# Using a Traction Motor as a generator



## DieselTwitch (May 19, 2009)

I've had this idea in my head for some time.

I want to use a small diesel generator as a range extender for my ev project. my problem is that all the generators are big heavy and have air cool generator heads. My thought is to use a drive motor as a pure generator, wire it to an inverter as normal. basically the generator/motor and inverter would always be in regen mode, that is until the diesel engine needed to be started then the generator can be used as a starter. this would allow me to shave even more weight. Also the motor I want to use is liquid cooled. allowing for an even tighter install.

My question is this. What are the losses in a system like this.... how do i calculate how much power i could produce. 

The cool thing (I think) is that the diesel engine and motor/generator i want to use hit their peek power and efficacy at the same point.... 1800-2000 RPM. 

Im guessing that the regen acts just like a rectifier in the inverter. 

Also from what i've seen it cheaper for me to buy a the motor/gen i want to use and the diesel engine i want then it is for me to buy a genset
Im not a super here ee so im learning as i go.... any thoughts on something like this?


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

DieselTwitch said:


> I've had this idea in my head for some time.
> 
> I want to use a small diesel generator as a range extender for my ev project. my problem is that all the generators are big heavy and have air cool generator heads. My thought is to use a drive motor as a pure generator, wire it to an inverter as normal. basically the generator/motor and inverter would always be in regen mode, that is until the diesel engine needed to be started then the generator can be used as a starter. this would allow me to shave even more weight. Also the motor I want to use is liquid cooled. allowing for an even tighter install.
> 
> ...


Hi Twitch,

Traction motor???? If you mean a series wound DC traction motor, forgetaboutit. If you mean an AC traction motor and controller (inverter) which has a battery supply, then yes, it can be done. But I seriously doubt the AC motor/inverter would be less costly than an alternator and cranking motor.

WRT power and losses, about the same, motor vs generator. 

major


----------



## DieselTwitch (May 19, 2009)

Full duty diesel engines as gensets are very very $$ as gensets. for the 50kw (yes i know it way oversize.. but there are some background reasons for this.) are in the 30,000$ for a good diesel engine. however i get can a 100-150kw Diesel for around $4k as a long block and the motors for around $3k. 

Im not really going for an ev to use only as an daily drive, I want something that can actually do some real work including pulling more then its self. In reality what Im building is a small version of a locomotive engine... only with a tempered battery pack as the means to prevent the engine from shot cycling and also allowing me to run it at its most efficient point. Also I do a lot of SAR and HAM radio stuff so having a huge generator on hand like that can be very use full.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

DieselTwitch said:


> however i get can a 100-150kw Diesel for around $4k as a long block and the motors for around $3k.


You can get 150 kW AC traction motors and inverters for $3k? Cool


----------



## DieselTwitch (May 19, 2009)

each not a pack


----------



## DieselTwitch (May 19, 2009)

I think you miss read that, 

diesel engine - $4,000~
AC motors - $3,000~ 
Inverter - $3,000~


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

A 150 KW AC motor and inverter for $6K total? I'll take two


----------



## DieselTwitch (May 19, 2009)

150 kw (200hp) diesel..... 40kw brusa motor


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> A 150 KW AC motor and inverter for $6K total? I'll take two


40kw brusa motor...for 3000$ and 3000$ for the inverter... why?

Why not get the AC-50 (50hp) kit from electric motorsport for 4,800$ (motor+controller+extras)

Take the $1200 you've saved and invest in some extra batteries...

If you want an efficient motor to use as a generator check out the Agni motors...small, lightweight, efficient, etc.


----------



## ewdysar (Jun 15, 2010)

JRP3 said:


> A 150 KW AC motor and inverter for $6K total? I'll take two





Bowser330 said:


> 40kw brusa motor...for 3000$ and 3000$ for the inverter... why?
> 
> Why not get the AC-50 (50hp) kit from electric motorsport for 4,800$ (motor+controller+extras)
> 
> ...


$6k for a 150kW AC motor and controller is a good deal. $6k for a 40kW AC motor and controller, not so much. I'd take the deal that JRP3 and major heard before DieselTwitch downgraded his description. 

Eric


----------



## DieselTwitch (May 19, 2009)

The brusa motor is actually rated 25kw motor, 52kw max, has 2x the tq of the AC-50, is liquid cooled and pancakeable, I'm not building this thing to only power it's self down the road. I drive all over the Rockies, 1200 miles a week and hills are a very real problem. From the testing I've done it takes roughly 65 - 75 hp to keep the project truck going 75 on a 6% slope. And 35 hp on flat roads. here 6%+ slopes are long 15 miles in some cases. I want a truck that can do more then just pull it's own weight. I need it to haul a load. Having two drive motors will allow me to run one larger inverter and under drive each motor ( I do this a lot with motor / inverter drive systems for work) at the same time I will be able to push huge amounts of tq, I calculated that a total gear ratio of 2.1:1 will give me optimal tq and let me run the motor at it's peak eff at 75mph. I don't want a huge battery pack, they cost too much for their total power storage, batteries are the major limiting factor in ev's, by running a diesel genset with limited battery packs I know that I will always have the power needed to never fall behind. Like I said before I'm not building an ev so much as a small version of a locomotive. Agree or disagree this is my plan, if I fail it will not be a total loss as I will have learned something from it. Sorry if I sound hostile, I catch a lot of flack from some people and great praise from others.


----------



## ewdysar (Jun 15, 2010)

DieselTwitch,

It sounds like an interesting project, what are you trying to accomplish? You're certainly going to more trouble than simply using a diesel traction motor. One thing that leaps to mind is that diesel subs and diesel trains operate at constant speeds for very long periods, and that some of their efficiency may stem from that. 

I'll be interested to hear why you're doing this, how you can tell whether your project has succeeded or not.

Eric


----------



## DieselTwitch (May 19, 2009)

Eric,

First of I love what you guys(girls) do. you make efficient, powerful ev's that fit your problems and needs.

My idea started after reading time and time again how EV's are so great for people who live and work in town and can drive small cars that don't need to cary more then a few people and some gear.. 90% of the population. for this pure battery powered or small generators as range extenders can be used. How ever I am in the other 10%, I don't have a set schedule that I can always make sure my ev would be charged. I drive about 200 miles a day. I offend cary large (relative) loads often filling the back of my chevy blazer with parts and sometimes even a small trailer. I find my self going up steep steep hills and over mtn passes. On the same account, half of my driving is on the highway at 75mph for long runs on the plains (I live in Colorado) So I wanted to build an Hybrid that can work for all my conditions:

1. Must be able to provided rated power even if the batteries are dead.
2. Take advantage or regen. 
3. Be able to pull large loads (not necessarily at full speed but at a respectable speed)
4. Be as Efficient and possible. 

