How to Reach 200 MPH on Hydrogen Fuel Cells

the_manatee writes "Ford's 999 hydrogen-powered speedster is making waves for its upcoming speed record attempt in the Bonneville Salt Flats, but details on what's actually going on under the hood have been scarce. As it turns out, there are NASCAR-style brakes, steering, and suspension components, along with 16 Ballard Mk902 fuel cells that produce 350 kW of electricity. All that juice spins up a 770-hp motor and the rest is (hopefully) history. One final ingredient: 400 lbs of ice for cooling, which will melt in seconds once the car gets up to speed."

Comments

AC?

[UncleWilly]

The DC current generated by the fuel cell stack is fed into an inverter, which converts it to AC current. That current then spins a huge, 770-hp electric motor..

I wonder why not just a DC motor? There must be some advantage which caused them to take this converter-to-AC approach.

Re:AC?

[The Terminator]

With AC, especially three phase AC you can build more efficient and light motors. If I were to setup a device like this, I would install a motor in every wheel. I'm no electric engineer but to my knowledge that would be a viable construction.

CU

Re:AC?

[Cassini2]

Installing a motor in every wheel is intuitively a nice idea. Unfortunately, electric motors have a great deal of inertia. At high speeds, the effects of this rotational inertia dramatically affect the stability of the vehicle when it hits a bump.

At lower speeds, vehicle performance is maximized when the motors torque/speed curve is matched to the maximum speed of the vehicle while simultaneously matching motor diameter to wheel diameter. Unfortunately, the wheel diameter, tire diameter, motor diameter, and peak motor RPM rarely agree. Thus mechanical gearing often helps.

Re:AC?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, my only consideration with that would not only be more moving parts, but also the fact that you'd have to overcome increased friction, correct?

I'm no great shakes at eletrical engineering, but those are the kind of things that I'd be wondering about.

Re:AC?

[MichaelSmith]

At high speeds, the effects of this rotational inertia dramatically affect the stability of the vehicle when it hits a bump.

No, thats the unsprung mass problem. It is caused by linear momentum up and down when the wheel has to negotiate a non-flat surface.

Wheel mass is a problem, but we haven't yet seen much development in integrated motor-wheel assemblies. It will be interesting to see what happens once some smart Japanese engineers have had a go at optimising it.

Re:AC?

[hardburn]

At high speeds, the effects of this rotational inertia dramatically affect the stability of the vehicle when it hits a bump.

Which is why they do these high speed experimental tests in salt flats :)

Re:AC?

[feepness]

You must be new around here... ever see how much energy an AC-troll post can generate?

Re:AC?

[systems_joe]

Probably for the same reason that Toyota chose a permanent-magnet synchronous that runs off of 500V DC for the Prius. Six big honkin' IGPT transistors convert the DC voltage to 3-phase AC with pulse-width modulation and variable frequency control.

Re:AC?

[Firethorn]

Another dirty little part of the equation is that the bigger the electric motor(IE higher power), the more efficient it is. So far it's been found to be more economical to have a conventional driveshaft powered by one motor over having two or more smaller motors.

IE it's better to have 1 300 pound 95% efficient motor and some connecting equipment than two 200 pound 90% efficient motors at the wheels.

Re:AC?

[TheNetAvenger]

Installing a motor in every wheel is intuitively a nice idea

This was the subject of a few papers and subsequent articles in popular automotive and popular mechanics type magazines.

The conclusion was that technology would be needed to offset these effects and even at the time of the articles/papers 20years ago, it was not too farfetched.

With today's high response computers already in cars with active suspension, linear traction, etc. the computer technology to offset these problems is something that can easily be tuned using today's technology.

Some aspects of independent motors, or 'drive trains' to each wheel is 'enhanced' stability and traction control, as well as rotational tricks that would allow the car to rotate one wheel backwards while rotating the others forward. This would give a performance car incredible cornering, handling, as well as make available some interesting turning radius effects.

I can remember back when 'performance' car people hated the idea of 'alternative' energy or electric powered cars and saw them as the death of the sports/muscle cars. At the time I spoke up and tried to explain how wrong they were, as alternative technology could yield faster, better performing and safer sports cars. This is just one area and example of how new technology would achieve these results.

Re:AC?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

The simple approach would be to mount the electric motors somewhat inboard and connect to the wheel by a cv joint. That way, you get to minimize the unsprung weight while avoiding most of the drivetrain.

Re:AC?

[c6gunner]

Doesn't seem like a huge problem. Just have the motors situated a foot or so in from the wheels, with a short driveshaft connecting them to the wheel. Might not be as efficient as having the motors inside the wheels, but it gets rid of the unsprung mass problem.

Anyway, don't some modern cars already have motors connected to the wheels in order to provide regenerative breaking?

Re:AC?

[MichaelSmith]

Just have the motors situated a foot or so in from the wheels, with a short driveshaft connecting them to the wheel

I think some sports cars have brake disks mounted this way, to reduce the inertia of the wheels.

Re:AC?

[Tmack]

Anyway, don't some modern cars already have motors connected to the wheels in order to provide regenerative breaking?

Unless you happen to own a jet-car like this guy or a bike like this guy, generally the motor is connected to the wheels....

sorry.. just had to :P

tm

Re:AC?

[InvalidError]

Rotational inertia will increased if you add more rotating material (drive shaft) in the drive train if all other parts are the same. The extra U-joints add extra failure/maintenance points and since extra parts add mass, you also end up with extra linear inertia as well. The motor-wheel assembly can be more reliable since its only moving parts are bearings. The general concept of motor-wheel has been around for over ten years, I am a little surprised that things have remained this quiet so far.

Since I remember reading about a motor-wheel patent eight or so years ago, we'll probably hear about the real new developments in about ten more years - after those late-'90s patents have expired.

Re:AC?

[MrNaz]

I think they converted to AC because if they posted under their own name, the Oil companies would assassinate them.

Re:AC?

[RESPAWN]

In general, in terms of cars, the more unsprung weight, the worse the performance. Race cars, which of course tread on the very edge of car technology (except for NASCAR, of course) tend to use wheels made of very light alloys as well as aluminum control arms, etc. The reason is just as you point out: inertia. You can't fight the laws of physics, and we all know Newton's laws of motions. A heavy electric motor in each wheel would really compromise ride quality and handling ability.

Here's an interesting thought, though: has anybody desiged an electric car with individual wheel motors mounted inboard? IE, keep the individual motors for each wheel, but mount them inboard, as part of the chasis which IS sprung and then use driveshafts to connect the motors to the wheels. A car in such a configuration would retain the ability to modulate the power to each wheel separately, but would have no more unsprung weight than any other conventional 4-wheel car.

Cold Boxes

[pipingguy]

Luckily, hydrogen is easy to produce. You just suck in atmospheric air, distill the contents and, voila! H2.

But then you've got to squish it reeely teensy tiny to make it into a liquid.

Re:Cold Boxes

[cyfer2000]

According to an article published at Popular Mechanics last summer, the cost to make hydrogen is $3 per kg on a GE's 10' x 20' machine. It looks pretty easy indeed.

