Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New chinese engine

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    An interesting side light is that Ford has been supplying those specialty trucks that run in the big passenger airports for over 20 years. I've been told that they put slightly modified internal combustion engines in them, so they can use pure Hydrogen as fuel. It turns out that stellite valves and valve seats are about the only difference between those engines, and the ones running on propane tanks. Since they're only running baggage trains back and forth short distances, they've used the Hi-pressure tanks, instead of those "nickel-Metal-Hydride" filled cylinders. It really isn't a big deal to run hydrogen through ICE's, and I don't fore see the demise of them for a long time. Plus they do eliminate petrochemical emissions right now.

    Ballard company has been selling small 1-5 kilowatt fuel cells to the public for 5 years or so, for in home electrical generation. They've been very pricey, as you might imagine, I imagine some welding supply places sell tanks of hi-pressure H2 that would work in those fuel cells, since its not a weight sensitive application.

    One note of relative safety bears mentioning; H2 is far safer a fuel to burn in vehicles and houses, because, being so much lighter than air(where propane and natural gass is heavier) H2 dissipates up through ceilings in a room where a leak might occur.

    The downside of shifting fuel source to H2 is having to buy hydrolysis generators and piping and dryers and managing the NiMH adsorbtion with 2000psi pumps. Of course the H2 pressure reduces to 160psi, once adsorbed, so the tank isn't a bomb, waiting to go off.

    I would imagine that running a gyro off pulsed direct current motors would be a lot smoother and quieter. Frame design could take a whole new direction, having fuel tanks be structural members.
    Regards

    Frank

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Jean - Claude View Post
      How will we produce more clean electrical power? How to make the carbon footprint of an electric vehicle battery not be an ecological disaster? How to ensure that recycling a battery is not an ecological disaster? How to find enough rare raw material to make the cells and chemistry of the batteries in the long term? Who is today asking the question broadly enough from a societal point of view to take account of all these parameters? This is Carlos Tavares, general manager of PSA-Peugeot-Citroën's cars warning about electromobility.
      Carlos Tavares's group PSA (one of the french car builders) states it is involved in electric car given the end of the petrop engines:

      https://www.groupe-psa.com/fr/actual...re-electrique/

      it is said that given the decline of internal combustion engine, PSA group and dong feng engines are creating a "plateform" (joint venture I think) in order to make an electric car that one could recharge quickly ( 12 km per minute of charge)



      Comment


      • #33
        That kind of charging rate is already available today. At a quick charging station a Tesla will charge to 80% range in about 20 minutes. If range is about 350 km, this equals to about 14 km per minute charging time.

        -- Chris.
        Read about my trip across the USA in an MT03 gyro here.

        Comment


        • #34
          they are reinventing the wheel so hahaha
          I have a C evolution bmw bike, before that I had ridden a vectrix for 6 years, I we not go back to a petrol bike

          Comment


          • #35
            I applaud Elon Musk, and the State of California, for their hi-risk energy shift to low-polluting, renewable energy sources. That shift practically bankrupted the state at the time, because they also had to build a whole new distribution network( grid ). And I doubt that Elon has seen the first penny of net profit out of his Telsa venture. He has also helped cause the acceleration of the rechargeable battery research revolution. Its a shame the billions of dollars invested into the so-called fusion research efforts (which is still as far as it ever was 50 years ago from fruition) wasn't put into "proton-exchange-membrane" fuel cell research. If the airborne wind electrical generation development got only 10% of our military budget for 5 years, we could be an energy independent planet.

            In 1964 I worked at a 'little-known' chemical plant in East Chicago, Indiana called Linde Crystal Company. We made artificial saphires, white ones, red ones(rubies), green ones(emeralds), blue ones(when cut into chunks and ground "star saphires") and yellow ones. The whole process was predicated on the need to melt saphire powder(aluminum oxide) onto a seed crystal, using oxy-hydrogen torches. You see, the only end products that come from such a torch is: heat and water. No CO2. The crystals had to be that pure. Electrolysis of most water sources(but seawater was best) makes pure O2 and H2, with a little water vapor. What better way to store a non-polluting energy source? Pure hydrogen does not burn; put it into an evacuated tank. The oxygen comes out one electrode, and the hydrogen comes out the other. Just let the oxygen go into the atmosphere.

