I have been trying to spark an educational discussion on a "car forum" I frequent. However, I'm not getting any worthwhile feedback. All I'm getting is "wierd" "Wow, so what do we discuss", and "don't solenoids frequently fail" kind of stuff. The discussion will be outlined in the first post (42 volt electrical systems replacing 12 volt systems). I am hoping that with some of the more electrical savvy you guys have we may get a good discussion going out of this... I will copy the 2 most important sections in the thread, both are my personal observations...
and in continuation: So come-on fellas, let's get those heads workin'. Let's get some questions and observations going... Let's discuss the cars we will be installing systems in in the near future
well I can not comment on the Mechical aspect, Give me a 1970 Small Block and I am happy that is why I dont like to buy new Cars, you have to take them to those money grubing mechics to have them fixed no offense seth :lmfao:
i dont have time for in-depth at the moment. i just worked 10-4, and i gotta go back for 5-9... i like the fact that older cars are easier to work on, but the new stuff seems cool to. gimme a 42 volt motor with electromechanical valves, a variable vane turbo...(obviously after everything is proven reliable) and itll get dumped in to my ancient audi's and other stuff...that way i can work on it, and still get the mileage/power i want with minimal emissions :robot: eric
Thanks Mike Eric, I was definately hoping to get your insight... Please add to this when you get some time.
Oh man, c'mon... I'm going to post my other statements here in an attempt to spark some conversation here as well...
ok, I am off work, and ready to post First, I dont Feel Liquid Nitorgen will be the replacment for gas, more so the Fuel Cells being run off Hydogen which can be stored in the form of what else WATER, And we do need to get rid of Gas as a fule source, it will not be there forever..... we are acutally on the downward sprial as we have consumed over 50% of the world supply, and once it is gone, it is gone........ but that is another topic I am also concerned with these new ideas, but not from a seliond relaiblity stand point, but more so from a sensor standpoint, which remains by bigges beef with cars to date, the computer controls everything, and I have seen cars shut completly down when there was NOTHING mechanically wrong all because a sensor somewhere at some time read a abnormaltiy.... bottom line, I HATE computer controlled cars,
I thought the Explorer was supposed to get the 42v system first? And come to think of it, I thought I heard that years ago... for this year's Explorer? Hmm.. As far as we are concerned, it's not going to have much impact... there's going to be a 12v system for all the usual electronics, cigarette lighter, and obviously the stereo... but I had a question - will there still be a 12v battery, or will that be something that an enthusiast will have to install if they want to stiffen that side of the voltage system? Also, you mention this is largely being done so that the powertrains can support some pretty bionic stuff... electric actuated valvetrains using solenoids and all that... With my interest in the now-primitive VTEC system (which was cool in 1995! ), following developments like Toyota's VVTi, and finally the freaking unreal super-dynamic BMW variable "seemingly everything in the valvetrain" system... it seems like the BMW system actually is quite a bit as you describe, is it not? OR at least the goals, if not the details of the implementation, I should say? Yet BMW does not run 42v systems in their cars... Do you know what the reason is for the 42v system? Solenoids available that for some reason only work on 42v? Can't be engineered to work on 12v? ...You know, I have a rather interesting thread on CAF, a theory, and your very answer here may be a clue to either prove or help break the theory... so answer that one as accurately as you can, if you can! B)
A few dealers actually have test cars right now, on the road in the US... the Toyota Matrix actually (a special model of course). However, the only vehicle to everyone's knowledge in the class that has already recieved government approval is the Suburban Chassis from GM. More will come of course, but GM is working very closely with the US government to design technologies to maintain strict emissions adhearance and fuel economy guidelines. From our understanding these technologies are to be shared with all the automotive community, including competitive manufacturers, as a result of (this is again conjecture) funding by the US government. Remember, the government is making sure all the monitoring systems and failsafes on the vehicle keep it withing similar or better guidelines than those already required on OBD II cars now on the road. Also, you made mention of it once, GM is in the market for combining power and efficiency. They are losing the power race now to the various FR platforms in the industry with big motors, but they are perfecting economy... and forced induction . 2 words chris, Ohms law. It is late, and I'm off to bed. Think about it (and the massive amount of wire in a car ). I'll expound tomorrow. We also discussed that at length as well. However, I am surprised that you haven't already deduced the reasons behind it of yet Chris... Don't let me down man.