Re:Cold Boxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiot. N2. O2. CO2. Yes

H2 no. It's a bit reactive in the presence of oxygen. That's kind of related to the fact it stores energy and all.

Did I mention idiot?

Re:Cold Boxes

[bcmm]

There is not any significant quantity of H2 in the air, for at least two reason: it reacts with Oxygen (suprise!), which there is a lot of, and it would tend to drift to the top of the atmosphere and escape into space (even Helium does this to some extent).

Re:Cold Boxes

[pipingguy]

AC, how many cold boxes have you designed? Mine are in Dallas, Wabash, Seoul, Flin Flon, Hamilton and Inchon.

Re:Cold Boxes

[maraist]

Seems like a liberal reading of the various articles. $8 / kg with a goal of $3 / kg was in the GE article. The 'traditional' costs were $1k / kg. Whereas the Hydrogen Fuel Cell in the Pop Mech article showed to be the most expensive annual cost of all available options. Compressed Natural Gas was half way between petrol and electricity. If the projected advances in Hydrogen synthesis reduce costs, and containment technology advances as well, I take Pop Mechanics to project Fuel cells at 68% of gas prices..

Of course a lot has changed since this article.. They show petrol at $2.34/gal, whereas I'd say it's more like $3.0 for all intents and purposes of current and future projections. They also rank electricity costs at $0.10 / KHW, whereas in my area it's $0.06 to $0.09 depending on time-of-day and time-of-year. Granted this is because of the regulated monopoly so this is really much below market rates.

All things considered, a plugin-in hybrid (where the hybrid part can be bio-diesel or E85 gas or whatever) makes the most sense to me.

I'm very much against growing fuel though. Currently in the US this means taking US subsidy dollars to product corn which is of the lower efficiency crops from which to produce fuel.. Corn prices world-wide rise as a result. But so do fertilizer costs and other costs of agreculture.

Re:Cold Boxes

[xenocide2]

If the point of $ per kg and per gallon is to establish some sort of direct comparison between fuels, I suggest making sure that a kilogram of hydrogen fuel is comparable to a gallon of gas in terms of distance.

I hear it is not.

Re:Cold Boxes

[commodoresloat]

you forgot to mention idiot ;)

Re:Cold Boxes

[cyfer2000]

The kg-gallon comparison is based on energy. The fuel cell's efficiency is about 2-3 times higher than the efficiency of gas internal combustion engines.

Re:Cold Boxes

[steveha]

Parent post is so nonsensical that it must be a troll.

Luckily, hydrogen is easy to produce. You just suck in atmospheric air, distill the contents and, voila! H2.

Let's check Wikipedia. What's the atmosphere made out of?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere

Oh, nitrogen, oxygen, argon, carbon dioxide, water vapor... and 0.002% "other". Even if almost all of "other" was H2, that's a ridiculously small yield. And every other gas will liquefy at a higher temperature than the H2, so you will have to deal with everything else first and only at the end get the H2.

Let's double check. Look up "Hydrogen" in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen

Oh look, less than 1 part per million of the atmosphere is H2, and practical methods for producing H2 don't mention chilling the atmosphere.

Let's triple check. Google search for "methods hydrogen production". Here's one result:

http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Hydrogen/Producti on.htm

Nope, still not listed.

I suppose it might be possible to use a "cold box" to produce some hydrogen, but I'll bet the electricity costs would be far higher than simply buying some hydrogen from a gas company. If you wish to claim otherwise, please provide references.

But it sure looks to me like you are just trolling, in which case: shame on you.

steveha

Re:Cold Boxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey champ, what do you think "water vapor" is made from?

WATER! And what is water made out of? Oxygen and __________

It will be fun, I'll let you fill in the blank.

Re:Cold Boxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, that's even stupider than the original idea. Put air in a cold box, extract the water as dew, and then separate the hydrogen from the oxygen. Instead of, you know, just getting some water and then separating it. Oh it's too simple to just get some water, let's set up a refrigerator and get our water from the AIR! Thanks for this brilliant idea!

Re:Cold Boxes

[xenocide2]

And the energy density of gasoline should be very much higher.

Re:Cold Boxes

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because he's wrong. There is an insignificant amount of free H2 in the atmosphere. Wot wiv it burning with oxygen (none of that around ey?) to be become water. I think he's an idiot.

Re:Cold Boxes

[jridley]

It's not HARD to produce hydrogen, but it consumes energy. A fair amount. In fact, by the time you make hydrogen, and then transport it, store it in various locations, then convert it back to energy, you would have been lots better off just using the electricity to charge a battery and then using that power directly.

Hydrogen is only being pushed because if we go to hydrogen, the companies that own the infrastructure of refining and transporting fuels get to stay in business. If we eventually go to batteries, they're largely out of business. They're not stupid, they know they only have a few decades of fossil fuel absolute dominance left, and it takes that long to develop an entire new economy and fleet of vehicles, so they're funding research on something that looks like it will keep them in business.

Re:Cold Boxes

[pipingguy]

Hydrogen is only being pushed because if we go to hydrogen, the companies that own the infrastructure of refining and transporting fuels get to stay in business.

Nice conspiracy-sounding words, but there are real engineering reasons. The existing North American pipeline network cannot handle hydrogen. A liquid hydrogen road tanker costs over a million dollars because of the materials needed and the complexity. GH2 tube trailers are not quite so expensive, but then you are dealing with the concept of very high pressure.

If you have excess energy, you can employ peak shaving and generate H2. The only practical way to do this in North America (besides Quebec with its abundant Hydro power) is to use nukes.

There is no one easy solution to energy supply issues and wishing/complaining doesn't make things happen.

Re:Cold Boxes

[maraist]

True that is a bit of apples to oranges. The GE hydrogen box talked about KG of hydrogen.. Whereas the Pop Mechanics article talked about Gallon-of-Petrol equivalent (matching energy densities). The flip side in the P.M. article is that the Petrol equivalence in energy density showed tremendous MPG advantages for the non petrol methods. So really you have to exclusively look at $ / mile, as that's the only practical comparison (at least from an Economist's perspective).

They took 3k miles as a base-line for all their comparisons, and showed what the total dollars would have been for each fuel-type. In my blog-entry, I took the G.E. statement that they can currently product at $8 / xxx and eventually want to produce at $3 / xxx.. This implied a total reduction of $ / mile all else being equal. The P.M. numbers show raw Hydrogen synthesis is more expensive end-to-end than petrol, but if the ratio of efficiency achieves projections, it will become 32% cheaper than petrol end to end. This will become moreso if Petrol prices rise (which they must eventually) - assuming Hydrogen synthesis is independent of Petrol.

One important thing to keep in mind.. My understanding is that we do NOT use electrolysis for Hydrogen synthesis at the moment. There are cheaper non-renewable methods.. So the actual costs of Hydrogen synthesis as they exist today will NOT scale to meet the current petrol demands! Prices will definitely rise in the medium-run if Hydrogen use grows. If you don't accept this assertion, I can go research it - just so I'm not completely heresay.

Re:Cold Boxes

[jridley]

There is no one easy solution to energy supply issues and wishing/complaining doesn't make things happen.

