News: Only 6% of Americans think diesel will succeed as powertrain option

[diesel_john]

Wargo, John, Children’s Exposure to Diesel Exhaust on School Buses, North Haven, CT: Environment and Human Health, Inc. 2002).


2002 and high sulfur fuel is history. IMO 2007 and up compression ignition engines are efficient and clean. In order for spark ignition engines to survive their inherit inefficiencies, we need to get the flex-fuel engines designed with the direct cylinder injection, so we can get the compression up there where it needs to be. Then spark engines can be fuel controlled instead of air controlled. IMHO the pure spark ignition engine as we know it, is history. Just as the pre '07 compression engine is history. Compression engines will become more like the spark with fewer emissions and the spark engine will become more like the compression engine with better efficiency. And they all might be able to burn the same fuel. So its not us and them its we.

[tasdrouille]

Here' an interesting article in regards to the new diesels and market penetration

http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/auto...-engine-diesel

[inventhp]

Originally Posted by GenKreton

After two years of doing hydrogen fuel cell work for my university, producing them for an internship at a machine shop, and observing a senior project based on the hydrogen fueling station in Montpelier, VT, I can honestly say we are a long ways from using them in cars for the consumer. I can't believe people honestly think this is a viable solution. It just seems like a way for oil companies to funnel the governments money into dead end technology instead of grabbing the low-hanging fruit.

Thanks for being so honest!

I was skeptical myself when President Bush championed the technology. I decided early on that it was a rue to make Americans think something was being done about our oil dependence. I have met thoughtful people who for what ever reason were not forced to consider, to start with, that hydrogen was not a source for energy.

If you have the time please visit my web site: http://www.inventhp.com . This site might seem preachy. But if you can stand that, you will find other opinions of mine and hopefully you will find other stuff of interest.

And regarding diesels: Would not a diesel hybrid be a good idea. The diesel could run at its cleanest and most efficient speed and the electric motors could take care of acceleration when it is needed.

Mark / from Iowa

[diesel_john]

welcome mark, chime right in anytime, we enjoy hearing what you got to say.

Mark, got a question for you, on a gasoline engine, would a different cam profile or timimg be better for economy if i disreguard any compromise for power?

[inventhp]

Sounds like an initiation queston. The answer is yes. It would hard to believe no wouldn't it.

I do want you to know that my understanding of engines is all book learned. So I won't even pass as a "self professed expert".

So you might expect the explanation to your question to sound like it came out of a book. One way to improve thermal efficiency is to use the "Miller Cycle". This is essentially a regular engine with an adjusted valve timing. The key is the intake valve closing time. You can close the intake valve early or late so to reduce the intake charge which in effect reduces the compression ratio. But the expansion ration hasn't been changed so that the burnt charge can expand to a lower pressure before it is exhausted.

[RH77]

Originally Posted by inventhp

And regarding diesels: Would not a diesel hybrid be a good idea. The diesel could run at its cleanest and most efficient speed and the electric motors could take care of acceleration when it is needed.

Mark / from Iowa

YES! My "Dream Car" for a while was the Citroën C4 Diesel-Hybrid. Rally-Racing meets Efficiency.


I know, a quirky French vehicle, but the only Diesel-Hybrid that I could find

Before the Low Sulfur mandate was imposed, emissions were, frankly, less-than-ideal. Major metros (especially in Europe -- like London) suffers from Diesel soot pollution. Respiratory problems are rampant in these environs -- primarily childhood Asthma.

I breathed the exhaust of a common-rail Diesel Ford F-350 Ambulance conversion and other large fire/EMS apparatus for 4+ years. You can feel the immediate effects of exposure.

The new Diesels are squeaky clean. An EPA report shows the reduction. Being around them is night and day. Little to no visible soot, reduced overall emission strategy. Good stuff.

Let's step back and look at the big picture. The solution isn't going to be all Diesel, all Ethanol, all Hybrid, Hydrogen, etc. -- but rather a combination of technologies.

I have to say, I've tested Ethanol, and right now, it's not environmentally responsible. FE drops, GHGs potentially increase, and the farming industry is stressed to meet demand (creating shortages of other crops, and increased runoff).

RH77

[inventhp]

Originally Posted by RH77

I have to say, I've tested Ethanol, and right now, it's not environmentally responsible. FE drops, GHGs potentially increase, and the farming industry is stressed to meet demand (creating shortages of other crops, and increased runoff).

RH77

Please read this page on my site: http://www.inventhp.com/bioenergy-pros-and-cons.html

For some of the reasons you site, I might be wise not to mention that there are "pros" for using ethanol.

[RH77]

Originally Posted by inventhp

Please read this page on my site: http://www.inventhp.com/bioenergy-pros-and-cons.html

For some of the reasons you site, I might be wise not to mention that there are "pros" for using ethanol.

Good evaluation. There are, indeed, "Pros" to using Ethanol. Perhaps when (if) Cellulosic ethanol develops more, one part of the equation will balance.

I completely agree with the conclusion of conservation. The problem is: America does not conserve, in majority, without being forced to do so. The populace likes "alternatives" that produce the same power -- as ethanol and Bio-D offers. The ethanol cars I drove made much more power when on E-85 vs. 87-octane, but it didn't even-out in cost, emissions, and sustainability. IMHO, these outweigh dependence on foreign oil, world market impact, and other Pros.

For me, it's the environment and public health first.

RH77

[inventhp]

Originally Posted by RH77

E-85 vs. 87-octane, but it didn't even-out in cost, emissions, and sustainability. IMHO, these outweigh dependence on foreign oil, world market impact, and other Pros.

For me, it's the environment and public health first.

RH77

Perhaps I should update the article since E85 is not addressed. But if that fuel is the topic, perhaps all the pros should be erased.

The push for E85 is what made me rethink my support for the ethanol industry and the subsidies that support it ( but I have to admit I still usually us E10).