I found it again. From page 3 of the old post, Jim H said, "Rough numbers are 33% of the heat energy in the fuel is converted to rotational energy, 33% is output to the coolant and 34% is output in the exhaust. The proportions will vary but total must equal the 100% input." That sounds about right to me, also.

I have to admit I know very little about the design details of fuel cells or the process details of separating H2 from gas. It will be interesting to see what happens with this technology, but it may be a while.

You're probably right. I'm sure there are others here that know better than I, but I do know that running gas engines too lean can cause them to run very hot, and can cause damage. I would not be surprised if you cooked the poor old Pinto by running it too lean. I expect you would have seen a significant increase in mileage if you were that lean (and probably reduced power too). It does seem more likely that the "tar residue" in the engine was from the oil than the fuel. I doubt that fuel at high temperature would leave that kind of residue. Also, with a single carburetor you may not have been getting the same mixture to all the cylinders, so the outer cylinders may have been VERY lean. I'm sure there are other people here who have plenty of experience with the results of overheating engines. Fortunately, I haven't cooked one in a long time.

Yes the pinto had some power loss.Kind of like you'd get from a dirty air filter.Nothing severe,but noticable.I've never had a chance for hands on learning with a fuel cell yet.But I've been reading everything I could find on them for close to four years now.Veeeery interesting.At least to me.I remember reading the 1/3 loss here,but don't remember it from the times I looked into thermodynamics before.But it does seem to fit.Smoky Yunics engine had swirl ports.Sodium filled valves.Ceramic coatings on the pistons.A small turbo with minimal boost(about 4 lbs) and no intercooler(he wanted to use the heat).And a stock carb set a little lean.His design was about eaqual combustion increase,and thermal increase.There wasn't realy anything radical about his design,which is why I suspect his design actually worked.But being reminded how increased temps cause increased NOx emmisions.maybe thats all the reason they needed to supress his design.And he removed the EGR valve also.Sound reasonable to you?Or am I missing something again that would limit it's lifespan like the Pintos.Was he flirting with disaster trying to recycle some of the exhaust heat?Or could he possibly shown those losses could be a different percentage then currantly believed.This design is why I have questioned application of some thermal laws.Not the basic laws,just application.

Inteligent exchange of information.This is fun!!!
And thanks again for giving me another chance.Any and all info on my MB is especially appreciated.I'm practicly a noob in the finer details of these cars.

car as i remember, suffered from massive detonation, too. i believe it made impressive power along with the economy. it has been a long time since i read about it... what was it, a dodge omni? maybe.

the car he was workng on finally disappeared without any further mention. i dont remember seeing it in his very interesting three volumn memior.

tom w

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

Actually, you don't need to disagree, since I didn't say the Otto had better efficiencyl I said that it would be more 'cost-effective' power source today and in the immediate future.

I believe that these engines will be cost-effective because manufacturers are so darn good at making millions of them rather inexpensively, and they serve us quite well.

The best way to conserve fuel without requiring exotic engines is to drive less, combine trips, drive no faster than the vehicle's optimum speed, take a few passengers alone, etc.

A better way to conserve fuel is to pool resources. Can you say carpool?

Buses, trains and airplanes are better at moving people with fuel, but all of the people have to agree to go together and leave and arrive at the same time.

Shoot, my Suburban, which struggles to get 16 mpg on the highway, can do the work of 2 cars if I share, and will use the same amount of gasoline as 2 cars getting 32 mpg with one person in each! Just think how much could be saved if there are 4 aboard!

Thanks to all for a very stimulating and educational discussion.

Best Regards,
Jim

I'm not sure how useful this little tidbit might be...

Years ago my family had a motorhome that would run on either gasoline or propane. Since I am equating propane with vapor, and the Pinto is/was using a vapor carb, I am remembering being told that the timing curve for gasoline was different than the timing curve for propane.
At first (during accelleration), there would be about the same degree of timing advance, but after a certain point the advance for propane would remain flat, whereas with the gas it would continue to advance the timing.

Not sure, but maybe this tidbit might help with the Pinto. (As long as it doesn't get rear-ended anyway )

__________________
It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so. Robert A. Heinlein


09 Jetta TDI
1985 300D

Just a bit more on fuel cells that I've discovered.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell4.htm

With overall efficiency of 24%-32% using liquid fuels as a hydrogen source, fuel cells are in the same ballpark as the IC engine.

