I agree 100% with what you're saying. I do not think it's economically feasible to make the switch while there's still an abundance of oil out there. As technology progresses, it may be more possible to make use of alternative fuels but right now I'll stick with my gasoline.

The research will continue and we may eventually come up with a fuel that burns cleaner than gasoline and provides the same benefits of power and economy.

In my opinion, fuel cells are the power of the future. Research has progressed immensely with hydrogen fuel cells and I think they will be in the "cars of the future."

 

DF, i'm really enjoying the subject and i hope it doesn't slide away into obscurity. I'm not informed enough to add a whole lot to the conversation but have often wondered about the same thing you are contemplating. I have seen alky engines used in demolition derbies and was quite impressed. pretty flames from the stacks(night time races) and the car ran quite a while with no water(radiator lost). keep us posted plz.....CW

 

Biodiesel is already cleaner than gasoline and low sulphur diesel is environmentally more friendly than gasoline.

The most economical way to produce hydrogen fuel cells pollutes the environment as much as a current gas engine does.

 

Well, I hope you're right about fuel cells.

Again, people with little scientific knowledge seem to think that it would be an easy transition if only the evil auto and oil companies weren't blocking it. I can't believe it when I hear people imply that Hydrogen is an abundant fuel because it's a common element. Wait 'til they find that we need nuclear power to disassociate the Hydrogen! Or else we can get it from..tah dah...petroleum! And if they're worried about Crown Victoria police cars exploding, will they accept a "little Hindenburg" under their own butts?

But, heh, if it were easy, somebody would have done it already. When I bought my Firebird (Formula 400 Ram Air) in 1970, I really thought that cars wouldn't be that good for another 10 years, due to the fuel and emission changes then taking place. It took a good 25-30 years and they cost 10 times as much, but they are certainly better now! I hope we'll make at least as much progress in the next 25 years without the cost increase!

 

But then you gotta drive a diesel!! No thanks! (That'll get me in trouble)

Regarding hydrogen fuel cells, it is not that difficult to make one yourself. You can buy the hydrogen, or you can use electrolysis to produce your hydrogen for the fuel cell. Producing hydrogen in small amounts does not require nuclear power.

The oxygen necessary is easy to come by and the process is fairly simple. The homemade versions will not produce a high voltage output, but you can wire them in series to produce enough voltage to be semi-useful.

In my opinion, there's absolutely nothing wrong with exploring the pros and cons of alternative fuels. What is difficult to produce now may not be difficult to produce in 5 or 10 years from now. Look how far we've come in 100 years. Keep an open mind and don't dismiss possibilities just because they're not feasible in today's world. We won't have crude forever......

 

That's the problem with a lot of consumers, they are anti-diesel without knowing very much about the modern diesel engine. They are a lot cleaner and less noisy than engines of the past, and with the new technology they accelerate like comperable gas engines. Test drive one of the new 6.0 Power Stroke diesels and tell me I'm wrong!

How do you propose making your own hydrogen? Just curious.

 

LOL, I know exactly how a diesel cycle works. The air is compressed as the piston moves towards TDC. The compression of the air/fuel mixture creates heat. As the piston reaches TDC, the autoignition temp of the diesel is reached...thus igniting the fuel and forcing the piston back down. If you'd like, I can numerically analyze a diesel cycle here and compare the efficiency to an Otto cycle. Just let me know.

An air-standard diesel cycle is made up of 4 processes.

process 1-2: isentropic compression

2-3: constant pressure heat tansfer to the working fluid. This process also makes up the first part of the power stroke

3-4: isentropic expansion. Second par of power stroke

4-1: heat rejection while piston is at bdc.

The thermal efficiency of a diesel cycle can be written as:

efficiency= [(work cycle)/unit mass]/[heat in/unit mass]= 1- [(u4-u1/(h3-h2)] where u is the internal energy at any given state and h is the specific enthalpy.

Using the above equation, it's obvious that an increase in compression increases the efficiency, and the same goes for an otto cycle.

The cutoff ratio is also an important point to consider when working with a diesel engine. It is defined as:

rc= V3/V2 where V equals the volume at the specific state.