The only model I could come up with that could meet these needs is a locomotive (minus the regen) Its powerful, fast, and efficient. 

Diesel engines where never designed to run as car motors, they where designed to run at one rpm (their max power & eff) so why not use it as that. 

The idea is this. Normally my truck will be plugged into the the house. charging a moderately sized battery pack to 100%. When I leave on a trip (all travel out here is a trip) it will run purely on the batteries. the generator would be off. once the batteries reach their bottom set point the generator would come on and begin to charge them to 90 - 95 % (5 - 10% allowance for regen) in the event that I suddenly start up a pass at the same time, the generator alone would be able to take the load. on the down swing side, the generator would shut down and the drive system would regen the power back into the battery pack/supercap. really nothing different from a locomotive minus that their generator is always running.

Power Generation (Liquid/Air cooled)
1x 60 kW Diesel Genset with the stater and alternator removed, Im hoping to find a way to interlock a contactor to allow me to use the generator to start the motor. Either that or I will use the same type of inverter i use for the drive system to act as a rectifier/starter. I do realize that i will have to have some amount of power in the pack to make this happen. because of this I have contemplated leaving the start in place but only using it as a back up 

Storage (Liquid cooled)
TBD Battery pack with individual cell charging controller
TBD Supercap system to assure that the regen power is not wasted 

Drive system (Liquid cooled)
1 Brusa DMC554 120-480VDC 212Kw Inverter 
2x Brusa ASM 8-24-10 25kW/53kW 92 ft-lb/390 ft-lb Nominal/Max AC Induction motors

Control System.
A PLC based control system will give me the interlocking safety, control and monitoring needed for this system, This is what i build for a living

the only reason for having the two motors is so that the system can be run over at and 100% (2x Motor Total) longer with less degradation to the motors. it also provides an amount of redundancy.

This meets all of my criteria. Running the generator independent of the vehicle speed allows it to be run at its most eff point AT ALL TIMES. providing as much power as needed. And having more then enough Tq for normal operation but having full tq when needed.

I plan locate the generator in the current motor/transmission location (duh i know) move the tcase back allowing me to place the traction motors just behind the generator head. but still allowing for 4x4 when needed.

On the flip side. the vehicle can be used as an emergency generator. or as a standby/backup generator for my home and even my neighborhood. (I'm currently working with them creating a micro grid along with solar heated and cooled water for HVAC) Running the generator on BioD also helps to keep the carbon foot print small with out compromising drivable power.

The analysis in the end is simple... Does it do what I want it do? With the basic system built, small tweaks can be made (even using gps and trip planning to work out if the generator will even need to run at all)

As you stated this is a micro locomotive with regen and storage added to the system to decrees short cycles and increase eff.

Does this make sense?

My secondary goal is to show that EV/Hybrids can be more efficient more powerful and more reliable then any gas motor driven car. In effect I am building a sleeper. To me this is what series hybrids should be if they are going to help solve any real problems in the world. This could be a huge solutions set for a framer that needs efficient / powerful transportation in the country, at the same time giving him power to run pumps or any other number of things on a remote site.

I know I have not worked out all the details but I have been milling over the calculations for some time ( I would be glad to share them, I found a way to calculated HP need on Flat and hills as well as how to find opt gear ratios and needed wheel tq with out sing frontal area calculations or need to try and guess rolling resistance from the drive train)

Brian


----------



## Automcdonough (Sep 1, 2010)

DieselTwitch said:


> Eric,
> My idea....


*bump*
this is very similar to what I want to do!

I'm on a very tight budget which has resulted in me not jumping right in, and instead doing a ton of research. One of the compromises I've already committed to is selecting either supercaps or long-life batteries such as lithium. The electric-only range is not such a big deal when you have the generator, they are there to average out the power and keep the generator running at max efficiency.

Motor drivers and converters (those ac/dc boxes in your schematic) I'll probly do myself.
I've used PLC's in the past.. They seem like a good solution to interface separate control modules, chargers, contactors, and an e-stop.. but considering the opportunity to build a system from scratch like this, I think I'd rather use a micro to more seamlessly integrate all the components. The USB connectivity and better software interfacing is a nice bonus to that. Plus reduced cost as industrial controls aren't usually the cheapest.


----------



## resago (Sep 28, 2010)

you could do a double clutch system and reduce the number of motors/gens.

ex. diesel-clutch-motor-clutch-front wheel drive system

mode1 diesel drives front motor to make E, E drives rear motor
mode2 diesel open and off,front motor drives front using batteries, rear motor on batts also.
mode3 diesel drives front motor to make E and drive front using foot clutch, rear is uses E from front motor and batts.


----------



## nimblemotors (Oct 1, 2010)

Given the useage you outline, essentially you describe a good case to use fossil fuel...your 10% case isn't the environmental problem, its the 90% using a car to transport 1 person 20 miles starting and stopping often.

I think the only issue is the up and down the hills, this is where you will get benefits from a hybrid, because its the same as stop-n-go for a city car. 

I would look at a Prius, and do the same thing, just on a bigger scale.
Basically a battery pack big enough to absorb the downhill power,
and then use it to aid going uphill. 

Or make it even simpler, get a diesel truck, put a motor/generator in the driveshaft.

Jack Murray


----------



## DieselTwitch (May 19, 2009)

nimblemotors said:


> Given the useage you outline, essentially you describe a good case to use fossil fuel...your 10% case isn't the environmental problem, its the 90% using a car to transport 1 person 20 miles starting and stopping often.
> 
> I think the only issue is the up and down the hills, this is where you will get benefits from a hybrid, because its the same as stop-n-go for a city car.
> 
> ...


I agree 100% my problem and solution will not solve any of the world problems only my own.

The Prius is a parallel hybrid. the motors are both on the drive line. I want only the electric on the drive line, This way i can size a smaller engine and only need the electric motors full power for short periods of time. I had a conversation with a guy at the gas station the other day. I was getting B100 from a local place in town and this guy driving a prius tried to tell me that his car was way better then mine because it was a hybrid but he didn't know any thing about his own car. He had no idea that about 15 miles out of the city (by the way Im 50 miles from denver) his car went back to being an oil burner... he was shocked, he thought that is just ran on electric ALL the time! I laughed got in my car and left. 

When I say I want to pull a load I don't mean some cloths I mean 1000's of lbs of materials, Last week I pulled 4000 lbs of glass evacuated tube solar collectors to WY.... I used my diesel truck to do it and the entire way I was wondering why I wasn't doing it with an electric truck. 

I really don't want to burn fossil fuels at all, I would rather grow my own fuel (Algae BioDiesel), The the fuel would act almost purely as a liquid battery. I know that even bio fuels are not 100$ carbon neutral but really nothing is. But I would like to get it as low as possible. 