I'm not just wishing, I'm personally doing more to cut energy consumption and CO2 emission than almost anyone else I know, but I wish the government wouldn't push the most hype and dollars towards one of the less promising technologies.

Thankfully there's at least a LITTLE sense creeping back in; they're at least TALKING about building new nuke plants again. I'll believe it when I see it though; the same NIMBY idiots that have been stopping wind development will certainly try to stop nukes.

Re:Cold Boxes

[Anonymous Coward]

All this stuff looks reasonable. You seem to know what you are talking about. So why the hell did you write the nonsense about distilling atmosphere for H2 using "cold boxes"? Did someone else type on your keyboard or what?

Re:Cold Boxes

[pipingguy]

why the hell did you write the nonsense about distilling atmosphere for H2 using "cold boxes"?

Because I've seen highly-rated posts claiming that this was one way of "producing" hydrogen. My replies (and no one else's) refuting this never got modded-up, just as this one never will.

Power/Weight Density

[Cassini2]

An AC induction motor has the highest power/weight density of all electric motors. Brushless DC motors are only competitive for very small motors. Even so, they could probably get a better power/weight number by burning the hydrogen in a modified internal combustion engine or in a jet engine.

Re:Power/Weight Density

[Firethorn]

From browsing conversion sites, another reason for using an AC motor over a DC one is the ability to do regenerative braking. The DC kits don't offer it. Apparently it's a lot easier to run an AC motor as a generator than a DC one.

Re:Power/Weight Density

[Agripa]

I am not sure why that would be true. If so it is probably a controller issue. Effective DC regenerative breaking would certainly require an impedance transformation via a switching regulator to be effective but that is no different then dealing with an AC motor. High power AC motor control design certainly benefits from large scale use since high power DC motor applications are relatively rare.

AC motors can be used as incredibly effective non regenerative breaks if DC is applied to the field.

Re:Power/Weight Density

[Firethorn]

It may be a controller issue; I can only report what I've seen. Thus far all builds I've seen by auto manufacturers have used AC motors, and even the home brew electric car sites place AC conversions as more effective and efficient than DC conversions. Just more expensive.

Reading through more sites, AC motors are more efficient, last longer, and emit less pollution. Apparently brushes wear out and can spark, leading to ozone creation.

Re:Power/Weight Density

[networkBoy]

Add to this that the power curve of a DC motor meas a transmission is desirable (but robs you of energy), whereas the AC induction motor's power curve is conducive to direct drive-trains.
As to the regen braking issue, DC motors are optomised towards the production of kinetic energy at an expense of not so good generation capability. In fact, some DC motors can not be generators as part of the DC is used to energize a coil as a reaction magnet (rather than having ultra high cost rare earth magnets), to use them as generators would require energizing that coil(s) and since the circuit is integral to the motor that is not possible.
-nB

Re:Power/Weight Density

[networkBoy]

Wow I must have some serious foes with mod points.
HTF is that a troll?

Re:Power/Weight Density

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up, troll.

Re:Power/Weight Density

[Firethorn]

I don't have a clue, really. It was a good post.

Explains a lot as to why they're using AC motors, even if they do have to spend a couple percentage points of energy to run the DC from the batteries through an inverter.

Re:Power/Weight Density

[Agripa]

Before the advent of good silicon rectifiers, generators for cars used exactly this arrangement. The field was a separate winding and the field current was controlled by the regulator which monitored both the output current and voltage. Alternators of course have the field on the rotor connected through slip rings. Some model years during the transition had either system and you could tell the difference via visual inspection because the generators were narrower then the alternators.

AC motors do have power and efficiency advantages but what I was getting at in my original reply is that there is nothing inherent about a DC commutating motor which precludes regenerative breaking. The small market for high power DC motors limits the availability of a suitable controller.

I have seen some very large polyphase alternators that had a small DC generator on the same shaft to power their field winding where the field winding on the DC generator itself was controlled. The residual magnetism in the DC generator's stator was enough to bootstrap the system.

Re:Power/Weight Density

[Agripa]

Both DC and AC motors in these applications need inverters. The 3 phase AC inverters are considerably more complicated but power semiconductor and integrated circuit technology largely make up for it.

Re:Power/Weight Density

[Firethorn]

Wouldn't you mean transformers?

Thinking about it, an EV motor being used as a generator isn't going to be producing the same voltage as what's used to drive it. So in order to draw energy from the motor(slowing the car down), you'd have to step the voltage up above that of the battery pack in order to charge it.

One thing I remember is that changing voltage is easier with AC than DC. Most of the time to change the voltage of DC you change it into AC first anyways.

So while the controller is more complicated, and therefore more expensive, semiconductor and IC technology is used, making economy of scale easily worth it for auto manufacturers, as the cost for the controller would drop substantially when you're building thousands of them.

Add in that most home-brew conversions have less than a hundred miles of range, while most factory EVs have more than a hundred miles of range, so the auto manufacturer is looking for every percentage point of efficiency.

Re:Power/Weight Density

[Agripa]

Wouldn't you mean transformers?

Not really but I could have used a better choice of words. Both AC and DC motor controllers are very closely related to switching power supplies. They chop up the incoming power to produce AC and execute an impedance transformation (just like a transformer) using switching and reactive elements to control the output power. The additional complexity for an AC motor comes about because you essentially have to do this three times in parallel to drive the 3 phases and the math needed to generate the proper waveform is not trivial although easily done now.

It is not so much the economy of scale which changed things but the separate improvements in power semiconductors and large scale integration which have been considerable since about 1970. Power MOSFETs and IGBJTs have replaced bipolar transistors for the most part in these applications greatly simplifying the controller designs and yielding power densities high enough to make portable applications possible. Integration is such that single chip controllers can easily hold a processor powerful enough to do the needed waveform calculations.

Re:Power/Weight Density

[Calinous]

Even on big rigs (mine trucks and so, in the 200+ tons area) AC motors are used - they are several percent more efficient than DC motors, no brushes, ...

Oblig

[Sergeant Pepper]

I for one welcome our new ice-cooled overlords.

OT: minor nitpick

[British]

Why does the same link need to be posted twice in the summary?

Re:OT: minor nitpick

[The_Wilschon]

They're trying to get the dupe in early.

Photos

[BWJones]

I'll have photos up on Jonesblog in the next couple of days on this effort and others out at the Bonneville Salt Flats here .

Re:Photos

[BWJones]

I should have also pointed out photo coverage of last years even here and the 2005 event here.

Re:Photos

[DotThis]

Photo and update here:Ford Fusion Hydrogen 999, Land Speed Record

770 hp?

[florescent_beige]

350 kw = 469 hp. Why the 770 hp motor?

Re:770 hp?

[msmikkol]

Fuel cell cars usually have some buffer batteries to shave the peak demand on the fuel cell stacks. I would guess that this car is no different - The motor draws juice from both the fuel cells and the batteries.

Re:770 hp?

[DigiShaman]

Kinda like having a 250 HP engine in your car when you only need to drive 20 MPH. In other words, your engine has the potential to provide maxium HP when needed even if you never use it.

Re:770 hp?