first off...geolemon (its chris, right?)...there are a LOT of good reasons for electromechanical ish. what follows is what i can straight up recall about what ive read...its more based on my understanding of engines and less of the 42 volt system 42 volts is needed for the solenoids to operate the valvetrain. the reason i want to go with solenoid is the fact that, at best, there is a range that a variable mechanical valvetrain is limited to. and at best the lift is only somewhat adjustable, and the duration is stepped or variable. in a traditional motor, you stuff a big cam in, you gotta have stiff valvesprings...hmm...stiff means more effort, more effort means less efficiency. if youve ever had a huge N/A monster motor with high compression, youll know that you need a HUGE starter, or some serious gear reduction. that means $$$$$$. with an electromechanical motor, lift is COMPLETELY variable, duration is COMPLETELY variable...and you could make it so its the mildest cam possible for good economy when youre crusing, clear up to a monster cam you wouldnt DARE put in anything but a racecar. so when you combine that with a turbo...ESPECIALLY a variable vane turbo, you can set the cam profile (ill call it that for lack of a better term) to spool that turbo fast, and still make a buttload of power. also, the high torque starter problem is eliminated, because when you wanna spin the motor you open all the valves a bit...makes no resistance on the air flow, meaning no effort to get the crank spinning. more efficiency as far as the valvetrain goes because you can have a wild setup (equivalent of a racing cam), and you dont have to worry about valve float at high rpms...cuz the springs are neither too stiff nor too soft. variable vane turbos make it easier for a motor to breathe on the top end, especially with the variable valving im tired, so thats the best i can do for the moment. eric :stupid:
well I had a post on another automotive site about some csrv heads that were available about two years ago and they used a solenoid to work the valves and it made a 260hp 302 go to 475hp at the same rpm... very good... also they claim they were stable to 14,000 rpm if you hads a bottom end that would take it.... bad part is the oil companies threatened the inventor and that made the cost very high.....now about the 42 volt system I think the monster systems of today could be replaced by far less gear to reach the same output..... like the people who use those 17-24volt alternators now.....
hey seth, or someone else with car knowledge, did i miss anything or was i off base on anything? i tried to go by my poor memory... eric
No, you are right on Eric, and many of those points I chose to illustrate in my quotes above (I am just so damn wordy about things ). The one thing though you are off on a bit is the valves being left partially open for starting. First off, we need greater compression and fuel for a cold start. Unfortunately keeping valves open longer will reduce the compression in the cylinder and reduce swirl time in the cylinder (remember, the shape of the combustion chamber and piston head are specifically designed for the greatest swirl charachteristics which helps aid in more complete combustion). However, I have it on pretty good word that what the first year or 2 vehicle will do is use a starter/alternator all in one type unit (not uncommon, if you have a riding lawnmower, you most likely have one on it as well ) and a serpentine belt drive. HOWEVER, this unit will simply function as a back-up for the "no-starter system" we will see on these cars. Remember, there is nothing mechanical about the valves, nor is there a cam sensor to aid in firing the injectors . Do you see where this is going? The computer will take an appropriate reading of the crankshaft position sensor as soon as the key enters the run position (prior to the crank position) then it will assess where to fire the injectors, close the valves, and fire the coil to begin the combustion process in the proper cylinders to get the vehicle running B) . read this... No more starters at all after a couple years . Thankfully, the designers realise that there are possible inherant weaknesses in this starting system and they are utilising the starter/alternator unit as a precautionary measure. Also, thanks to memory flashing on the computers, I suspect that when it is perfected, we will replace alternator/starters after a failure and recieve only an alternator... with one of those "quick flash" single flash programs we see in the performance industry to reprogram the brain to use the self start mode. Of course I forsee the returning of the programmer as a part of the core fee we are currently assessed when using reman parts .
my point with the ability to open all the valves when starting is easily illustrated by the briggs and stratton motors of a couple years ago. they were getting to be high compression, making them hard to pull start. the point being that you could make the valves all open ONLY when the key is turned in the ignition making it easy to spin, regardless of motor size. the way that the b&s did it was by doing something to the cam so that there was just enough overlap that at low speeds it would be easy to turn, but it became insignificant at higher speeds. i remember reading that the motors would be so that in traffic you could be sitting there with the motor off, but when you stepped on the gas the engine came to life...so i figured it would have to be something like that in order to make cranking easier. anyway, this is all from someone with a lot of theoretical knowledge, but little hands on experience. i could probably build an sbc motor with only parts and torque specs, but i cant say for sure cuz i have yet to do so. soon tho grasshoppa eric
i need to learn to read. i didnt have time at the beginning to read...i saw the topic and went at it eric
Interesting topic. I kinda stayed away till now because I thought it would be a "I saw a [enter old car here] and it was so cool" type of post. I'm not much into the old, as much as the new. Well this topic kinda hit home on one aspect. To be fully honest, I don't think we will see many years of 42 volt systems and combustion engines together. With the advancements in fuel cell technology, and the benifits of it with an electric motor, I can't see us not moving to this in the future. Of course I own stock in Ballard Power Systems, the leader in fuel cells (the "hit home" part I mentioned earlier), so I am REALLY hoping this happens. I figure it will be like buying Microsoft early. :yes: A fuel cell produces a great deal of power off of hydrogen gas. The purer the source, the lower the emissions, but even getting it from gassoline it is much cleaner than a combustible engine. Also efficiency is much greater. You can't get any more efficient than an electric motor at like 98% IIRC. Isn't a combustion engine like only 50 or 60% efficient? But I thought it would be much easier to get the 42 volts from a fuel cell than an alternator. So let's look at numbers. I remember reading about a year ago that Ballard was testing their cells in buses in New York. They had three of their cells, and produced I believe 600 horsepower and 1200 foot pounds of torque. If you guys want more information, check here.