Im still working on my project, its slow but the money I'm making is good and will soon buy a few of the components for nothing more then reverse engineering.


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

DieselTwitch said:


> I've had this idea in my head for some time.
> 
> I want to use a small diesel generator as a range extender for my ev project. my problem is that all the generators are big heavy and have air cool generator heads. My thought is to use a drive motor as a pure generator, wire it to an inverter as normal. basically the generator/motor and inverter would always be in regen mode, that is until the diesel engine needed to be started then the generator can be used as a starter. this would allow me to shave even more weight. Also the motor I want to use is liquid cooled. allowing for an even tighter install.
> 
> ...


In one of my iterations moving from gas to electric I have done such a thing.
I had 2 200KW 3 phase Traction motors made for me from swigercoil.
I had a C6 with a 4 speed manual off a 460 Tbird.
I took off the C6 and put on one of the 200KW with a my custom controller that was set to regen.
I hooked the other 200KW to the 4 speed with it own controller
I hooked up a 10KW inverter to the Raw DC line (not the batteries) Raw DC is 450V so the current for the 10KW inverter is low.
The 460 kicked in when batteries reach a low level. so when it kicks in will depend on the size of your battery source. In my case they the source is 400 ah at 380 Volts. I can run the full 10KW over nght and more without the 460 kicking in.


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

DieselTwitch said:


> I really don't want to burn fossil fuels at all, I would rather grow my own fuel (Algae BioDiesel), The the fuel would act almost purely as a liquid battery. I know that even bio fuels are not 100$ carbon neutral but really nothing is. But I would like to get it as low as possible.


You can get fuel cells that replace the desiel then your using Hydrogen


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

*You can get fuel cells that replace the desiel then your using Hydrogen

*Hydrogen is a scam* - *the transportation/pumping losses would be massive! 

When a "created" fuel is finally used it will be a liquid or easily liquified gas 
NOT Hydrogen


Hi DieselTwitch
I like the idea -BUT- if you compare
engine - generator - battery - motor - transmission - road
engine - transmission - road
The inefficiencies in the extra steps will kill you!
Especially as a modern diesel engine has a very wide efficient operating range
modern electronic injection systems are magic!

I would be looking at diesel drive to the road (rear wheels?) and electric assist/regen using the other wheels


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

Duncan said:


> *You can get fuel cells that replace the desiel then your using Hydrogen
> 
> *Hydrogen is a scam* - *the transportation/pumping losses would be massive!
> 
> ...


So your have researched the data of the Hydrogen infrasture and a fleet of vehicles that are powered by Fuel cells? if not feel free to start here





Duncan said:


> Hi DieselTwitch
> I like the idea -BUT- if you compare
> engine - generator - battery - motor - transmission - road
> engine - transmission - road
> ...


I do not disagree that gas/desiel volume to btus is greatest.
Nor do I disagree that a mechanical power train is Superior to a electrical system.
What you not considering is why electric is even happening.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

bjfreeman said:


> So your have researched the data of the Hydrogen infrasture and a fleet of vehicles that are powered by Fuel cells? if not feel free to start here


 I would not waste your time reading an industry insider website for objective information about fuel cell vehicles. There is a long running discussion here that covers just about every aspect of why HFCV's are a bad idea.
For a quick reference here is a review of a study done by a fuel cell expert explaining why HFCV's don't make sense:
http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html
There is basically no infrastructure for hydrogen and it would take a huge investment to create one, while EV's are here now and can charge from any outlet.


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

most of this reminds me of the arguments about electric Cars a decade ago.
then there was the argument about how horseless carragiage would be just a fad because it need to be refueled and there were not that many refueling places.

Some how the demand over came the obstacles.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Except the demand for hydrogen vehicles has been around as long as they have, but nothing can overcome the physics involved in creating, storing, transporting, and compressing hydrogen at high pressures. Hydrogen likes to leak out of everything, it's not dense so it needs high storage pressure, it does not exist in free form in nature, and even after decades of research and billions of dollars HFCV's are still not anywhere near practical. EV's on the other hand with much lower research dollars are on the road right now and affordable. When people involved in fuel cell research say they aren't practical for personal transportation I'm inclined to agree with them. HFCV's are mostly an attempt by car and oil companies to hang on to the status quo, I'm not interested in trading one monolithic fueling system for another.


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

Here is a practical example
hydrogen-bus-fleet
I have been buying hydrogen since 2002.
I don't agree with you.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Anther highly subsidized test fleet proves nothing, though for large fleet vehicles it makes a little more sense than passenger vehicles, but not much. If you think an overpriced, inefficient technology that keeps us locked into paying oil companies for our fuel is a good idea that's your prerogative.


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

JRP3 said:


> Anther highly subsidized test fleet proves nothing, though for large fleet vehicles it makes a little more sense than passenger vehicles, but not much. If you think an overpriced, inefficient technology that keeps us locked into paying oil companies for our fuel is a good idea that's your prerogative.


you show your ignorance of the electric-car-timeline
Fuel Cells started in the 90's so based on Electric cars has progressed a lot faster.
in 2000 the biggest fuel cell was 9KW it is now 150KW.

I find it funny you main argument is about having to pay a company for fuel.
You pay an electric company everything you charge your car. Electic companines use fossil fuel unless your in an area that has hydropower.

if you had read the article you would have seen there is no Oil company involved on creating Hydrogen. I think you are locked into reformers. In fact I have develop a Hydrogen generator using DC current and water in a modified water-filter container.
enough to run a 460 Tbird.

Oh and about government intervention The Department of Energy awards $8 billion in loans to Ford, Nissan, and Tesla Motors to support the development of fuel-efficient vehicles. The automaker loans are the first distributions from a larger $25 billion fund created under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I'm afraid you show your ignorance of the fuel cell timeline:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell#History
Yes I currently pay an electric company, who gets power generated from many different sources, including in my area hydro, nuclear, and NG, very little from coal. However I can also put up solar panels and/or wind power if I think my electricity provider is ripping me off. Of course oil companies are also invested in hydrogen production, the few hydrogen stations I've seen have a Shell logo on them.
You can ignore the opinions of a fuel cell expert as you wish, I'm inclined to agree with him on this one.


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

then we will agree to disagree.
and Yes I will go my marry way to have a system that is not connected to the oil companies


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

*Fuel Cells started in the 90's* 

True - True - the *1890s* that is 

followed by millions of dollars and hundreds of man-years by NASA in the 1960's and 70s 

The current main source of hydrogen is by cracking Natural gas (methane) 
In the future it may be produced from renewable sources BUT as an energy carrier it has too many issues

Batteries are great for small amounts of energy - then we will jump to liquid fuels or gasses that can be easily liquified for transport

There is simple no place for a gas which has such a low volumetric energy content and such a low boiling point
(not to mention hydrogen's ability to leak and to cause embrittlement) 
.