I can go on if you'd like. It's very arrogant of you to assume I know nothing of the diesel cycle simply because I don't favor them. I hate the smell and the noise...period.

Regarding "making" hydrogen, I should clarify that you're not really making the hydrogen but are simply extracting it from water using electrolysis and capturing it as it rises. Electrolysis of water to extract hydrogen is a very simple process and can be performed at home or in any high school lab. Do a net search on it and you'll see how easy it is.

Your username makes it abundantly clear you drive a diesel and like them. They are great engines and produce a lot of torque due to high compression ratios BUT they're not for everyone. You have your preferences, I have mine. Assuming someone prefers something else because they know nothing of the subject is silly if you ask me.

EDIT: I'll save you the trouble.....here's one of the thousands of links on electrolysis to extract hydrogen.

http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/7_12...ectrolysis.htm

 

If you take it one step further, you will realize that it takes somewhat more energy to disassociate the hydrogen than you will get from the hydrogen. Where does that come from?

 

I've already clearly said I don't think ethanol or hydrogen as a fuel is economical or practical at this time. However, that may not always be the case. Science is now working on a process of extracting hydrogen WITHOUT electrolysis which could make the process more feasible for fuel cell use. Times change......and so does technology. Fifty years ago, who would have thought that there would be hybrid vehicles capable of 60 miles per gallon available to everyone who wanted to drive one? Who would have thought that high octane gases brought about by lead additives would be a thing of the past?

I understand where you're both coming from, but understand where I'm coming from. There's nothing wrong with abandoning pessimism and exploring the alternatives. Whether we or anyone else likes it or not, research will continue. I personally would never give up my gas V-8's as long as it's legal to drive them. Who knows where science will take us in the next 50 or 100 years and we can only guess how advancements will effect the vehicles of the future. Only time will tell.

 

I would think that a diesel could run on ethanol fuel. Most of the new transit busses in our county are running on CNG. Railroad locomotives have also been tested with CNG as an alternative fuel.

Scott

 

Yeah, diesels can be run on natural gas or ethanol. I think it makes the diesels harder to start when cold, like it does with a spark ignition engine. But given that ethanol is not the most efficient to produce currently ( I hope that is changing ) I wonder if we might be better off expeirimenting much stronger than the 10% mixtures commonly in usage now. yeah, I know there is plenty of petroleum available now, but this gravy train can't last forever. DF

 

Check this website out.

www.hempcar.org Click continue when the car shows, check outthe main page, click on energy farming it's real interesting!! Very good site, a must read for the people who think we're locked in a crude oil society.

Are people willing to use tar sands for petro next??Imagine boiling off 2 tonnes of tar sands to get 1 barel of oil!! We've already hit peak production of petro or it will be hit by 2005. People better get their heads in gear or the economy is gonna collapse when oil prices skyrocket cause of dwindeling supply and lack of an alternative to switch too, remember the oil crisis in the 70's??? thats where we are going for different reasons this time.

 

There's already enough resources available for recycling to make enough biodiesel to exceed all of the current diesel needs. That doesn't count the possibilities of new materials that could be grown/used for biodiesel. This is already a viable alternative fuel, but nobody wants to admit it or acknowledge it. A few years ago during the heating oil shortage, companies blended in about 20% biodiesel.

 

Johnsdiesel,
you seem to know a lot about bio-diesel. I am a huge fan of it even though I don't actually have a diesel engine. I definately agree that it is currently a viable alternative. It is very easy to make as it can be made out of filtered restaraunt grease. It's also more lubricative and resists combustion better. I have researched it a little, just enough to get a good grade on project. Here in Nebraska it is catching on and it is being marketed pretty good. Most or all of our citybusses here in Lincoln run it. The great thing about it is there is no engine conversions that need to be made to run biodiesel. I've also heard that any diesel engine could run on straight vegetable oil, would hesitate to do that though.

 

I have a very old book (copyright 1979) by Jim Wortham and Barbara Whitener (a couple of free loving 60's hippies judging from the titles of some of their other books) titled "Forget the Gas Pump-Make Your Own Fuel" (ISBN 0-915216-43-4). Basically it a book on how to make moonshine for your car. In the book the authors say that the main jets will have to be increased 40% when using straight alcohol vs gas.