The split-cycle engine: a leap from the four cycle engine?

[RedHawke]

You misunderstand... I'm not admitting that I'm wrong. I'm admitting that I don't have the sources to prove my point that anyone else can access. That DOES NOT mean I'm wrong... it just means that you can say "your theory doesn't hold water."

 

If you had said that, I would not be replying again. But because you assumed I admitted that I was wrong, I'll correct that now: I have made some absolute statements that aren't backed by sources. There are many statements that were indeed correct, though. I just need to verify the statements.

 

Most people can't interview the professors I've gotten info from. I don't have the textbook that I've used then... "Human Environmental Problems." If I did, I would properly list that as a source.

 

Zimmermj@uww.edu

Larocqus@uww.edu

Jacobsp@uww.edu

Clayton@wisc.edu

 

I have a minor in business education, so I know about the economics behind what I speak of. The problem is that I can't use myself as a reference.

 

I am still not convinced that hydrogen fuel cells are better than the SCE. I simply need concrete sources to prove it. If you want to prove me wrong, get your own sources to challenge my statements.

Ok then... your theories about the subjects you spoke are quite inadequate vessels for containing any sort of liquid.

 

More than likely your textbook was in error about these things (since we do know that what goes into textbooks is not always accurate and they are not immune to being 'colored' by one interest over another).

 

You have every right to not be convinced about the new FCV technologies (Please note I never said you didn't either) but you also posted some big 'assumptions' about those technologies and that is where you garnered a response, you then argued with someone who does know about them, I drive one. I use a self powered Hydrogen fueling station. I know it can be done, that it is not hype, and that it indeed works. And transferring to that technology will be no more painful than our transition to gasoline over horse-driven vehicles was, possibly even less painful as the infrastructure for dispensing fuel is already in place, unlike with our transition to gasoline, and that the stations can be made self powered easing the drain on our nations power grids and reducing even more pollution.

 

Lastly, as this isn't a 'proper debate' forum and I didn't demand "sources" from you, why are you doing so here with me now? Especially since I haven't really tried to 'convince' you, or anyone else, one way or another on anything here, I was simply replying to the inaccuracies of your statements.

[Darth_Yuthura]

I also see inaccuracies with the 'hydrogen economy' idea. That is something that I absolutely cannot abide by. It works... I don't deny that. What I am saying is that the transition from the horse to the gasoline-powered car was motivated by a better and less expensive means of transportation.

 

Hydrogen is more realistic for the long run, but as of today, there are few advantages that it provides to the average American. Until gasoline becomes so scarce that it's no longer reliable, then hydrogen will be looked to more favorably. For the present, hydrogen's benefits are far outweighed by their demands to be used. I've already given my reasons, so I won't repeat them here. The biggest advantage hydrogen does provide is that it could allow any form of energy to power the car where internal combustion MUST have oil.

 

The problem comes from transitioning from one form of energy to another. The split-cycle engine allows for a much cheaper and more efficient way to capture wasted energy. Electric hybrids do as well, but are more expensive... therefore less desirable. The transition to hydrogen is not from desire, but from necessity... that's different from horse to vehicle.

 

***I am also going to stop posting to this thread. Since I'm not doing much more than countering what is posted, I don't want to keep this up. I'm not going to challenge anything else, so don't post with the expectation that I'll reply. If you assume I'm admitting defeat, then you may do so.***

[El Sitherino]

the transition from the horse to the gasoline-powered car was motivated by a better and less expensive means of transportation.

Steam, cotton-seed oil, and hemp-seed oil were first.

 

Also anyone using the phrase "carbon footprint" please stop.

 

Seriously.

[Darth_Yuthura]

I keep saying 'final post.' I hope that this is it.

 

I believe in the split cycle engine because I believe it's more important to perfect an old technology before embracing a new one. It will either go forward and you will see its worth or it will not and I'm wrong.

 

When you drive by in your ethanol - hydrogen fuel cell car after all the gasoline has been burned, then you can laugh at me then.

 

It's not like this one thread would really do much, so I'll just leave it be. I'd advise others to do the same.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Prototype split-cycle engine revealed. This increases fuel efficiency by only a small margin, but projected to increase with development. This thread is nearly eight months old, but I just want to make it known that I foresaw this long before it came to pass.

 

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-10223904-48.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-5

 

Even if the efficiency is the same as a conventional engine, the use of a compressed air tank to store potential energy would be much cheaper than batteries. This would be excellent for just about any vehicle and would require minimal factory design changes to manufacture these new series of engines. Electric hybrids might soon be obsolete if they are too expensive and perform just as well.