Remarkable new fossil-fuel engine design is 5 times more efficient and reduces emissions 90%

I agree, I didn't want to criticize you, but it is more involved than the 250 mpg carburetor that you initially compared it to without checking it out, and hopefully it has a bit more real science as well.

If it doesn't work for vehicles, there's still other potential uses for something like this. Hopefully we'll see an actual update.

 

Hydrogen fueled vehicles are easy to make. So why don't we have them? Three reasons:

1) Lack of infrastructure. Without fueling stations, it's a hard sell.

2) Lower energy density. Hydrogen as a fuel takes more room than liquid fuels like gasoline. Range becomes a problem, just like with EVs.

3) Expense. At present, the cheapest source for hydrogen is from natural gas. Instead of paying for the natural gas, then paying more to convert it, it's cheaper to burn the natural gas directly.

Water as a fuel will never work. Separating the hydrogen from the oxygen in water is a net energy loss. For a fuel, you need something that provides energy, not consumes it.

Tom

 

He needs more money and is justifying his position to the University.

The actuality could be a fraction of what the guy is claiming and it would still be worthwhile. Too bad we don't get to see the actual status reports to ARPA-E.

 

Brainiac types lol. It's simply the KISS principle.

- simple fuel, complicated & inefficient engine
- complex fuel, simple & efficient engine

Take a pick.

I'd like to see Moon-bots harvesting H3, smelting pea-sized pellets using the Sun, and a solar cell driven electromagnetic rail gun placing the pellets in ELO, when another bot harvests them and parachutes them to Earth in ceramic capsules...
...oh wait how to get the ceramic capsules in ELO?

 

Just an observation as an aside: so often it is the science illiterate/religious that are SURE that 1. humanity is immune from the consequences of its actions; 2. Science can be ignored when it contradicts their beliefs; and 3. that technology will save their collective butts.

 

wow, where did that come from?

 

Water isn't hydrogen. The energy you get from hydrogen is less than the amount it takes to split it from the water.

 

+1...Yeah...didn't see that coming. I know bisco has a valid point, but I'm not getting it.

 

Yes, I know but can't a Star Trek boy dream?

 

The system was balanced. CO2 in = CO2 out.

The amount of human produced CO2 since the industrial revolution * 0.6 = Increase in ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

Sure, here is a dream for you that violates no laws of Physics that I am aware of:
Split natural gas, burn the Hydrogen for energy, turn the Carbon into Bucky-tubes 22,000 miles long. Use those to build a space elevator, for (reasonably) cheap access to space. No CO2.

 

Who is going to pay for yanking all those O2 molecules off the C atoms?

 

The heat engine is under 40%, but the waste heat is used for other purposes.

It could be a long wait for a practical ultra high efficiency engine.

JeffD

 

The 60% is a Brayton cycle machine followed by a Rankine cycle machine. Both are heat engines that turn a shaft. I didn't know they had gotten that good until I looked it up.:cheer2:

Sounds like it takes a very good installation running under near ideal condition to do that, but a big electrical generating plant with a cold heat sink like a cold lake or ocean running that combo can approach or meet 60%.

I agree that we aren't there for cars and may never be.

 

The trick is to grab the C's before they join the O's. Somehow. It's a dream.

 

Cars don't have a cold heat sink to work with. The ~40% assumes reasonable temperature/pressure parameters.

JeffD

 

My only question: How long until the big oil companies buy the patents and bury them forever?

 

We just need to get some dilithium crystals to feed the warp drives in our Prius Gen8's.

 

The topic of the particular post you responded to was combined cycle natural gas plants, not cars. Your response sounded as though you were unaware that some power-plants use heat engines to achieve 60% thermal efficiency at the shaft.

 

When somebody begins a thread with nothing but a link, it will always look like spam. (Especially with the word "remarkable" in it describing a device that doesn't quite exist). Adding a comment or any sort of personalization to the post would be most welcome.