            The big issue is, however, you need a lot of electricity to do electrolysis. My question is: does it take more electricity to store power into batteries than it does to put it into hyrdrogen storage tanks? I don't think so. NASA has used closed cycle fuel cells, for energy and water, for our astronauts in space, going on 5 decades now.
            Regards

            Frank

            Comment


            • #36
              So now I submit, if we can utilize airborne wind electrical generation to make pure H2, we can have sufficient power for transportation, communication, heat and light, for everyone. You see we've already done the developement needed to kit-make our own generators. Mikani has done it for 30kw power generation 4 years ago. Hello.

              Want to know who's helping stop it in its tracks? AOPA. Influencing FAA. Who's shooting whom in the foot here?
              Regards

              Frank

              Comment


              • #37
                Relatively inexpensive hi-output Direct Current model airplane motors from Japan can do the work. All that was needed were the "motorized Kite designs" and the digital controls with software to guide them autonomously. There is enough continuous wind at/or above 1500 feet to run these things.
                Regards

                Frank

                Comment


                • #38
                  We don't really need batteries. Fuel cells are very scalable, below 10kw right now. Need a really good fresh water supply? Fuel cells can be run in both directions. Is it really going to be all about what lobby wins in D.C.? Is it only about 'lack-of-current-information' ? What're we going to do the next time someone hollers "fuel shortage" ?
                  Regards

                  Frank

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Maybe low-cost private aviation will be the fatallity then.
                    Regards

                    Frank

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by eutrophicated1 View Post

                      Not sure the Red Chinese actually "reverse engineered" anything about that engine. That is to say, did they actually do a chemical analysis of the crankshaft, camshaft, valves, cylinders, heads, valve seats, valve springs, timing gears, and the assorted bolts, connecting rods, piston rings(each) and wrist pins. Each of these parts has a different metallurgical history of manufacture. I've made steel in the mills of Indiana; I know how complex the process and chemistry is. And I seriously doubt much, if any true reverse engineering was done on the Rotax engines. Having worked in all facets of the IT business for 25 years, believe me, if the Red Chinese want to co-opt a technology, they'll just steal it, like they did Microsoft Windows. And they won't care a whit, how many shortcuts they'll have to take, so long as it "looks similar" to the original.

                      I've worked with the mechanical engineers at General Motors, Ford and Chrysler Corporations, and I've heard how the Red Chinese manipulated their way into getting the technology they needed to make semi-decent automotive engines, engines they couldn't make on their own. Their manufacturing processes were the worst. Their cars still are among the poorest quality in the world.

                      Yes, Rotax could use some competition; and I invite you all in the free world to become that competition. Some say that the Rotax engines are an outdated design, that there could be newer ones that would be better. I've studied engine design for 50 years, and know that nothing really new comes up very often, mechanically speaking. The main advancements have been due to newer information in the materials sciences. If you want to see advancements, look to super-car, or formula 1 development, where extreme cost is not an issue. The mechanics are such that the inline 6 cylinder engine is still the most inherently in balance. The 1929 Lagonda V12 is still one of the smoothest-running engines ever made. The spark plug wires could be routed 2 completely different ways, and still you could put a glass of water on it without spilling any.

                      You want better engines? Simply replace the cam-driven, coil spring actuated valve trains with ECU controlled hydraullicly actuated valves.



                      ….I've worked with the mechanical engineers at General Motors, Ford and Chrysler Corporations…

                      I suspect you are somehow misinformed about the automotive industries in China. China’s automotive market is now the largest in the world.

                      http://media.gm.com/media/cn/en/gm/company.html

                      https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fap/cn/en.html

                      https://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/chinese-automaker-buying-detroit-s-fiat-chrysler-n792541

                      Regards

                      Ligun

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        To date, probably 95% of USA's general aviation's air cooled piston powered certified aircraft are powered by either "Lycoming" or "Continental" engines.

                        Continental was sold to "The Peoples Republic of China" in 2010.
                        China owns all of Continental's knowledge base, patents, production rights and all of the ingenuity of it's engineers that it employs.
                        I remember thinking - We are selling out America. PS: I'm a Jeep fan and now it's a Fiat. I feel betrayed!!!

                        Continental engines are still made in America, I do not know if any are made in China and imported into the US.

                        If Zongshen follows ISO manufacturing standards and has any relationship with Continental, it could be a viable engine.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          The Mac 90 hp drone motor is gone through before installing on a gyro. It puts out more hp to weight ratio than any other out there.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by cloudhopper View Post
                            The Mac 90 hp drone motor is gone through before installing on a gyro. It puts out more hp to weight ratio than any other out there.
                            It is also prone to sudden stoppage.
                            Regards, Vance Breese Gyroplane CFI http://www.breeseaircraft.com/

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X