[florescent_beige]

In the case you describe the power is available if you put your foot down. In this case the extra hp are unusable because the system is limited by the output of the fuel cells. So you carry the extra weight of the bigger-than-necessary motor around for no reason.

770hp... no.

[rsw]

Lessee here. 1 kW = 1.34 horsepower. So if they're generating 350 kW, that's 456 horsepower. Where is the other 300 coming from?

Stupid tech journalists strike again.

-=rsw

Re:770hp... no.

[Anonymous Coward]

from the 1.21 jigawatts!

/I was waiting for the cliché but it never showed up ... So I did it.

Re:770hp... no.

[GuldKalle]

I'm not sure, but maybe peak power is delivered from capacitors or something (although i would have thought that this car needs maximum power at all times).
Nevertheless, something has to be the weakest link, and it shouldn't be the motor

Re:770hp... no.

[William Baric]

Here's some actual http://www.fresh99.com/fred-flintstone-car.htm photos of the car... It will help you understand from where the extra power come from.

Re:770hp... no.

[jjthegreat]

Oh I know, perhaps they are applying magic numbers to the same way the calculate "total music power" 350 HP is the RMS value, turn it into PMPO and add some magic, poof! we now have a more sensationalistic number.

Re:770hp... no.

[mpe]

Oh I know, perhaps they are applying magic numbers to the same way the calculate "total music power" 350 HP is the RMS value, turn it into PMPO and add some magic, poof! we now have a more sensationalistic number.

You missed out doubling the number, since you typically have two channels (or add the peak output of all the channels together if you have more than two).

Helium, Hydrogen...hey, it's all the same.

[SuperBanana]

From TFA:

The pressurized helium/oxygen mixture allows the fuel cells to generate more power than ambient air because of its higher oxygen content, and high-pressure storage eliminates the need for an air compressor

Nice. I expect the common press to make that kind of mistake, but you'd think that Popular Mechanics would get it right.

Frankly, I don't consider this "details". "NASCAR style brakes, suspension and steering" doesn't say much, unless they're literally identical to the NASCAR stuff Ford uses in their "Fusion."

FYI, that car is no more a "Fusion" than a NASCAR "Fusion" is; they're both entirely tube-frame chassis cars with shells that are approximately the same shape, and then overlaid with graphics to fool the eye into thinking they're shaped more like the car they're claiming it is.

There isn't a single component in the car in common with the production Ford Fusion. Hasn't been true in over a decade or more in NASCAR.

Re:Helium, Hydrogen...hey, it's all the same.

[Enleth]

Read this paragraph once again. It states that the helium/oxygen mixture is a substitute of ambient air to be mixed with the hydrogen. There's 40% oxygen in it and helium is probably just a filler, it's mostly inert even in high temperatures so it serves well as one. It's probably safer that way, than hauling a pure oxygen tank next to a pure hydrogen tank, or easier to mix while keeping proper oxygen/hydrogen ratios, or whatever. That's pretty clear even for me, a non-native English speaker.

Re:Helium, Hydrogen...hey, it's all the same.

[Cassini2]

The pressurized helium/oxygen mixture allows the fuel cells to generate more power than ambient air because of its higher oxygen content, and high-pressure storage eliminates the need for an air compressor

Nice. I expect the common press to make that kind of mistake, but you'd think that Popular Mechanics would get it right.

I think you misinterpreted the article. The oxygen cylinder contains a helium/oxygen mix. They have 2 additional cylinders to get the hydrogen from. The compressed oxygen is used so the fuel cells can absorb oxygen at a much faster rate than if they were burning regular air. Likely the fuel cells can't absorb 100% oxygen, hence they dilute the oxygen with a light inert gas like helium.

Using a dedicated helium/oxygen tank is not likely to be economical for a conventional car.

Re:Helium, Hydrogen...hey, it's all the same.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention a hydrogen-oxygen tank would be incredibly dangerous. You're just one spark away from a violent explosion. Hydrogen alone may not be as dangerous as commonly believed, but anything, especially hydrogen, is incredibly dangerous when mixed with pure oxygen.

Re:Helium, Hydrogen...hey, it's all the same.

[MichaelSmith]

The compressed oxygen is used so the fuel cells can absorb oxygen at a much faster rate than if they were burning regular air

I have often wondered if there is a benefit in this for internal combustion engines as well. You could do away with quite a bit of plumbing around the engine and get better performance by feeding pure oxygen into the engine. Maybe it would help with low-performing biofuels.

Re:Helium, Hydrogen...hey, it's all the same.

[Dunbal]

Not to mention a hydrogen-oxygen tank would be incredibly dangerous. You're just one spark away from a violent explosion.

      Unlike gasoline, you mean?

      It's just a question of engineering it right.

Re:Helium, Hydrogen...hey, it's all the same.

[Anonymous Coward]

You may end up burning the metal piston and cylinders as well as any lubricant if you had a mistake with too much Oxygen.

Re:Helium, Hydrogen...hey, it's all the same.

[Zuato]

NASCAR and technology used together is an oxymoron. 50+ year old engine, braking, and suspension technology in a "modern" race series is not what I'd call a great comparison. F1 technology would be a better idea, especially since the FIA is pushing towards renewable energy sources on the F1 cars in the upcoming years.

Re:Helium, Hydrogen...hey, it's all the same.

[iminplaya]

Not to mention a hydrogen-oxygen tank would be incredibly dangerous.

So is a gasoline tank. Well, Ford's anyway.

Re:Helium, Hydrogen...hey, it's all the same.

[br14n420]

Don't be so ignorant. You speak as if carbon fiber and other modern materials aren't even used. If you want an idea of what a "nascar style" brakes and suspension are like to purchase, a brake kit is just about $23,000. I'm actually interested in what you think the material differences are between a Nascar and a F1 brake, aside from differences related to the size of the wheels, as that is something that'll make an impact in both classes. The same goes with the engines. Just because a class is allowed take advantage of superchargers, turbos, compressed air, etc, doesn't mean it's any higher technology than a class that disallows these things. On both courses, you are building cars to run at peak horsepower for multiple hours. The limitation of these motors is a limitation of current technology, not any particular class. Anyway, if you think forced induction is high technology, you are getting close to a century off.

Re:Helium, Hydrogen...hey, it's all the same.

[Zuato]

Wow. I just don't even know where to begin with this one. Formula one has not been force induced for more than 10 years. They are using a naturally aspirated 2.3 V8 engines producing more than 750 to 800 horsepower. The only thing compressed air is used for is valve actuation since the engines are cam less. Not only are the engines not force-fed, but the FIA mandates that the engine last two full race weekends, whereas Nascar is swapped out after every race. for reference, please see www.f1.com While there, please peruse the braking, suspension, and engine tech areas. It's better to read up before posting posts like this.

Re:Helium, Hydrogen...hey, it's all the same.

[Anonymous Coward]

You, sir, are a prime example of why no one likes nerds.

Re:Helium, Hydrogen...hey, it's all the same.

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when does gasoline burn without the presence of oxygen?