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

Duncan said:


> *Fuel Cells started in the 90's*
> 
> True - True - the *1890s* that is
> 
> ...


My apologies, I was focused on PEM Cells 

"By 1990, the proton-exchange-membrane (PEM) fuel cell had demonstrated sufficient progress in performance, and thus a light-duty fuel cell vehicle program was launched with General Motors. Methanol was selected as the fuel because of its availability, simplicity of storage, rapid refueling, high energy density, and ability to be easily reformed. In addition, serious consideration has been given to other fuel options, including hydrogen and petroleum. In 1994, DOE initiated programs with two industry teams led by Ford and Pentastar (a Chrysler subsidiary) to develop direct hydrogen-fueled PEM fuel cell propulsion systems. "

In the North West USA, Hydroelectric is cheap so Electrolysis Hydrogen is generated by private Companies that do Gas production. This is covered in one of the links I gave.

I am sorry you are not involved in Hydrogent and PEM fuel cells real time data to have a different picture. 
However you view is one many have because they don't do their own research.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Yes cheap electricity is used to create a gas that then takes large amounts of energy to distribute and compress into a usable amount for a vehicle. A 10,000 psi tank doesn't just magically fill itself, a large amount of electricity is required to pump it into a tank. A CNG vehicle fill station will use over 6kwh's of electricity just to pump enough gas for 100 mile of range, hydrogen will be similar. Meanwhile an EV could travel over 25 miles on that wasted electricity.
http://www.foxservice.com/austin/kn...ompressed Natural Gas&_filterField=Categories


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

Why not vist a transit company that uses CNG.
I can drive up to a GNG fill station, that is hooked directly to NG. Put in my CC and pump 160 gallons in a bout 15 min.
and in the Northwest there is no carbon foot print for creating electricity.
also I create Hydrogen using 12volt and water enough to power a 460 tbird engine with no pressure tanks.
This is not meant for debate just information I know, from actually doing it.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

That CNG station also uses energy to pressurize the NG, the physics don't change. First the distribution center pressurizes it to pump it to the CNG station then the CNG station has to pressurize it further to get it to flow into a vehicle tank, all wasting electricity. Just because you have cheap hydro doesn't mean you should waste it, it could be sent elsewhere, to offset coal and NG power.
Burning hydrogen in an ICE is even less efficient than using it in a fuel cell.


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

I don't disagree with what you say, the conservation of energy stands no matter what.
however if I can create hydrogen from my local power source (batteries) to power by vehicle (bus) and it cost me less that using fossil fuels, then that is the route I am going to go.
all we are discussing is how to power the electric motors. and I am talking in ranges of driving 400 or more miles between having to stop and refuel (electricty, Water, or fossil fuels)

Not sure if you have checked the price of NG CNG or Hydrogetn.
I am sure the producers are making sure they cover all their costs. the costs and profit are a 1/3 or less of the fossil fuels.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

What other inputs are there in your hydrogen creation? I'm assuming you are using stainless steel plates? Don't they also get consumed in the process? Also, batteries are not a power source, they are a storage device, the power has to come from elsewhere.


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

JRP3 said:


> What other inputs are there in your hydrogen creation? I'm assuming you are using stainless steel plates? Don't they also get consumed in the process? Also, batteries are not a power source, they are a storage device, the power has to come from elsewhere.


all the hydrogen systems that use plates do not create pure hydrogen.

I use a cylindrical systems that separated hydrogen and oxygen. yes 316L stainless. I had a Stainless replace the plastic screw on.

matter of symatentic. it is a Source type storage. which you need to start the process then the system generates power to recharge the battery.
Currently I have not gotten the Hydrogen pure enough (99.9%) to run my 5KW fuel cell so I used Hydrogen in a tank I get refilled. The 5KW is used to charge my house batteries.

I am drooling to get the Ballard 150KW,. they wont deal with a individual.
sigh.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

_also I create Hydrogen using 12volt and water enough to power a 460 tbird engine with no pressure tanks._

100Kw (Tbird is at least that) at 12v = 8,333amps

That's a lot of amps!!!



_is a Source type storage. which you need to start the process then the system generates power to recharge the battery._


Sounds like over-unity


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

Duncan said:


> _also I create Hydrogen using 12volt and water enough to power a 460 tbird engine with no pressure tanks._
> 
> 100Kw (Tbird is at least that) at 12v = 8,333amps
> 
> That's a lot of amps!!!


how did you translate all that. you lost me



> _is a Source type storage. which you need to start the process then the system generates power to recharge the battery._
> 
> 
> Sounds like over-unity


again you lost me.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

The confusion comes from how you can use 12 volts of electricity to free enough hydrogen from water to run a 460 motor at significant power levels.


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

called electrolysis. passing a current through water splits the oxygen and hydrogen.
Took me a while to get it to get enough hydrogen. First I powered my 7KW gas generator then I got enough flow to power the 460. you can buy commercial hydrogren generators up to 228 SCF/hour.
http://www.airgas.com/content/products.aspx?id=9002015000000


----------



## EVfun (Mar 14, 2010)

Duncan said:


> 100Kw (Tbird is at least that) at 12v = 8,333amps
> 
> That's a lot of amps!!!





bjfreeman said:


> how did you translate all that. you lost me


When you burn hydrogen you create water. When you split water to liberate hydrogen you undo the burning process. The energy required to split water is the same as it will release by burning. 

If that wasn't true (energy input to crack = energy output when burned) you could just crack water then burn the hydrogen then crack the resulting steam (the only byproduct of burning hydrogen.) That would release the same amount of hydrogen as you just burned and you could again feed that into the generator to generate more power. You would have free energy -- perpetual motion. 

After all, a fuel cell is nothing but a hydrogen oxygen battery. It happens to be externally charged, but it isn't the only battery that is externally charged. The power to recharge will equal the power output whether the a battery is internally charged or externally charged.


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

EVfun said:


> When you burn hydrogen you create water. When you split water to liberate hydrogen you undo the burning process. The energy required to split water is the same as it will release by burning.
> 
> If that wasn't true (energy input to crack = energy output when burned) you could just crack water then burn the hydrogen then crack the resulting steam (the only byproduct of burning hydrogen.) That would release the same amount of hydrogen as you just burned and you could again feed that into the generator to generate more power. You would have free energy -- perpetual motion.
> 
> After all, a fuel cell is nothing but a hydrogen oxygen battery. It happens to be externally charged, but it isn't the only battery that is externally charged. The power to recharge will equal the power output whether the a battery is internally charged or externally charged.


