At one time a serious contender was the steam engine for autos. It was better designed for autos.
A steam engine has high torque at low speed. an ICE has its high torque at high speed. Hence the
need for gears in an ICE. But the problems associated with water for a steam engine and the
problem of keeping the water hot between uses (even in warm weather and essential to preven
freezing in cold climate places) laid the steam engine to rest as the more versatile ICE was
improved. That's the trouble with vehicular engines; there is no perfect engine (or motor if you
use electric motors) for the vehicular personal use. For mass transit Diesel engines and Diesel
electric and for light rail electric motors are the best choices. However the ICE is used for
convenience not efficiency.

Eeyore wrote:
Spaceman wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Spaceman wrote:
dennis at (no spam) home wrote:
That is conservation of energy.
No it isn't its conservation of fuel.
Fuel isn't energy until it's burnt.

You're leaving out the time element. This is critical. Same thing with
energy and power.
I am not leaving out time at all.
The fuel is burned and "more energy than normally produced
by the engine " is taken out to create a hybrid extra mileage.
:)

Which fuel and where's your proof it's more efficient ?


He may have a point sort, of.

A 5% hydrogn injection into an ICE does in fact improve mileage and
efficiency and pollution, according to credible published papers.

You DO get more performance back for the same total energy input.

But the key gotcha is that any onboard electrolysis method of generating
that hydrogen burns up ridiculously more energy than is delta provided
by the H2 ICE reinjection. And that is BEFORE amortization.

Curiously, there is a "carnot squared" loss associated with running
gasoline through an ICE to generate hydrogen to rerun through the same
ICE. Which in itself is mind boggling.

See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/trashelc.pdf for a detailed analysis.

Eeyore wrote:
Spaceman wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Spaceman wrote:
dennis at (no spam) home wrote:

That is conservation of energy.

No it isn't its conservation of fuel.

Fuel isn't energy until it's burnt.

You're leaving out the time element. This is critical. Same thing
with energy and power.

I am not leaving out time at all.
The fuel is burned and "more energy than normally produced
by the engine " is taken out to create a hybrid extra mileage.
:)

Which fuel and where's your proof it's more efficient ?

My proof hybrids are more efficient?
Sheesh Eeyore.
you have lost it.
LOL

Eeyore wrote:
Spaceman wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Spaceman wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Spaceman wrote:
dennis at (no spam) home wrote:

You show me a system that defies the math.

Hybrids already do it.

WRONG !

They take away hp and create hp from
such.

WRONG !

BIZZARELY WRONG.

So electric motors and the batteries that run them don't produce hp
also? You are the bizzarely wrong in that fact.
You like to prove you are not an actual enginneer
as many times a day as possible huh?

It's the regime in which they are operated that creates extra
efficiency, i.e. by being clever in their use. ICEs and electric
motors operate at different relative efficiencies in different modes.
of operation.

So it is making more hp than was taken out.

dennis at (no spam) home wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message
"dennis at (no spam) home" wrote:

I suggest you learn what a hybrid is.

He seems to have some mixed up ideas about this.

He hasn't even worked out that they have two or more "engines" in
them to work under different conditions yet.

I am using the first hybrid made type.
One single engine with batteries and electric motors added to
the system
You are ignoring that such actually brought about the dual engine
and other types to begin with.

I am talking about an ICE and a sytem that takes power from the
ICE and make it into more power again.

The fuels in your 'hybrid' may be gasoline, hydrogen or
electro-chenical energy a.k.a 'electricity' from a battery (possibly
charged by electro-mechanical enrgy) in the form of an alternator,
whuch in turns derives its energy input lossily from the engine.

Spaceman wrote:

dennis at (no spam) home wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message
"dennis at (no spam) home" wrote:

I suggest you learn what a hybrid is.

He seems to have some mixed up ideas about this.

He hasn't even worked out that they have two or more "engines" in
them to work under different conditions yet.

I am using the first hybrid made type.
One single engine with batteries and electric motors added to
the system
You are ignoring that such actually brought about the dual engine
and other types to begin with.

An electric motor IS an engine, so the above makes no sense whatever.

Spaceman wrote:

I am talking about an ICE and a sytem that takes power from the
ICE and make it into more power again.

Fundamentally unsound thermodynamics.

Eeyore wrote:
The fuels in your 'hybrid' may be gasoline, hydrogen or
electro-chenical energy a.k.a 'electricity' from a battery (possibly
charged by electro-mechanical enrgy) in the form of an alternator,
whuch in turns derives its energy input lossily from the engine.

Yes,
It make the engine lose but yet gives more than lost.

Eeyore wrote:
Spaceman wrote:

dennis at (no spam) home wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message
"dennis at (no spam) home" wrote:

I suggest you learn what a hybrid is.