The key behind every explosive is that it contains its own oxidizer. An explosion is so rapid that there's no time to mix in additional air. Gasoline in a tank will not explode, unless it vaporizes in the presence of oxygen, and only then when it's in the proper ratio. Hydrogen pre-mixed with oxygen in a tank is already at the proper ratio for an explosion, in this application. In fact, I bet it would happen spontaneously.

And for all those wags talking about dihydrogen monoxide, a chemical compound is not a mixture.

Re:Helium, Hydrogen...hey, it's all the same.

[Dunbal]

Since when do you plan to drive in an atmosphere without oxygen?

Ok granted not every car explodes Hollywood style in an accident, but the Ford Pinto proved that gasoline can also be pretty dangerous - as it is both volatile and highly inflammable.

I still think that you can build storage containers safe enough to withstand any collision without rupture.

Re:Helium, Hydrogen...hey, it's all the same.

[mpe]

Ok granted not every car explodes Hollywood style in an accident,

Unless rigged by movie special effect people it's more or less impossible. Even if the tank happened to contain an explosive fuel/air mix it would need to be powerful enough to rupture the tank and mix the remaining fuel well with air.

but the Ford Pinto proved that gasoline can also be pretty dangerous - as it is both volatile and highly inflammable.

Fuel leaks in crashes are dangerous, but not explosive. As the idiot who drove his car into Glasgow airport found out.

Re:Helium, Hydrogen...hey, it's all the same.

[joib]

I have often wondered if there is a benefit in this for internal combustion engines as well. You could do away with quite a bit of plumbing around the engine and get better performance by feeding pure oxygen into the engine. Maybe it would help with low-performing biofuels.


You could probably make it work with extensive modifications to the engine. But it's not economically viable. Compressed or liquified pure oxygen is expensive, bulky and extremely dangerous. If you want more power, it's cheaper to just get a bigger engine.

The difference in the article is that a) this is a publicity stunt with no requirement for long range b) fuel cells are astronomically expensive, so perhaps this works out as they can use a smaller and cheaper fuel cell.

Re:Helium, Hydrogen...hey, it's all the same.

[Cassini2]

Directly feeding oxygen to the engine will likely dramatically increase horsepower, for as long as the oxygen tank lasts. As such, it isn't to practical for anything other than short distances.

On the other hand, it turns out that nitrous burns even better than air, hence the popularity of nitrous systems to give the extra bit of horsepower boost.

Re:Helium, Hydrogen...hey, it's all the same.

[br14n420]

How about the materials in the brakes?

Excuse me for not being up to date on this, but my point holds true that technology is used in both. It's different types of racing. Hell, I don't even like Nascar.

Specs over discussion, I spoze.

Re:Helium, Hydrogen...hey, it's all the same.

[afidel]

This is essentially what a Nitrous or Nitrous Oxide booster kit does. It is injected as a liquid that quickly gasifies and then breaks down under high temperature to release additional oxygen into the fuel chamber allowing better fuel burning than with atmospheric oxygen alone. This is also why turbo and superchargers are used, but those systems simply inject larger volumes of atmospheric oxygen into the chamber.

Re:Helium, Hydrogen...hey, it's all the same.

[Zuato]

I'm pretty sure that Nascar still requires iron rotors (pads are a different story) whereas F1 uses totally carbon pads, rotors, and calipers. Beyond that the tech isn't that much different - the FIA does not allow the use of electronic aids for braking either, so it's still mostly the same mechanical devices as in road cars sans the exotic materials used in the rotors, pads, and calipers. They are allowed two cylinders, one for the rear and one for the front with a manually (mechanically) adjustable bias (by the driver on the fly). Technology is used in both, but the tech in Nascar in regards to most areas is very old. It is impressive they get as much out of what they are allowed, I will give them that.

Sounds impractical and useless

[cbreaker]

I guess in a way, it's showing that alternative fuels can do good things, but it just seems to be about making alternative fuels too difficult to use.

Someone reading this might thing "Wow, looks like there's a LONG way to go because Hydrogen Fuel Cells can be useful on a consumer vehicle. Oh well, I'll just buy an Explorer."

If they actually cared about alternative fuels or electric vehicles, they'd be making ones that are practical and could be mass produced.

Re:Sounds impractical and useless

[Anonymous Coward]

Like this one? And this one?

How to Reach 200 MPH on Hydrogen Fuel Cells?

[FrostedWheat]

Strap a rocket to the back, duh!

Is the ice really necessary?

[jcr]

I would think that at these high speeds, you should be able to duct a little bit of air over the battery and get all the cooling you could possibly need.

-jcr

Re:Is the ice really necessary?

[hardburn]

If you're putting out enough heat to melt 400lbs of ice in a few seconds, then yes, you need the ice.

Re:Is the ice really necessary?

[TubeSteak]

I would think that at these high speeds, you should be able to duct a little bit of air over the battery and get all the cooling you could possibly need. It's about aerodynamics.
Anytime you have a duct or radiator opening, you lose downforce.

P.S. I imagine that professional engineers and race car designers know what they're doing.

Re:Is the ice really necessary?

[PhiberOptix]

quoted from engadget:

The car itself will be cooled through "ice bath cooling" because the front is sealed in order to keep the drag coefficient as low as possible

http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/11/ford-fusion-999 -fuel-cell-car-goes-for-land-speed-record/

Re:Is the ice really necessary?

[MichaelSmith]

Anytime you have a duct or radiator opening, you lose downforce.

Not if you suck air from under the car.

Re:Is the ice really necessary?

[rcw-home]

Anytime you have a duct or radiator opening, you lose downforce.

Not if you suck air from under the car.

It's also worth noting that the P-51 Mustang's radiator was so cleanly designed that it actually contributed to the thrust of the airplane.

It's all over for H2 when...

[binaryspiral]

It's all over for H2 when I see a mushroom cloud over the salt flats.

Cooling

[slashqwerty]

Why do they need ice to cool the car? 350kW is not so different from some other high-performance cars and fuel cells should produce less waste heat than other engines. Certainly they could cool this car with an ordinary radiator.

Re:Cooling

[Neuroelectronic]

What do you expect? It's Ford.. Why have some newfangled radiator/compressor technology when you can substitute 400 pounds of ice? Hell why use wheels? we could just put it on skates and freeze the desert. That seems like pretty reliable transportation to me.

Re:Cooling

[MichaelSmith]

Why do they need ice to cool the car? 350kW is not so different from some other high-performance cars and fuel cells should produce less waste heat than other engines. Certainly they could cool this car with an ordinary radiator.

I could speculate that the fuel cell power output degrades at high temperatures so when doing a standing start you have with zero cooling and lose performance until cooling becomes effective. IC engines may perform better as temperature rises.

Gravity! Terminal velocity...

[MacDork]

How do you make a hydrogen fuel cell car move 200 MPH?


Get a regular hydrogen fuel cell car and drop it out of an airplane! ;-)

were you surprised?

[SethJohnson]

As it turns out, there are NASCAR-style brakes, steering, and suspension components...

Piloting an experimental vehicle with this kind of power / weight ratio @ 200mph requires some pretty serious steering and braking equipment.

Seth

Re:were you surprised?

[dopaz]

This vehicle's power-to-weight ratio is good, but it weighs 6700lbs: 8.7lbs per HP. Some street-legal vehicles exceed this, such as the Corvette.

http://www.aspecpro.com/

Re:were you surprised?