Since the water has to be replaced, an the power used has to be replace to crack. you don't come out with all you started.


----------



## EVfun (Mar 14, 2010)

Will you share some of that crack?


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi Bj_

also I create Hydrogen using 12volt and water enough to power a 460 tbird engine with no pressure tanks._

100Kw (Tbird is at least that) at 12v = 8,333amps



That's a lot of amps!!!

*how did you translate all that. you lost me*

OK bit at a time (makes it worse)

Engine produces 100Kw (at least)
Input power = at least 300Kw (thermal) from fuel

done without storage (no pressure tanks) so producer must produce at the same rate as consumed

Energy to produce hydrogen is greater than than the energy you get from it 

Assume 80% (I have heard 40% is more realistic) - 300Kw out requires 375 Kw in

Electrical power to produce the hydrogen

Input at 12v - 

375 Kw at 12v = 375,000/12 = 31.5 KA (31.5 thousand Amps)

31,500Amps - needs a very thick wire!

Apologies to Dieseltwitch - sorry for hijacking your thread!!


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

Gentlemen:
when I was young I was taught the three steps to learning.
1) read every thing you can about the subject.
based on the outdated information I can see that has not been done.
2) when you think you understand something, change something and predict the outcome
based on erroneous reasoning I can see that has not been done.
3)if the outcome is not what you predicted go back to #1 you missed something.

I will continue to use what you tell me can't be.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Ever hear the phrase "Extraordinary results require extraordinary proof"? What you claim goes against the known laws of physics, you should hardly be surprised that we are questioning you and you should be prepared to offer clear explanations of your results and how you are getting them. Let's start with some basics, what size is your system, how much water, how fast can you drive, how far, what current are you using, what are the system components, are any consumed other than water, does the battery have to be recharged when you get home?


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

there is a lot of knowledge missing in your Physics as well as chemistry.
Also not much common sense.
How does a engine normally charge batteries.?
what is the difference between molecular bonding and Combustion?
it takes about 500watts per sec to break the molecular boding to produce 5 liters per sec of H. sorry have not messured how many moles that is.
top speed, when I had the transmission connected was 55 mph, which about equal of when using fossil fuel gas.
with the Traction motor as a generator, I get aout 10mph in low gear up a hill and 50 mph on flat. I can reach 65 downhill (humor)
Also Hydrogen PEM fuel cells do not burn (combustion) hydrogen.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I would think that freeing hydrogen from water takes more energy on top of the normal ICE loads so your alternator might not make up for it all.
500 watts per second to produce 1 liter of hydrogen per second doesn't even sound close to reality. 300 liters of hydrogen a minute? What equation are you using to figure that out? What you are claiming is that a fuel cell vehicle could carry water and make it's hydrogen as it drives since a fuel cell operates more efficiently than an ICE. If an ICE can do it a fuel cell vehicle should be able to do so, yet no one has claimed such an achievement.
I never said fuel cells burn hydrogen, but since burning is oxidizing and a fuel cell adds oxygen to hydrogen and comes out with water it sort of is.


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

to have to have discussion means the information present is more than opinions and has to be accepted.
so we have not productive discussion.
This ends my attempt to communicate on this subject.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Just as well since your communication has been pretty poor so far.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Just for fun I did some digging anyway and found some solid numbers that suggest your 5 liters per second from 500 watts is nonsense:



> To generate 1 mol/min of H2 at 100% efficiency, 237.1 kJ of electricity must be supplied in 1 minute (60s). 237.1 kJ/60 s = 3.95 kW.
> 
> At 3.95 kW and 100% efficiency, you should produce 1 mol/min, that's 2.016 g/min, or 24.46 L/min at 25 °C (I can not over emphasize that the 24.46 L figure is temperature dependent).


http://forum.onlineconversion.com/showpost.php?p=46379&postcount=4


So it takes 3.95 kW, 3950 watts, to generate 24.4 liters per minute, and you claim to have done 300 liters per minute with 500 watts of power.


----------



## Tesseract (Sep 27, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> So it takes 3.95 kW, 3950 watts, to generate 24.4 liters per minute, and you claim to have done 300 liters per minute with 500 watts of power.


Or, in other words...


----------



## DaveAK (Jun 28, 2009)

Tesseract said:


> Or, in other words...


How long have you been waiting to use that one?


----------



## Tesseract (Sep 27, 2008)

DaveAK said:


> How long have you been waiting to use that one?


I plead the 5th!


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

JRP3 said:


> Just for fun I did some digging anyway and found some solid numbers that suggest your 5 liters per second from 500 watts is nonsense:
> 
> 
> http://forum.onlineconversion.com/showpost.php?p=46379&postcount=4
> ...


I read you reference and you missed some variables. as usual.
so how do you match that against all the 12volt youtube demos that show producing H at about 20 amps. no that is not a lot but based on your formula should not be able to happen at all.
by the way one of my sources states
in practice, requires applied voltages well above 1.6 V.
I find it interesting to accept that formula with out double checking it.


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

Tesseract said:


> I plead the 5th!


I like Irish Cream for my 5th


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

> To generate 1 mol/min of H2 at 100% efficiency, 237.1 kJ of electricity must be supplied in 1 minute (60s). 237.1 kJ/60 s = 3.95 kW.


*So 1 Watt-hour = 3.6 kJ*
237.1 kJ/*3.6 kJ **= 65.86 watt hours.* div by 60 min comes to 1.1 watt per minute div by 60 sec =0.02 watts per second
 * 
Energy Density of H2 (STP) = 3.2 - 3.5 Watt-hours/liter. The figure can be calculated different ways (in particular,assuming different temperatures), giving different results.

*


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

bjfreeman said:


> I read you reference and you missed some variables. as usual.
> so how do you match that against all the 12volt youtube demos that show producing H at about 20 amps. no that is not a lot but based on your formula should not be able to happen at all.


First, it's not my formula, second those youtube videos have no measurement of quantity at all. The formula doesn't say there should be no production, it simply gives a formula to predict how much is produced.
I'm not saying I understand what your setup is doing, but it seems neither do you.


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

JRP3 said:


> I'm not saying I understand what your setup is doing, but it seems neither do you.


This is no surprise, You have shown you preset view about what I say.But we have been here before. You have you mind made up and can't even evaluate the data.
so there s no hope you will ever understand even if it is spoon fed to you.
you need to go the #1 .


----------



## EVfun (Mar 14, 2010)

bjfreeman said:


> to have to have discussion means the information present is more than opinions and has to be accepted.
> so we have not productive discussion.
> This ends my attempt to communicate on this subject.


I'm sorry, I was unaware of recent legislative actions by the Obama administration. I was under the impression that I had to continue my affront on the alternative alternative energy community. 