Therefore, the IC engine still has a significant economical advantage since it is relatively inexpensive, and available NOW!

The fuel cell combined with regenerative braking and energy storage could be developed into an interesting 'hybrid' car in the future.

Best Regards,
Jim

In addition, a fuel cell generating the same output as a car engine would be too big to fit in an average car. Probably too heavy too.

Jl

talk of fuel cells solving our energy problems is pure fog screen political bs. it takes more energy to create hydrogen than there is in it, so it is only useful for particular situations where hydrogen is required and cost is no object ... like a space ship... appollo to be exact.

it would be a different matter if hydrogen were a naturally occurring material that could be discovered and exploited.

in my opinion it is a subject that is strictly diversionary from reality other than politics.

tom w

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

There is no doubt that as you say a lot of political bs has been thrown around about fuel cell use. The fact is that no single system or method is going to solve our problems. A combination of technologies and a change in our attitude towards energy use will be needed. Fuel cells, when properly developped, will help, same as number of other emerging technologies. We may argue about when, but there can be little doubt that sooner or later we will run out of oil. Much before that time oil will become so expensive as to make its use in car and other low revenue applications impractical. So we better keep on looking till we find something that we can use.

JL

of hydrogen. i have no knowledge of other types of fuel cells... really none of the hydrogen either except i read that it takes more energy to produce it than it contains.

sure we do need to conserve. that is why i own five diesel vehicles. fortunately for the environment i can only drive one at a time.

our government has a law now that exempts trucks over a certain weight from mileage and emission requirements (now i am not on solid ground but i am close). it was intended to allow businesses with delivery trucks some leeway but the way it was written it has encouraged people to buy those ridiculous hummers that get 6 mpg. sheer lunacy!

tom w

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

Not only we need to conserve, we first must stop waste ... but that is another topic. On fuel cells, you are right again, if you are talking electrolysis, you will get less energy when recombining H and O than you will need to break them apart (there are always losses). This may not be true however for other methods of obtaining H. That, however is only part of it. If we could use waste or cheap low grade energy (?) to get the H, then it would be worthwhile because H is a high grade energy that we could easyly use in a variety of applications.

JL

you aware of any other way to get h?

tom w

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

There are a number of compounds that have Hydrogen, most organics do. Alcohols have been used in fuel cells. It's a matter of using a more efficient process (in terms of getting the energy out) than burning. Electricity is easier to control, handle, ditribute and store than heat and that makes it a more valuable product because of the great number of applications.

JL

For JL & Tom W

It's not all political bs, but it will be difficult engineering.

Splitting H2 from H2O is only one source of hydrogen...
This is a good website

Also...Fuel cells are not the only solution, but they look more promising than, say, wind or solar power.

Best Regards,
Jim

Yunick's engine was in an 024 Omni if I remember right.On the pinto with the vapor carb,we disconnected the vacuum advance.I believe they usually do the same thing on propane conversions.And yes,the propane is heated with engine coolant to help keep it a vapor.Heat,fuel.Hmmm.Kind of sounds a little like SVO use,doesn't it.Can't wait untill I can try my 220D on WVO.

As far as Pintos being death traps because of their gas tanks.No more so then about half the other cars built in the 70's and 80's.Yes the first Pintos had wimpy bumpers.But so did alot of full size cars of the time.And about half of the cars had their fuel tanks under the trunk,just likethe pinto.I don't know why Nader hated them so much.Half the cars out there were just as much of an explosion risk.Oh well.

Fuel cells.
They have amazing potential,but their not efficient enough yet to be cost effective.I think the most efficient way to use them now,would be in converting methane to electricity.Alot of land fills across the country are recovering the methane and using it as fuel for piston engines to generate electricity.Think of the potential energy gains if private & city sewers collected methane for fuel cell or engine use.Right now,the electrolosis used for water conversion isn't nearly efficient enough.But like I said,maybe with the right metals,and some kind of grid design.It could be made efficient.Different alloys and better plate designs have greatly increased batteries over the years.

To keep it in the proper spirit of this Mercedes forum.
I would suggest some of the methane being burned in some nice dependable MB engines to generate electricity.LOL,but not a bad idea.