PDA

View Full Version : Hybrid, Electric or Hydrogen perfomance


Shuller1458
04-08-2005, 11:30 PM
I will try to be breif: as you notice the gas prices are skyroketing, so peopel will buy more and more hybrids, electric and fuel cell cars. All of them have main propoltion system which is one or many electric motors.

Electric motors develop amazing torque but horrible HP. That's why they are good at towing but bad at acceleration.

Well, actually couple of people desighn electric sports cars, but they cost like Ferrari 360.

So my question for people. Does anybody knows how to increase the HP or Torque or RPM, or something, in Electrcal motors? Basically how to create high perfomance electric motor? :)

6speedMaxSE
04-09-2005, 01:12 AM
I've been thinking of this for some. When are we going to see tuner hybrids and electric cars. I would have to say the tuning would be similar to electrical performance of your stereo system. Bigger wires, better conducting materials, hell if I know.

You mentioned hydrogen in your title but you didn't go into detail. I remember seeing a special years ago about BMW testing hydrogen cars in Germany. I wonder what happened to that. The performance was similar to combustion engines but 0% pollution. If that is made safe, that is the way to go.

Shuller1458
04-09-2005, 01:23 AM
Hydrogen COMBUSTION (BMW testing) is different for the FUELL CELL.
H2 Combustion is the same engine, but you burn H2 and air or O2, same pistons same mechanical propultion, no electricity. (well from alternator only, as in regular car)

Fuell Cell, is different: you "burn" H2 in O2 in special cells (looks like big battaries), and you produce electricity only, as propultion. No mechanical parts, only shafts in the electrical motors. usually there are 2 motors in the car, for 2 front or rear weels, or for all 4 weels.

Yeah, I hope will start seeing some electrical tuners. That's just sounds weird, but that is reality.

328is_Perf
04-09-2005, 02:18 AM
I think bmw should speed this Hydrogen power up .. theyre building 24 H2 gas stations in California ... Hydrogen is really cheap to get ... so i really hope this will be the fuel of the future .. besides i really think combustion is better than electric... in terms of sportiness, sound, and ability to upgrade (once the technology is fully learned)

bmw has the H2 Prototype and the 745h

the 745 has only 188 hp with hydrogen ... but can also be fueled with gasoline ... so is there a special button? push to unleash more horses ... bmw said it burns h2 at a higher efficiency than normal engines burn gasoline... but why only 188 hp? from a 4.4 v8?

oh also ... the temperature of the fuel is negative ~400 degrees Fahrenheit...

sirex
04-09-2005, 01:07 PM
uh, are you sure about hydrogen being cheap to get? Last time I checked hydrogen is an expensive process to extract from water, (hydrolysis reaction) because t requires alot of electricity.

6speedMaxSE
04-09-2005, 02:55 PM
^^^I think if the UN countries invested as much money as was invested into Iraq (both times) to protect their "oil investments" into "hydrolysis reaction" research, it could be cheaper today.

ara325
04-09-2005, 03:06 PM
uh, are you sure about hydrogen being cheap to get? Last time I checked hydrogen is an expensive process to extract from water, (hydrolysis reaction) because t requires alot of electricity.

If Hydrogen was really expensive, it wouldn't be 'resource friendly'. The costs of processing the Hydrogen may be expensive, but the Laws Of Diminishing Returns states that as production increases, the production cost per unit decreases...up to a point where cost will increase a little due to machinery wear-and-tear maintainence, and the cost associated with maintaining older equipment...regardless, the cost will not (or should not) surpass the original costs of per-unit production. *th-up*

6speedMaxSE
04-09-2005, 05:25 PM
^^^Whipped out the economics 101 huh?

ara325
04-09-2005, 06:29 PM
^^^Whipped out the economics 101 huh?

hahaha, for real. I haven't studied that stuff for ages...i'm glad to see some stuff actually stuck! *th-up*

windwagen
04-09-2005, 10:01 PM
You can easily increase the performance of your electric. However, the tradeoff (lower efficience) will make the benefits of the technology redundant.

328is_Perf
04-09-2005, 10:47 PM
i'd rather drive h2 than electric .. thats all

when i think electric ... i think prius
when i think h2 ... i think bmw ...

King Luis
04-09-2005, 11:48 PM
http://www.theaircar.com
want to see the next step in clean cars. check that out.
it's either that or hydrogen.
pure electric cars don't last long on a battery and take too long to recharge.
btw..quick tip on this air car...saw it on daily planet...it does 250km on a full tank of co2 and it only costs something like $2.50 while 250km on a gas car costs $12.00.

sirex
04-09-2005, 11:53 PM
If Hydrogen was really expensive, it wouldn't be 'resource friendly'. The costs of processing the Hydrogen may be expensive, but the Laws Of Diminishing Returns states that as production increases, the production cost per unit decreases...up to a point where cost will increase a little due to machinery wear-and-tear maintainence, and the cost associated with maintaining older equipment...regardless, the cost will not (or should not) surpass the original costs of per-unit production. *th-up*



The ammount of energy you need to put into getting the hydrogen is not as much energy as the hydrogen puts out. Unlike oil, and gas, the ammount of energy returned from these products is 100 times more then what we put into it, if not thousands.