> WASHINGTON - In a bold move to lessen our dependence on traditional fuels and decrease carbon emissions, Congress voted to repeal an old Republican ban on perpetual motion machines, clearing the way for the development of self-propelled water wheels, self-flowing flasks, float belts, zeromotors, and other environmentally-friendly industrial equipment.
> 
> Director of the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy John Holdren hailed the effort as an example of the hope and change President Obama's leadership promised to bring to the world. "The anti-perpetual-motion propaganda was unleashed by the previous administration in the interests of Big Oil," said Holdren, describing the "manufactured consensus" against perpetual motion as a "clever dodge" to suppress alternative competition.
> 
> [continue reading]


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

EVfun said:


> I'm sorry, I was unaware of recent legislative actions by the Obama administration. I was under the impression that I had continue my affront on the alternative alternative energy community.




your funny.
thanks to know where you stand.


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

JRP3 said:


> Just for fun I did some digging anyway and found some solid numbers that suggest your 5 liters per second from 500 watts is nonsense:
> 
> 
> http://forum.onlineconversion.com/showpost.php?p=46379&postcount=4
> ...


No, it takes 3.95 Kj per minute. now you have to converty Kj to watts.
http://www.volker-quaschning.de/datserv/faktoren/index_e.php
I Kj = 0.278 watts
so 3.95 Kj*0.278=*1**.**1 watt per minute or 0.0183 watts per second.*


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

The post I linked already did the conversion from kJ to watts:


> To generate 1 mol/min of H2 at 100% efficiency, 237.1 kJ of electricity must be supplied in 1 minute (60s). 237.1 kJ/60 s = 3.95 kW


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Quote:
To generate 1 mol/min of H2 at 100% efficiency, 237.1 kJ of electricity must be supplied in 1 minute (60s). 237.1 kJ/60 s = 3.95 kW. 
Correct*

So 1 Watt-hour = 3.6 kJ*

Correct

237.1 kJ/*3.6 kJ **= 65.86 watt hours.* div by 60 min comes to 1.1 watt per minute div by 60 sec =0.02 watts per second

237.1 kJ/*3.6 kJ **= 65.86 watt hours

*Incorrect - the answer is 65.86 - a number *NOT* watt hours


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

EVfun said:


> When you burn hydrogen you create water. When you split water to liberate hydrogen you undo the burning process. The energy required to split water is the same as it will release by burning.


split water (electrolysis) you breaking the molecular bond. There is not Burning (combustion). There is a different energy level between seperating molecules and use an atom in combustion.


> If that wasn't true (energy input to crack = energy output when burned) you could just crack water then burn the hydrogen then crack the resulting steam (the only byproduct of burning hydrogen.) That would release the same amount of hydrogen as you just burned and you could again feed that into the generator to generate more power. You would have free energy -- perpetual motion.


I agree with you statements, but it has nothing todo with this conversation


> After all, a fuel cell is nothing but a hydrogen oxygen battery. It happens to be externally charged, but it isn't the only battery that is externally charged. The power to recharge will equal the power output whether the a battery is internally charged or externally charged.


Fuel cells are not the topic and you have some to learn yet.


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

JRP3 said:


> The post I linked already did the conversion from kJ to watts:


no it calcualted the about of Kj it takes.
Not sure how you see a conversion to watts.


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

Duncan said:


> Quote:
> To generate 1 mol/min of H2 at 100% efficiency, 237.1 kJ of electricity must be supplied in 1 minute (60s). 237.1 kJ/60 s = 3.95 kW.
> Correct*
> 
> ...


you are showing you ignorance of electrical values.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

bjfreeman said:


> no it calcualted the about of Kj it takes.
> Not sure how you see a conversion to watts.


Right here:


> 237.1 kJ/60 s = 3.95 kW


 kJ to kW. If you prefer watts then it's 237.1 kJ/60 s = 3950 watts.


----------



## EVfun (Mar 14, 2010)

bjfreeman said:


> split water (electrolysis) you breaking the molecular bond. There is not Burning (combustion). There is a different energy level between seperating molecules and use an atom in combustion.


Electrolysis of water:
(2)H2O + energy -> (2)H2 + O2

Combustion of Hydrogen:
(2)H2 + O2 -> (2)H2O + energy

The energy needed for the electrolysis is equal to the energy that is released by combustion. If the energy required for electrolysis was less than what was released you could quickly and fairly easily create a perpetual motion energy source. Of course, you are more than welcome to explore that dead end. Many have before you and the world is still waiting.



> 9. Electrolysis, in particular, has a very fundamental thermodynamic problem. Think about the process. Water is converted to hydrogen by some energy source. This conversion is at best 100% efficient and free. The hydrogen is burned to produce work. The efficiency of the conversion of heat to work is absolutely limited by the Second Law : Efficiency = (Thot -Tcold) / Thot, where Thot is the hot temperature of any theoretical engine and Tcold is the ambient temperature. Efficiencies seldom exceed 50-70%. The exhaust is liquid water. So what has been done is to convert water at ambient temperature to water at ambient temperature. That's a closed cycle -- an identity -- water-to-water. And there is an energy cost somewhere in between.
> 
> [From the Argonne National Laboratory]


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

bjfreeman said:


> so 3.95 Kj*0.278=*1**.**1 watt per minute or 0.0183 watts per second.*


Hi bj,

I don't want to get in the middle of a Hydrogen argument. But I do really hate it when I see units of "watts per second". Just last month I went around with another member about W/s. See post #22 and on in this thread: http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/my-ev-build-plans-64677p3.html 

You seem to be mixing energy and power and dividing instead of multiplying. Keeping track of proper units will help you get the math correct.

The energy in the example was 237.1kJ which is 237100J. A Joule = 1 Watt second so 237100J = 237100Ws. 

Power is the rate at which work is done or the rate at which energy is converted. The unit for power is the Watt (W). 1W = 1J / s. Or 1J = 1Ws.

So to convert a quantity of energy of 237100Ws in 1 second requires power of P = 237100Ws / 1s = 237100W.

To convert the same energy in 1 minute (60s), P = 237100Ws / 60s = 3951W.

237100Ws / (3600s/h) = 65.86 Wh = 0.0658kWh. This is energy and independent of time. Using the units of Joules helps eliminate the time confusion. 237.1kJ is an amount of energy which can be converted from one form to another in any length of time. It is that length of time or rate which then gives us the ability to calculate power. But a quantity of energy by itself infers nothing about power.

Regards,

major


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

JRP3 said:


> Right here:
> kJ to kW. If you prefer watts then it's 237.1 kJ/60 s = 3950 watts.


Ok it is apparent you don't understand Joule and Watts.
So tell me what the theoretical and electrical definition of Joule and Watt.
Then maybe we can get this on track.


