NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/rec/autos/27560

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-21 | 3.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!po.CWRU.Edu!aas7
From: [e-mail] (Andrew A. Spencer)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: Rotary vs. Piston Engines
Date: 21 Nov 1992 22:03:08 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Andrew A. Spencer)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, [e-mail] (Michael Paddon) says:

>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Andrew A. Spencer) writes:
>>In a previous article, [e-mail] (Ramiro Reinoso) says:
>>
>>>Rotrary engines might be used more ofter in the future.
>>>Rotary engines may be the answer to future hydrogen engines.
>>>I saw a display at the last New York auto show of a hydrogen tank
>>>for cars.  They have demonstrated that rotary engines are more
>>>suitable for hydrogen fuel because  the combustion chamber section
>>>was not the same as the intake chamber section.  The rotor takes
>>>the mix and move it to another section to be burnt.  This results
>>>in a cooler intake chamber that prevents hydrogen from exploding.
>>>
>>>And as far as emissions, when you burn hydrogen you end up with
>>>water vapor (very environmentally friendly).
>>>
>>with some various complications...it sounds great..but..you have to inject
>>water into the combustion chamber in order to keep certain nasties like
>>nitrogen(NOx's) mostly from also deciding to steal some of the H's O's...
>>it sounds realy great..but..not only would we have to come up with tanks
>>practicle for a car to carry H..but also tote around water(though not to
>>the extent of petrol we do now!)..althought a system might be devised so
>>that the vapor from the tailpipe(once perpetuated with reserve h2o) could
>>be recondensed and injected into the motor....well..nothing's ever as simple
>>as it's theory would suggest!.
>
>My understanding is that hydrogen can be safely stored as metallic
>hydrides, with the gas released (electrical reaction? chemical? I
>don't know) only as needed for combustion.
>
>The resulting water would be vapour at exhaust temperatures; ie. no
>we wouldn't have to "tote" it around.

you didn't read what i wrote, did you? like i said, you have to inject
water into a H powered IC motor to get H2O out, otherwise you will get
some nasty undesirable other byproducts. thus, you would have to tote
around water to inject, unless, as i stated, you could perpetuate the
condensation of the water vapor produced to be reinjected..but you would
still have to have enuff of a reserve to start the chain...and i also
have heard of the mentioned storage device.  still is gonna weigh in
at alot, though...



>
>The biggest problem, I imagine, would be that the seals still require
>lubrication. This must inevitably introduce some lubricant (presumably
>oil) into the combustion chamber, in turn causing some kind of
>noxious emissions (no where near the extent of current engines, of course).
>This does mean, however, that an H powered rotary will never quite meet
>a true zero emission requirement.
>
>Michael
>

yeah..well..they claim electric cars do too...but where in the heck do these
people think electicity is made?  mostly from using fossil fuels of some sort,
or Nuclear(for which we still have no disposal for the wastE!!!)...let's face
it, nothing that is claimed to be zero emmision today is TRULY zero emission..
and, i imagine, never will be...but we shall work towards that gaol..
DREW
--
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????-----whatever!