[Jaime2]

Bonneville cars usually carry a ton (sometimes literally) of ballast. Since they have seven miles from start to stop, they don't need a lot of acceleration. The extra weight give them better traction.

My motorcyle will do 0 to 200 to 0 in under 2 miles and has a power to weight ratio of 3 pounds per HP, including rider. I have quality parts on it, but the brakes and suspension certainly aren't NASCAR grade. NASCAR grade stuff can take a relentless pounding for hours on end and that simply isn't relevent for top speed racing.

get al gore's son to test drive it

[circletimessquare]

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0 428148420070705?feedType=RSS&rpc=22&sp=true

We need more battery research.

[mlts]

This shows that what is needed is more research on higher capacity batteries, from the capacitor type which charges in seconds, to having exponentially more energy density per pound.

Its a lot easier to engineer a power distribution and charging electrical system, compared to having multiple systems to handle highly explosive gas as well as an electrical system. Its also a lot easier to generate electricity, pipe it into a charging system, compared to the energy used to split water into H2 and O2.

I used to like fuel cells, and thought a H2 based economy would be a good thing, but I'm having second thoughts now, because once batteries are able to carry a respectable energy density, there is pretty much no need for carrying H2 around anywhere.

Re:We need more battery research.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuel cells are batteries. Essentially. Chemical reactors that make electricity. The whole point behind fuel cell technology is that we can't make batteries good enough. For every bit of energy you can store in a battery, there's plenty of waste material in there that does nothing. Especially if you want a rechargeable battery. Hydrogen, by contrast, stores nothing but energy (and dead space, which you can solve with compression/hydrides). Gasoline is even better at energy storage (essentially carbon-based storage for hydrogen), but there's the whole pollution issue.

Battery capacities are increasing incrementally, at best. I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for batteries to solve, overnight, all the problems with the battery-based electric car.

Re:We need more battery research.

[davros-too]

Yes, I also used to think hydrogen was the way to go. But battery technology is going to win. One of the main reasons I think this is that there is a viable transition from 'oil economy' to 'electricity economy'. We already have mass-produced petrol-electric hybrids, soon these will be 'plug in'. As the batteries get better over time reliance on the petrol engine will gradually diminish and eventually vanish. The important point is that there is no such gradual transition possible for any of the competing approaches.

Energy spent to cool...

[Anonymous Coward]

I studied my bit of physics as EE major, but can't one of you smart young things figure out how to make use of heat as energy, rather than wasting extra energy to cool them off? Heat is a energy in a purest form, and why are you double-wasting it by: not making use of it as energy source, and why spend extra energy to get rid of it?

Re:Energy spent to cool...

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting usable energy out of heat is very inefficient. Also, just getting rid of the unwanted heat while testing something else is probably more useful to these people.

Re:Gravity! Terminal velocity...

[Anonymous Coward]

Go ahead and try to score a speed record like this. You will have to go in the opposite direction after a short time, and the average speed of both runs will count for your record attempt.

Now, filling a balloon with the hydrogen might get you up...

Re:Gravity! Terminal velocity...

[Original Replica]

How do you make a hydrogen fuel cell car move 200 MPH?

I'd rather have a hydrogen fuel cell car that did 200 MPG.

Stupig

[Neuroelectronic]

Wow, putting 400 pounds of ice too get this thing up to 200MPH is so completely retarded, is this what passes for engineering at Ford?. Like, wow, look we got our oh so powerful GM four-cylinder up to 200mph we just needed 400 pounds of rocket propellant to keep the ride "hot".

FORD = Fscked On Race Day

[the eric conspiracy]

In this case by the 300 mph hydrogen fuel cell Buckeye Bullet.

http://jalopnik.com/cars/alternative-energy/300%25 2B-mph-buckeye-bullet-hydrogen-fuel-cell-streamlin er-259765.php

Re:FORD = Fscked On Race Day

[Corgha]

It's more complicated than that. Those two vehicles are in different classes (the 999 looks like a passenger car; the BB2 looks like a missile just wide enough for a driver), and OSU and Ford are actually working together on *both* vehicles, so it's a bit weird to try to portray them as being in competition with one another.

This article will give you some more context:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/07/10/fords-hydr ogen-999-racer-shooting-for-fuel-cell-land-speed-r eco/

The Ford Fusion Hydrogen 999 fuel cell car - a collaboratively engineered racer with Ballard, Roush and Ohio State University - is one of two vehicles Ford's fuel cell research team is helping prepare to set world land speed records. Ford researchers also are working with Ohio State University student engineers on its Buckeye Bullet 2, a fuel cell-powered racer that will compete for a similar world record in the unlimited class category.

Re:FORD = Fscked On Race Day

[v1]

My user number is probably lower than yours.

but my username is probably shorter than yours ;)

Hydrogen/Oxygen mix not so dangerous

[OzPeter]

I have bottles of it on my desk right now .. in the ratio of 2 hydrogen to 1 oxygen .. whats it called again? di-hydrogen monoxide or something.

Re:Hydrogen/Oxygen mix not so dangerous

[Enleth]

Actually, this name, while used in those famous public surveys, is needlessly redundant. Hydrogen monoxide is enough and correct, yet still no one would have any more clue. Even hydrogen oxide would do, as in being precise, but English chemical nomenclature seems to still favor those prefixes in particular places in compound names, however redundant they are - in Polish, those were dropped altogether, we just add the valence number only, as in sulfur (II) oxide, instead of sulfur monoxide, in English it seems to be sometimes that way, sometimes the other...

Re:Hydrogen/Oxygen mix not so dangerous

[WalksOnDirt]

HOOH is also hydrogen oxide, so some prefix seems desirable (unless you do add the valence number).

I think dihydrogen monoxide is used because the abbreviation, DHMO, is similar to DMSO, which will bring up some negative associations for some.

Re:Hydrogen/Oxygen mix not so dangerous

[Eternauta3k]

I have bottles of it on my desk right now .. in the ratio of 2 hydrogen to 1 oxygen .. whats it called again? di-hydrogen monoxide or something.

Well, that's because it's the reaction product of that GIGANTIC EXPLOSION!

Re:Hydrogen/Oxygen mix not so dangerous

[networkBoy]

Nah,
that's hydrogen dioxide.
or di hydrogen monoxide oxide?
duo oxidized di hydride?
oxyhydrate? (I like that one, wonder if you could bottle it and stupid people would drink it? "Oxygen and water in one bottle? Must be good... Gimmie, gimmie!")
or how's about D2O2 (or as my buddy has a small sample of: T2O2) di deuteride dioxide
-nB

Re:Hydrogen/Oxygen mix not so dangerous

[maxwell demon]

Actually, the more correct name would be hydrogen hydroxide, because it dissociates into a hydrogen ion (H+) and a hydroxide ion (OH-).

Both directions, eh...

[zippthorne]

Two words:

Car Cannon.

The effect of water vapor exhaust?

[tinrobot]

Here's a question...

The exhaust of a hydrogen car is mostly warm water vapor - the same output as a humidifier.