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

EVfun said:


> Electrolysis of water:
> (2)H2O + energy -> (2)H2 + O2
> 
> Combustion of Hydrogen:
> ...


this is my observation
when I apply power for Electrolysis I get hydrogen and oxygen in Gases form. if there was a combustion this would explode. 
the hydrogen gas is fed to the engine which then ignites the hydrogen and there is a combustion.
does this match with you model? maybe the energy to separate the atoms is less than the energy produced through the Combustion.
been doing it for over a year. Shhhhhhhh Don't tell anybody.


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

major said:


> Hi bj,
> 
> I don't want to get in the middle of a Hydrogen argument. But I do really hate it when I see units of "watts per second". Just last month I went around with another member about W/s. See post #22 and on in this thread: http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/my-ev-build-plans-64677p3.html
> 
> ...


yes I agree the key was it is not Watts but watts expended in on minute.
so expending 500 watts for one minutes is 3000 watts per minutes which matches.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

*500 watts for one minutes is 3000 watts per minutes which matches.

Only in Lewis Caroll's Wonderland*


500 watts for one minute is 500 x 60 Joules - 30,000 joules 
which is 3000 watts for 10 seconds

Watts per minute is a nonsensical measure * - 
*


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

bjfreeman said:


> Ok it is apparent you don't understand Joule and Watts.


It's apparent you don't either.


> So tell me what the theoretical and electrical definition of Joule and Watt.
> Then maybe we can get this on track.


I doubt it. I don't know what you've been doing with your setup but it's obvious you don't either. You have something you feel works, OK, fine, but your insistence that you somehow understand it and can explain it are misguided at best. You have yet to even describe the system components or correctly characterize the energy inputs.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

bjfreeman said:


> yes I agree


If you agree, how can you possibly make this statement?



bjfreeman said:


> so expending 500 watts for one minutes is 3000 *watts per minutes* which matches.


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

JRP3 said:


> It's apparent you don't either.
> I doubt it. I don't know what you've been doing with your setup but it's obvious you don't either. You have something you feel works, OK, fine, but your insistence that you somehow understand it and can explain it are misguided at best. You have yet to even describe the system components or correctly characterize the energy inputs.


your rght I do have something that works.
I don't feel a need to defend or prove that.
and I see why we don't communicated well.
so I will leave it there.


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

major said:


> If you agree, how can you possibly make this statement?


Joule is the potential to do work. it is energy.
For instance you can store Joules in a capacitor. and theoretically can remain in the capacitor forever. you can also rate batteries in Joules since a battery stores energy.
Till that energy flows there is no work (watts). For energy flows it must follow Ohms and Kirchhoff laws.
each of these have a standard definition electrically.
1 Joule = 1 volt (potential or push) stored in 1 farad(a unit of storage). it will provide 1 volt for one sec when there is a circuit connected to the capacitor.
1 watt = 1amp(flow) with 1 Volt.
when there is flow you have Volts, amps and resistance.
there for to have Joule produce 1 watt second 1amp must flow at 1 volt for one second.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

bjfreeman said:


> Joule is the potential to do work. it is energy.
> For instance you can store Joules in a capacitor. and theoretically can remain in the capacitor forever. you can also rate batteries in Joules since a battery stores energy.
> Till that energy flows there is no *work (watts).* For energy flows it must follow Ohms and Kirchhoff laws.
> each of these have a standard definition electrically.
> ...


Yes bj,

Except the one place you are off base. "*work (watts)" *Work is NOT Watts. Work is energy and has the same units as energy being Joules or Watt seconds (Ws).

Watts are units of power. Power is the rate at which work is done. Power = P = Energy divided by time = Joules / seconds = Ws/s = W = Watts.

And:



> 1 Joule = 1 volt (potential or push) stored in 1 farad(a unit of storage).


Not quite. A Farad (F) is defined as = As/V = J/V² = Ws/² = C/V = C²/J

where: F = Farad, A = Ampere, s = second, J = Joule, C = Coulomb, W = Watt.

So 1J would not = 1V times 1F as you say. 1J = 1C times 1V. Or 1J = 1F times V². *




> it will provide 1 volt for one sec when there is a circuit connected to the capacitor.


A Joule of stored energy can provide 1 volt for 1 second with 1 Ampere of current in the connected circuit.

edit: * actually the energy stored in a capacitor is equal to ½CV² where C is the capacitance in Farads. So units wise, J = FV².


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

major said:


> Yes bj,
> 
> Except the one place you are off base. "*work (watts)" *Work is NOT Watts. Work is energy and has the same units as energy being Joules or Watt seconds (Ws).
> 
> Watts are units of power. Power is the rate at which work is done. Power = P = Energy divided by time = Joules / seconds = Ws/s = W = Watts.


Watt, defined as one joule per second, measures the rate of energy conversion. 



One watt is the rate at which work is done when an object's velocity is held constant at one meter per second against constant opposing force of one newton.










In terms of electromagnetism, one watt is the rate at which work is done when one ampere (A) of current flows through an electrical potential difference of one volt (V).








Two additional unit conversions for watt can be found using the above equation and Ohm's Law.







Where ohm (Ω) is the SI derived unit of electrical resistance.


> A Joule of stored energy can provide 1 volt for 1 second with 1 Ampere of current in the connected circuit.


YES you and I said the same thing but differently. 
it still comes down to ohms law in a electrical circuit.
when you specify joules per sec that is not work but the amount of potential work in Watts


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

bjfreeman said:


> YES you and I said the same thing but differently.


But you were incomplete with this statement: 


bjfreeman said:


> (1 Joule)... it will provide 1 volt for one sec when there is a circuit connected to the capacitor.


And



bjfreeman said:


> Watt, defined as one joule per second, measures the rate of energy conversion.


Finally, you see your error in using "Watts/second" and "Watts/minute" 

So go back to your post #63 and see how ridiculous your math looks.


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

major said:


> But you were incomplete with this statement:
> 
> 
> And
> ...


the formula I addressed was 


> To generate 1 mol/min of H2 at 100% efficiency, 237.1 kJ of electricity must be supplied in 1 minute (60s). 237.1 kJ/60 s = 3.95 kW.


with is as we agreed 3950 w/s
[
then this was arrived at


> So it takes 3.95 kW, 3950 watts, to generate 24.4 liters per minute, and you claim to have done 300 liters per minute with 500 watts of power.


 which does not follow since the 3950 w/s is not computation to tie w/s to liters p/m
then there was not correlation from w/s to watts used to generate the out put I had.
so yes I goofed up even trying to make sense of it


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

bjfreeman said:


> ......with is as we agreed 3950 w/s


bj,

Nobody here has ever agreed with you about any number with the units of "W/s". You are the only one using it and it does not make any sense. There is no physical quantity which carries the units of watts per second (W/s).

