, Which was sold immediately and there was even a long waiting list) or sell motors to competitors and earn at their own expense, or sell patent licenses and earn even without investing in production.

IPhone - - iphone manufacturer Who sits on an invention without exploiting it beats herself; she is forced to compete without using the relative advantage that this patent could give her. Worse, if someone else thought about the idea after it and patented it, the company could not use the idea it invented!

But let's say that within a few years, competitors will find a similar way that does not violate the patent. So what? For a few years no one could compete with you. You had several years of huge profits while your competitors suffered losses. What's wrong with that? In the worst case in a few years the market will again balance and you can enjoy the cashier you did in the years when you had exclusivity, in the best case all your competitors will go bankrupt.

Link to content
Share on other sites

Take all the technology that was once innovative, and I'm not talking about many years ago necessarily, and check how long it took this technology to spread to other manufacturers. More than two valves for a cylinder? Variable Valve Timing? Injection instead of carburetor? automatic transmission? Disc brakes instead of drum brakes? Electric starter? central lock? Starting the sign? Reversing sensors? Electric? The hybrid? electric? Lifting LPG? Power steering? Front drive? Moving xNUMXX4? Differential skidding limited? How long each of these was the exclusive domain of the first manufacturer who used it?

Link to content
Share on other sites

The world is going in the direction of electric cars and this is the future at the moment. I do not see any new technology on the horizon at least for another 20 years, which will happen to improve the process of generating electricity, but the internal gap engine on the way out within a maximum of 20 a year, the delays are because there are still reserves of fuel, and because of the form of storage of electricity on the battery is less than optimal .

Ishtaranchik:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_RX-7

Link to content
Share on other sites

You do not have to go far, even in the RX7 replacement there is a wenkel, and it is still manufactured

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_RX-8

Regarding threading topic:

It's a known piece, and it does work (not something amazing but there is improvement) but of course for reasonable efficiency should Separate that does not take power from the engine to load.

I've seen all kinds of implementations of this thing across the net. In general, you can take it Which has a few hours' drive and at the end of the day and loads it from the electricity grid.

There is a financial saving here, because the electricity needed to recharge Cheaper than the fuel saved. Do not know how significant it is in the end, but in theory it works ...

Link to content
Share on other sites

Take all the technology that was once innovative, and I'm not talking about many years ago necessarily, and check how long it took this technology to spread to other manufacturers. More than two valves for a cylinder? Variable Valve Timing? Injection instead of carburetor? automatic transmission? Disc brakes instead of drum brakes? Electric starter? central lock? Starting the sign? Reversing sensors? Electric windows? Hybrid Car? electric car? LPG-powered vehicle? Power steering? Front drive? 4X4 propulsion? Differential skidding limited? How long each of these was the exclusive domain of the first manufacturer who used it?

Because:

A. It could not be patented, either

B. Some manufacturers have developed together and used technology together, either

third. One manufacturer has developed and sold the technology (or whole products) to others, either

D. The patent was not useful when it was registered, either

God. The patent was very expensive to manufacture at first and therefore did not go into serial production, either

and. There were cross-agreements between the manufacturers that enabled each of them to use the patents of the other, or

G. A third party registered the patent and sold licenses to everyone, or

H. One manufacturer developed, the others managed to find other ways to do the same without violating the patent. It still takes a few years.

So why did not a manufacturer kill the others? Because none of the inventions was so significant. But a vehicle that is fueling water ?! Just think how much a liter of water compared to a liter of fuel. With similar efficiency, the cost of using a water vehicle will be much lower than that of a fuel-driven vehicle. A water-driven vehicle is another advantage. So where is this machine?

They do not exist because there is no such technology. Not in a situation where it can compete with gasoline engines, anyway.

The fact is that each of the patents you mention is in serial production. No manufacturer has sat on the secret technology. "We invented something new to replace the carburetor, we call it 'fuel injection,' but we're not going to use it, instead we'll keep it a secret that" ... First, we'll see it completing the sentence. Second, a fact that is used.

By the way, a large part of these inventions were developed before I and you were born Power steering? Injecting? Electric vehicle? Injection? Ancient technologies Again, the question is not who first realized those who registered a patent and how long it took him to exercise. In 1940, and you succeeded in making serial production only on 1958, you have only two years to enjoy exclusivity.

[br]Published at: 20.12.2010 at 23: 43: 40


Which proves my point ... This engine is too expensive to ride in mass production. Not finding it in Mazda 3 for example. It's just too expensive. But a vehicle manufactured in relatively small numbers and sold at a relatively high price (for example, a two-seat sports car) can be put in Happiness: Here they look for uniqueness and performance and are willing to pay for it.

Link to content
Share on other sites

There are no miracles and wonders.

The vancel engine was used more than 40 in NSU cars and was notorious for its very poor reliability - so bad that the manufacturer had to replace engines with conventional engines (the company eventually disappeared into Udi).

Mazda bought the patent and used it in several cars (the latest being the RX-8). This is not true rotor engines - the piston moves in an elliptical orbit within the block. There are serious sealing problems of the plunger blades. The engine was not considered economical and very polluting, and Mazda had to invest considerable effort in adapting it to modern emission regulations.

There were also attempts to match the Wankel engines to airplanes - they also remained a curiosity.

Internal combustion engines remain with us because they are the lesser of two evils, they are inexpensive to design and manufacture, extremely reliable (for example - I drive on the same engine 350K kilometers and not always Treatments just in time) and a very long series of improvements and refinements made them more and more efficient.

A popular family car in Israel in the 50 was the Ford England - a 1.2 liter engine that supplied 36 hp (maximum speed 110 km / h, 11 km / liter).

Ford Fiesta today is more spacious (and heavier than 40%!) With a 1.25 liter engine that provides 85 hp and a fuel consumption of 1 liter per 14 km (as stated with a significantly heavier body and test conditions that are more difficult than conventional 60 years ago) . This modern engine includes technologies that seemed more imaginative in the 50 than the possibility of atomic flying cars (I'm not kidding).

Only recently has the technology matured enough to put electric motors into mass-produced cars and it can be assumed that the internal combustion engine will gradually disappear to 2030-2040.

Link to content
Share on other sites

We will not go into a fight with people, but electric motors are really not the future.

Conference, conference, I am curious.

What exactly would the future be if not electricity? An electric motor is already more efficient and successful than an internal combustion engine, with the only problem being the electricity 'mobility'. But this is the problem that prevents progress of all In the market more or less, and probably will find a solution.

What exactly do you think there will be in the future if not an electric motor?

Link to content
Share on other sites

ארכיון

This discussion has been archived and new comments can not be added.


  • Latest news

  • Buzz-Zone: Everything hot on the net

×
  • Create new ...

At the top of the news:

new on the site