__________________________________________________ ___
"Figure 1 depicts the hydrogen economy as a network composed of three functional steps: production, storage, and use. There are basic technical means to achieve each of these steps, but none of them can yet compete with fossil fuels in cost, performance, or reliability. Even when using the cheapest production method—steam reforming of methane—hydrogen is still four times the cost of gasoline for the equivalent amount of energy. And production from methane does not reduce fossil fuel use or CO2 emission. Hydrogen can be stored in pressurized gas containers or as a liquid in cryogenic containers, but not in densities that would allow for practical applications—driving a car up to 500 kilometers on a single tank, for example. Hydrogen can be converted to electricity in fuel cells, but the production cost of prototype fuel cells remains high: $3000 per kilowatt of power produced for prototype fuel cells (mass production could reduce this cost by a factor of 10 or more), compared with $30 per kilowatt for gasoline engines.
"

http://www.energybulletin.net/3828.html
_______________________________________________



<b>"If Hydrogen was really expensive, it wouldn't be 'resource friendly'' </b>

this makes no sense. Why cant something be resource friendly without having a high cost? What resources are you talking about? Money isn't a resource, oil is.


<b> The costs of processing the Hydrogen may be expensive, but the Laws Of Diminishing Returns states that as production increases, the production cost per unit decreases" </b>

Well yes, its cheaper to make 10,000 cars from an automated plant, then too make 1, in the overall cost of things. But even if the monetary cost is deminshed, it still requires X ammount of energy for reaction Y to happen, in the end, you still need wayyy more energy to make the Hydrogen then what the hydrogen yields. Therefore, that is a net loss.

Im no business major, but if you are investing 5 times the elctricity for 1 that you produce, is that not a loss in its own, you cant even self power the station. Where is the gain to anyone ? Whether the energy used to make that hydrogen comes from a clean source or not, it could be used else were to power a whole city for all I care.

Regardless, the cost would still be rediculously high to create, and market hydrogen. Until the techniques are refined to an extent where its 1 in and 10 out of it, only then will we see a significant increase in hydrogen fuel cell production, otherwise, its JUST not a viable source.

I know the quote that I put in, says if it were mass produced, it could reduce the cost, by a factor of 10. This is only possible if we had the technology.. It doesn't matter what you mass produce. If the cost is so much greater then the final product it is never worth it.

Shuller1458
04-10-2005, 01:29 AM
^^^ Good point. So I guess hydriogen production is not cheap.

6speedMaxSE
04-10-2005, 12:36 PM
^^^It could be cheaper (besides the mass production) if other companies or even the government was involved. Too bad the Feds have their own agendas.

6speedMaxSE
04-10-2005, 12:38 PM
i'd rather drive h2 than electric .. thats all

when i think electric ... i think prius
when i think h2 ... i think bmw ...

Don't forget H2=Hindenburg :)

sirex
04-10-2005, 07:30 PM
^^^It could be cheaper (besides the mass production) if other companies or even the government was involved. Too bad the Feds have their own agendas.


I agree, that we must do something to rid ourselves of the tremendous use we put in fossil fuels. As for hydrogen ever being a viable source, time will tell as the technologies become more efficient, perhaps one day the system that acutally splits the hydrogen from the water, will be so effictient and small that it can fit in a car, and all need to do is poor in water as the fuel source. Then again, water is getting qite expensive too haha.. Right now, nothing beats good ole gasoline, unfortunate for us, since it is running out..

As for hindenberg. The Hydrogen was not at fault for destroying the hindenberg. Despite what many people beleive, the reason the hidenburg went down was because of the outer coating used on it. They used some sort of aluminimum oxide (im not exactly sure of the name, but the stuff was used in explosives) that was very explosive.

the reason why it all happend was because the hidenberg use to land like an airplane. But they tried something different by dropping ropes. Those who grabbed the ropes on land had a different static charge then that of the hidenberg. A spark caused the aluminum oxide coating to ignite, which slowly burned the outer shell. eventually, it ignited the Hydrgoen.. The hydrogen was definately not the cause of the hindebergs destruction though, I mean it ultimatly blew it up, however, the blimp was already gone after that aluminimum coating went up in flames.. the Germans had taken extra precaution in having the hydrogen in specialy made containers no where near the outer section of the blimp in seperate comparments as well. I beleive that even when the hydrogen ignitd, it didn't totaly whipe out the blimb as the other sections still remained flame free. it was the coating around the ship, and the very flamable material used, that spread the fire, not the hydrogwn. thats what I remeber reading about a year back... correct me if im wrong, too lazy to look it up.

I dont think using hydrogen would be anymore dangerous then using gasoline.

6speedMaxSE
04-10-2005, 10:52 PM
^^^you are right, I was just kidding. I just saw a special on Zepplins on the History Channel the other day and made the correlation.