That is my whole point of posting here: To try to help you understand the scientific convention of units and the basic concept of power and energy. If you cannot grasp this, then you will continue be shrugged off by those who do understand basic physics.

I can care less if you use Hydrogen. You came here talking about putting electric motors on a vehicle. I, and others, am interested in that regardless how you chose to store energy or generate it.

I can tolerate bad grammar and non punctuation. But bad physics , I have a problem. I'll shut up here now. Just go on as you please and have a Merry Christmas or Happy Holiday as suits your fancy 

major


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

major said:


> bj,
> 
> You came here talking about putting electric motors on a vehicle. I, and others, am interested in that regardless how you chose to store energy or generate it.
> 
> ...


and I appreciate you effort, is was professional and focused.
we seem to be at odds with what is theoretical and what is practical.
I did try to bring this thread back to the topic but it seems that was not the case.
Actually it is happy yule tide. but what ever make you feel warm and giving to those you love is what counts.


----------



## digibeet (Jan 15, 2010)

bjfreeman said:


> this is my observation
> when I apply power for Electrolysis I get hydrogen and oxygen in Gases form. if there was a combustion this would explode.
> the hydrogen gas is fed to the engine which then ignites the hydrogen and there is a combustion.
> does this match with you model? *maybe the energy to separate the atoms is less than the energy produced through the Combustion*.


that really sounds like over-unity

that would violate the first law of thermodynamics


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

digibeet said:


> that really sounds like over-unity
> 
> that would violate the first law of thermodynamics


 I really don't want to water down this thread on the subject of electrolysis and hydrogen producing.
So why not start a new thread if this is important.


----------



## digibeet (Jan 15, 2010)

i wouldn't want to start a topic on something basic


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

In welding joules / inch are part of the welding procedure , many welders and some CWI's (certified welding inspectors)do not understand or care . But say 100 amps x 20 volts = 2000 watt hours (2000/3600=.555 joules/sec)welding power ,.555 x 60 sec.=33.33 joules/minute , and say 5 inches /minute welding speed . so 33.33 /5 = 6.6 joules /inch of weld . The welding procedure will have a range of joules / inch of weld.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Amps x Volts = Watts, not watt hours.


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

JRP3 said:


> Amps x Volts = Watts, not watt hours.


yes and no
yes ohms law says A*V=Watts. it does not specify time. However 1 Amp equal some many electrons flow for a sec. So you can specify watts as how much expended in a sec. After all a battery is rated in Ah so you have so many watt hours you can pull from the battery


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Right, amp hours x voltage gives watt hours, not amps x voltage. A 100 amp hour lithium cell could put out 300 amps x 3V = 900 watts but it won't give you 900 watt hours. Only at the 1C rate will watts and watt hours have the same number.


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

JRP3 said:


> Right, amp hours x voltage gives watt hours, not amps x voltage. A 100 amp hour lithium cell could put out 300 amps x 3V = 900 watts but it won't give you 900 watt hours. Only at the 1C rate will watts and watt hours have the same number.


so if I use 100A X 3V=300 watts as Long as I can use 300 amps x 3V = 900 watts.
of course not. I can use the 100A for 3 Times as long as the 300 amp. So there is 900 watts available total But the Rate of use over time is the factor you left out.
So how would you express the Wattage used for a 1/3 of the time than the Wattage used for 3 times longer.

Note read he meter on the side of your building what units is does it record?


----------



## EVfun (Mar 14, 2010)

bjfreeman said:


> Note read he meter on the side of your building what units is does it record?


kilowatt *hours*

In the example given by JRP3 there are 300 watt hours available (3 volts times 100 amp-hours.) You can use that in the form of 900 watts for 20 minutes or 30 watts for 10 hours. 

Volts * amps = watts
Volts * amps * hours = watt hours


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> Amps x Volts = Watts, not watt hours.


unless time ( joules=watts/sec ) is part of the math . My welding v/a is assumed to be watt hours (3600 sec) .


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi Aero*

In welding joules / inch are part of the welding procedure , many welders and some CWI's (certified welding inspectors)do not understand or care . But say 100 amps x 20 volts = 2000 watt hours (2000/3600=.555 joules/sec)welding power ,.555 x 60 sec.=33.33 joules/minute , and say 5 inches /minute welding speed . so 33.33 /5 = 6.6 joules /inch of weld . The welding procedure will have a range of joules / inch of weld.


100 amps x 20 volts = 2000 watts (Joules/second)
5 inches / min = 12 seconds/inch (60 seconds / 5) 

2000 watts x 12 seconds = 24,000 joules 

Your weld requires 24,000 joules per inch - NOT 6.6 joules!!!

Steel requires ~0.5 Joules to raise 1 gram by 1degree C
Melting point is ~1300C
So we need at least 650Joules to melt 1 gram

So 24,000 joules would be enough to melt (24,000/650) ~ 40 grams
not including all of the heat losses

Sounds about right to me - for quite thin material - 2mm ?

6.6 Joules/inch - be OK to weld spiders webs but not anything thicker
*


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

EVfun said:


> kilowatt *hours*
> 
> In the example given by JRP3 there are 300 watt hours available (3 volts times 100 amp-hours.) You can use that in the form of 900 watts for 20 minutes or 30 watts for 10 hours.
> 
> ...


Not quite.
start a thread on Amps and Watts and I will repsond.
but for this thread I will only respond to posts about traction motor as a generator.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

bjfreeman said:


> Not quite.
> start a thread on Amps and Watts and I will repsond.
> but for this thread I will only respond to posts about traction motor as a generator.


Done  http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php?p=275962#post275962


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

bjfreeman said:


> Not quite.
> start a thread on Amps and Watts and I will repsond.
> but for this thread I will only respond to posts about traction motor as a generator.


After 10 pages, mostly off topic, now you want to get back on topic?


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

Duncan said:


> Hi Aero*
> 
> In welding joules / inch are part of the welding procedure , many welders and some CWI's (certified welding inspectors)do not understand or care . But say 100 amps x 20 volts = 2000 watt hours (2000/3600=.555 joules/sec)welding power ,.555 x 60 sec.=33.33 joules/minute , and say 5 inches /minute welding speed . so 33.33 /5 = 6.6 joules /inch of weld . The welding procedure will have a range of joules / inch of weld.
> 
> ...


I should have 2000 X 3600 =7200000 joules / 60 / 5 = 24000 or 24 k joules. thanks .added .5 joules /gram X 1000,000 (long ton)=650,000,000 joules /3600=180555 watts /35,000 watts per gallon diesel = 5 gallon to melt a ton of steel no losses . thanks again , always did btu's , now to get on point .


----------