If the whole planet switched to hydrogen, what would be the overall effect of running a billion humidifiers on our roads? Would Arizona suddenly become as humid as Florida?

Re:The effect of water vapor exhaust?

[r_jensen11]

If the whole planet switched to hydrogen, what would be the overall effect of running a billion humidifiers on our roads? Would Arizona suddenly become as humid as Florida?

Not if we can actually get some laws to take away their drivers licenses. But seeing as they're the majority of people who actually go out and vote, that's not likely to happen any time soon....

Re:The effect of water vapor exhaust?

[dsanfte]

The principal biproducts of current combustion engines are CO2 and... wait for it... H2O.

Yes, water vapor.

Has Arizona turned to a jungle yet?

Re:The effect of water vapor exhaust?

[evilviper]

If the whole planet switched to hydrogen, what would be the overall effect of running a billion humidifiers on our roads?

Wet roads.

Would Arizona suddenly become as humid as Florida?

Not the remotest chance.

Urban areas have long faced higher levels of humidity than is natural, thanks to human use of water. However, even with all the people with all the sprinklers spraying all the water, on all the lawns... it only raises the humidity a very small amount. A few million fuel cell vehicles couldn't hope to compete.

Fuel cells drip a little water, but they aren't constantly blowing out large volumes of gas, similar to current car exhaust, somewhat like a humidifier. Even millions of cars, spitting out a few drips of water constantly, can't compete with a few people watering their lawns. It really wouldn't make a noticeable difference. Maybe you'll see a few more plants growing on the roadside.

Re:The effect of water vapor exhaust?

[Anonymous Coward]

The quick answer; no, physics doesn't allow anything to be as humid as florida. The Mediteranian Sea is almost as humid, but it still tops out around 100%. FL FTW.

Re:The effect of water vapor exhaust?

[Elkboy]

Here's how I understand it -- unlike CO2, there can only be so much water vapor in the air before it's saturated and it starts falling out as rain or moisture.

Re:The effect of water vapor exhaust?

[Capt James McCarthy]

If I'm not mistaken (which happens often), you'd have an accelerated green house affect. I think H2O vapor has a higher green house affect then that of CO2.

Re:The effect of water vapor exhaust?

[maxwell demon]

Did you know that water vapour increases the greenhouse effect? Hydrogen cars will destroy our climate! :-)

Re:The effect of water vapor exhaust?

[KokorHekkus]

Here's a question... The exhaust of a hydrogen car is mostly warm water vapor - the same output as a humidifier. If the whole planet switched to hydrogen, what would be the overall effect of running a billion humidifiers on our roads? Would Arizona suddenly become as humid as Florida?

It's such a small fraction that it's what I would refer to as "a pee in the Nile". Let's take Arizona as an example... it has about 6 million people and uses around 2.4 trillion gallons (yes 2400 billion) per year [1] with about 1.6 trillion gallons being used by farms. That's more than 250 000 gallons per person and year just for the farms. So what hydrogen vehicles would produce is neglible both locally and globally.

[1] http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special26/articl es/0103conserve-main03.html

Re:The effect of water vapor exhaust?

[ppanon]

Water cycles out of the atmosphere as precipitation much faster than CO2

Re:The effect of water vapor exhaust?

[Capt James McCarthy]

True. And it's supposed to be self-regulating. However the 'trapping' capabilities of water vapor, I think, is higher then that of CO2. So if all CO2 Engines were to output water vapor would that do more or less damage?

On-line results available soon

[tcgroat]

The Southern California Timing Association will have the results of this year's Bonneville trials on-line, along with many photos. Today is the first day of the trials, so no results are in yet. There's still daylight out on the flats.

Transmission?

[thegoofeedude]

The article mentions using a 6-speed manual--the same transmission used in the Ford GT. I would have a few questions about this:
Why go manual instead of automatic? (I'm guessing because it's a race car ;-)
Can the transmission handle the torque? In my understanding, electric motors generally have an even amount of torque throughout the rpm range.
Can this transmission handle the extra juice on startup? I have no idea how much torque a Ford GT has in comparison to what this thing can output.
How about the clutch?

This thing looks so cool!

No Way! Di-hydrogen monoxide too so dangerous

[infonography]

I should report you to HomLanSec for possession of that stuff. But then again, they would likely not be able to tell the difference between that and regular Water. It's probably safe if it's cut with fluoride.

"Brushless DC" vs "synchronous AC" motors.

[Animats]

An AC induction motor has the highest power/weight density of all electric motors. Brushless DC motors are only competitive for very small motors.

Er, no. A "brushless DC" and a "variable-frequency synchronous AC" motor are the same thing. Smaller motors tend to be called "brushless DC" and are driven by "motor controllers", while larger motors are called "variable-frequency AC" and are driven by "drives" or "inverters". The threshold is around 1KW. The difference in terminology comes from different industries.

All motors are AC at the windings, or they'd reach a steady state position and stop. "Commutation" refers to the means provided to switch power to the windings so the motor continues to chase the minimum position for the magnetic field. Commutation can be performed with brushes and a commutator (which is just a drum of contacts), with external electronics, or simply borrowed from the power line frequency. "Brushless DC" and "variable AC" motors are driven by external electronics. They're usually at least 3 phase devices; this allows starting from a stationary position without the possibility of being stuck at a neutral point.

This concept scales up just fine. Here's the General Electric AC6000, the most powerful locomotive in the world, driven by 3-phase AC variable-frequency motors. The software, written in C++, locks all the wheels together as if they were geared together, even though there's a separate motor for each axle. This allows more tractive effort without wheel slip than any previous locomotive. There are thousands of these locomotives (mostly the smaller AC4400, but a few hundred of the big AC6000) in use today.

Re:"Brushless DC" vs "synchronous AC" motors.

[Cassini2]

For this application, they will be using an induction AC motor. This is not a synchronous AC motor. Induction motors eliminate the permanent magnets of Brushless DC motors and the rotating electromagnets of synchronous motors. Replacing the rotating magnets with a "squirrel cage" results in a small net weight savings, and a considerable inertia reduction.

In all likelihood the locomotives that you are talking about are also using induction motors. At locomotive power levels, induction motors allow for some nice tricks that blur the line between a conventional induction motor and a conventional synchronous motor. Specifically, if you have a separate power source / load for the inductive rotor, the resulting motor design looks like a synchronous motor, but is really a specialized induction motor. GE even has patents on this technology.

The power research group at my local university even did a research contract with a major multinational on how to exploit induction motor properties for use in new electric car designs. For weight sensitive applications (like a car) over 1 kW, almost all the motors are induction. Even for high-accuracy applications with servo capability, like CNC machines, all the large spindle motors are induction motors. With modern control electronics, an induction motor is all you need.

Re:"Brushless DC" vs "synchronous AC" motors.

[MooUK]

One point:
The point of maximum traction is actually the point when the wheels are just starting to slip. That's why the Class 66 (UK), amongst many others round the world, has traction control systems that at the lowest speeds allows the wheels to slip a quarter turn per revolution.

Seems counterintuitive, but it means one single locomotive can accelerate a train from rest - the difficult bit; once you're started it's easy to keep going - that without that technology would have been challenging for two or three.