He seems to have some mixed up ideas about this.

He hasn't even worked out that they have two or more "engines" in
them to work under different conditions yet.

I am using the first hybrid made type.
One single engine with batteries and electric motors added to
the system
You are ignoring that such actually brought about the dual engine
and other types to begin with.

An electric motor IS an engine, so the above makes no sense whatever.

Yup and an engine is a motor blah blah....
That still laughs at you since the ICE loses hp and yet the
electric give back more hp than the ICE lost and if it
did not ..
hybrids would not work.

HA HA HA !
yet again!

Eeyore wrote:
Spaceman wrote:

I am talking about an ICE and a sytem that takes power from the
ICE and make it into more power again.

Fundamentally unsound thermodynamics.

Hybrids are laughing at your thermodynamics.

hhc... at (no spam) yahoo.com wrote:
James, as a purely amateur mechanics, I agree with your descrption of
the technology.

Ok, you have been accused of asking stupid questions, so here is my
stupid question.

What is the scientific explantion of how a hybrid vehicle achieve
superior fuel efficency when every step in the hybrid car
confituration wastes energy at every stage in the conversion process.
So where does the additional fuel efficiency stem from?  Do hybrid
vechicles employ regernative braking which partially charges their
batteries at every braked stop?

Some do, some don't, the best ones do.
Even the ones that don't use regen' braking get better gas mileage
than the normal ICE would.

The superior ability comes from the simple fact of conservation of energy
When you conserve energy, (charge the batteries) it can be used again.

Like I was thinking about hydrogen being able to do such but maybe not
if it actually takes that much energy to break down water.
But it does not take that much energy to charge multiple batteries.
Limos have been doing such on 1 alternator for years
and the luxury items hurt the gas mileage mostly because of
the weight increase more than the hp decrease.
:)

The designs I have had a look at don't, so where is this increased
fuel efficiency coming from, or is this simply an empty marketing
gimmick based on drivers doing a greater abount of coasting?

Electric motors have a better torque so the power is always
there, no curve basically, the curve is the wasted energy.
the lower the speed with high revs to get to higher speed and
torque make a hige difference once you engineer them correctly.

Dumb question I know, but I am not at all hesitant to ask dumb
questins provided that they receive intelligent and logical answers.

Not dumb at all,
It is basically a "using the conservation of energy laws" for us,
instead of against us.

It is also the reason I listen about the "hydrogen hydrid thoughts"
Unless you actually try such, the math does not actually prove anything.

So I might even be trying such soon because my pack of cigarettes
went up in price so I need to save money somewhere to support
my stupid habbit.
Maybe we should get together and make a junker and see if
it can get better gas mileage with a hydrogen creation cell.
and then we could both know the true physical facts instead
of relying on the math alone.
I think I will try it with a simple lawnmower engine and belt
connected to an alternator to see if it can make the lawmower run
longer while sitting still since I really don't want to register a car,
nor alter my 96 Camaro til I know the truth.
:)

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

dennis at (no spam) home wrote:
hhc314 at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39b45810-2076-42a4-9280-9fdd8789c8f1 at (no spam) m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...


Hwy Jim, I have a few other tidbits of information to share with you.
I belive that by now you know that I post fact, and when I post an
opinion I clearly distinguish as option in contrast to fact, Let's
start here with an opinion.


If you want to purcase an extremely high energy altenator, it will be
produced by a firm named Leach-Nevile. Oddly, this firm does not
appear to have a website, nor do they need to have one. Their bottom
line products stat a 180 amps, and for decaded their alternators have
been the choce of the police radio, mobile ham radio, and ambulence
market. Not to mention their role in the marine market.

It't late, so that is all that I will post for now.

When you get back post something useful:-

like how efficient one of these 180A alternators is?
how many liters of hydrogen will one produce in a minute?
how much engine power will be used at full load?
how much petrol will be used to run that alternator at full load?

Posting a useless bit of information about where to get high current
alternators of unknown efficiency is just the sort of thing that
doesn't help educate spaceman.

It is info for trying an actual experiment,
You know,, that stuff that gave you all that math you are
so into?
Is there something wrong with doing physical exeriments
in your math world?
I hope not, because that is what built your math world.

I'll start you off.. its about 3 HP at 100% efficiency.

Predictions are nice and carry a good amount of mass,
Experimental facts are much more massive though.

Do you happen to have such an experiment done
and that is where you got your math or are you just
using the math about such stuff that is just written
down and calculated only?

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

Nothing wrong with experiment, what you want to do has been done and
it doesn't work, not in this universe.

No need for an experiment it is FACT, something you have little grasp
over.