Re:"Brushless DC" vs "synchronous AC" motors.

[joib]

Here's the General Electric AC6000, the most powerful locomotive in the world


Perhaps the most powerful diesel-electric locomotive (?), but there are electric locomotives much more powerful than that. At about 4400 KW, the AC6000 is outclassed by e.g. this Italian one at 6000 KW, not to mention the IORE at 2x5400 KW, although I guess that one can be debated since it seems to be a two-part locomotive(?).

Also high-speed trains have pretty powerful locomotives, e.g. Eurostar has two locomotives providing a total of 12240 KW.

Re:AC? (BRUSHLESS)

[neurocutie]

its been a while, but I believe one advantage is that AC motors can be both brushless while not needing a permanent magnet.

400 pounds of ice

[justinlee37]

One final ingredient: 400 lbs of ice for cooling, which will melt in seconds once the car gets up to speed.

Not really the most ... practical ... automobile, is it?

"Excuse me, but could you forklift that ice block a little faster? I'm late for work!"

Re:AC? - because they are idiots...

[nickull]

Anyone who has a basic knowledge of physics knows hydrogen is stupid. If you have electricity, use batteries - you can skip the 400 pounds of ice and twenty five other major problems with trying to convert good electricity into hydrogen and back again. It will never work for terrestrial applications. See: http://technoracle.blogspot.com/2005/12/hydrogen-a gain-tweedle-dumb-and.html and http://www.tinaja.com/h2gas01.asp Hydrogen is dumb. Hydrogen is a bad idea.

Can't beat the Buckeye Bullet 2

[SamAdam3d]

Just objectively, the Buckeye Bullet 2, made at the Center for Automotive Research at OSU (where I work) will soon beat whatever record this car creates. This car is designed for speed, rather than using some bulky Ford Focus shape. I have seen it in person; it is very large and very powerful. The engine is simply massive, and the fuel cells are the size of V8s.

http://buckeyebullet.com/vehicle.htm

Re:Can't beat the Buckeye Bullet 2

[6Yankee]

Might want to get a proof-reader to that page. Eek.

Damned cool, though.

tuners..

[Anonymous Coward]

and all the ricers out there ran to the bathroom and bust a nut.

It's Easy!

[Gerocrack]

Just use your hydrogen fuel cell to ignite your solid fuel rocket engine... done!

Kinda like NOT

[woolio]

Kinda like having a 250 HP engine in your car when you only need to drive 20 MPH. In other words, your engine has the potential to provide maxium HP when needed even if you never use it.

No... It sounds more like a car salesman claming the car can reach 200mph when it physically cannot move faster than 70mph.

A 770hp engine cannot put out 770hp unless it has at least (really more than) 770hp (power) from some other energy source. In other words, the engine is tested and found to put out 770hp, then it is called a 770hp engine.

Re:AC? - because they are idiots...

[InvalidError]

Fossil fuels are the 'fruit' of millions of years worth of energy absorbed by plants and animals and this energy source is near its end since we are using it a million times faster than it can renew itself - hundreds of millions of years worth of it has been used in less than 200 years of modern industry... claiming that oil has a net positive energy balance is very short-term thinking... even more so when that particular energy source has less than a century left to it.

Ethanol is the new craze but producing it requires both surface area and a significant energy investment... most of the energy comes from the sun but the machinery that runs the plant also needs power to regulate production parameters and process the algae (a fairly new approach expected to have better yields) until it becomes usable fuel. The problems with ethanol is that it cannot sustain a worldwide switch (I guesstimate we currently need about one square mile per 60k people... so that's ~150k square miles for a full-scale ethanol switch) and on the pollution side, ethanol requires perfectly tuned engines to burn cleanly or it can quickly become worse than biodiesel in the nitrous monoxide department.

The problem with batteries is that they are no match for the range and power currently taken for granted with the combination of internal combustion engines and liquid fuels. While hydrogen does kind of suck in terms of energy/gallon, it looks much better in terms of energy/weight compared to batteries and gasoline.

Another "new" energy source I have issues with is the "renewableness" of geothermal energy - surely there is a limit to how much energy can be extracted from the planet's core before bad/unexpected things start to happen. If we started poaching geothermal energy like we poached fossil fuels, I wonder what sort of surprises we are going to run into... I (almost) can't wait for the first GW-class geothermal power plants to find out.

Where's the ice?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the summary,

"One final ingredient: 400 lbs of ice for cooling, which will melt in seconds once the car gets up to speed."

links (accidentally?) to the same article, which doesn't contain the words "ice", "400", or "lbs" -- so what gives? Anyway, I was going to ask if the "ice" is really frozen water, since you'd think H2O wouldn't be the lightest material to give the cooling / phase change effect of using frozen... Anyone know?

After 40 years of reasearch...

[CBob]

They come up w/an impractical, overpriced & crude application of the work they put to better use in a testbed van.

Yep, somewhen in the middle 60's Ford made a experimental Econoline van that was powered by fuel cells.

Need some sleep? Try ,http://www.fuelcells.org/info/library/fchandbook. pdf

Questions.

[jsiren]

TFA (yes, I actually read it, but skipped the video) left me wondering about a couple of things...

Why use a 574 kW (770 hp) motor when the fuel cells' output is only 350 kW? Or do the cells have a peak rating that high? Or perhaps they're planning ahead for an upgrade?

Another thing, why put a manual transmission in line with an electric motor, seeing how sophisticated AC motors and drives are these days? There are trains accelerating from zero to 200 mph with AC motors, at most they have a fixed gear ratio between motors and wheels, and all speed control is done electronically.

Ford 999 ?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it flips over, it'll be the

  666

Just an Informative AC

[Anonymous Coward]

http://buckeyebullet.com/
http://www.osu.edu/features/2007/bullet/
http://engineering.osu.edu/news/archive/2007/07042 0.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckeye_Bullet_2

Go Bucks!

No times for #999 on Saturday

[Anonymous Coward]

Their run Saturday was listed as "no start". Hopefully their luck will improve before the trials end. The article doesn't talk about it, but using #999 is historically significant for Ford. Henry Ford I built and sometimes drove Ford #999 more than 100 years ago. He set a land speed record in its twin, "Arrow". Ford built a replica of #999, which now in the Motor Sports Hall of Fame collection.

350kw=469.4 hp

[Flyskippy1]

I don't suppose anybody can figure out how 350kw can generate 770 hp, since 350kW is only 469.4 hp at 100% efficiency. Maybe they have their facts wrong, or does half the power come from magic?

Ford's 999

[HTH NE1]

No relation to Galaxy Express 999?

shower power

[epine]

I once calculated that a 3 gallon-per-minute shower involving a 40 degree C temp. boost (the intake temp. in the Canadian winter is not high) draws about 32kW (mostly extracted from the giant heat resevoire known as a hot water tank). If my math was correct, this car provides enough power to heat ten shower stalls on an instantaneous basis.

Hells bells, I got the same answer again:

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=4.184+joules+% 2F+gram+*+3+gallons+%2F+minute+*+1+kg%2Fliter+*+40 &btnG=Search&meta=