As of right now Steven, I will have to disagree. While the 42 volt systems and all that they entail have been in use for several years, with very real applications being tested, the Hydrogen powered vehicles are not really coming along as well as origionally expected. I think it is something like "supertrucks" (maybe look for a website, or check Motor Magazine's website for more details) is really as close as they have come. It is an alternative fuel truck competition (of which Hydrogen power is the most common) that has been held in the desert, with several groups (engineering groups of high profile universities around the world) sharing ideas and information. Thus far, while highly hyped, if you look into what has really been accomplished, over a period of almost 7 years I believe it is, I'm sure you will see that the drawbacks have proven to be greater then the results thus far. The main problems being storage (like the nitrogen I mentioned earlier, it is highly compressed) and delivery as well as a totally unrealistic cost (even excluding the cost of R&D). Thus far the fuel cells have all proven to be so large and dangerous, that they are either mounted in the bed of a truck, or in a contained unit inside the rear of an SUV. I suspect we will see 42 volt systems around for 40 years or so (the typical lifespan for a basic electrical engineering platform in the automotive industry it seems ). With the job that I do, and being one of a very elite group in my industry, I need to keep abreast of what is going on right now, as well as what will be happening in the future. My bathroom reading consists of sereval industry publications, of which I pay particular attention to the pattern failure (TSB) articals, equipment articles, and the future of the industry articles. The general consensus is that while 42 volt systems seem a bit farfetched and unrealistic, they are already here. Alternative fuels (aside from maybe propane) will not be widely accepted and with the release of the design concepts and possibilities/advantages of the system the focus should fall squarely on the development of other possibilities based on these designs. I think if you re-read my above posted articles, you will see the way these systems will affect the petrolium consumption and the air we breathe. Remember, perfect combustion of gasoline results in the chemicals N2 (nitrogen) H2O (water) CO2 (carbon dioxide, a harmless gas used by plants for photosynthesis, not CO or carbom monoxide, the deadly gas). While we will never be perfect the possibilities of this new technology ensure us we will be DAMN close. Remember, the only real electric vehicle we saw (and I'll bet that aside from pictures you never saw one ) was the EV1. It was a GM design released for testing in California, and yes I saw a few of them while I was out there, that have all been taken back and destroyed. We are not about to give up our IC cars that easily. While the conversion to 42 volt systems may be a big thing to you and I, John Q Public doesn't give a shit. After all, they are still running the same as they always have, and as long as the perception of how they are working stays the same, old Johnny P will accept it.
If you look on their site, you will see all the different vehicles by different manufacturers that use the fuel cells and have been tested. Believe me when I say that they are way beyond colledge students testing. They are dealing with many of the largest manufacturers. "To date, Ballard has supplied automotive fuel cells to DaimlerChrysler, Ford, Daewoo, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Volkswagen, and Volvo." "Ballard® fuel cells are inside the vehicles our customers, DaimlerChrysler, Ford and Honda will have on the road in 2003." And they will most likely be in production models very shortly. "Ballard’s automotive customers have said they will begin market introduction of commercial hydrogen-fueled fuel cell vehicles, in limited volumes, between 2010 and 2012." Well here's a fuel cell power module. It is much smaller than you think. And here's the electric motor a couple of the manufacturers are using. "Fuel cell vehicles, when using a liquid fuel, can provide equivalent range compared to today's internal combustion engine vehicles. Many companies today are aggressively pursuing the development of hydrogen storage technologies to ensure a non-compromise vehicle in terms of range and cargo space." As you can see, you are right in that the storage of the fuel is a little larger. But there are some advantages to it as described here: "Hydrogen has some unique properties when compared to other fuels, such as gasoline. For instance, hydrogen for cars is stored in a very strong tank, so in the case of a collision the chance of a fuel leak is less likely than that from a thin metal gasoline tank. As well, hydrogen’s lighter-than-air properties allow it to dissipate rapidly in the surrounding air if a leak occurs, rather than pooling around potential sources of ignition, as gasoline does. Hydrogen also burns without smoke - this is important because smoke inhalation is the number one cause of death in gasoline fires." "Fuel cells have no moving parts. Therefore, they have excellent reliability and long operating lives. Fuel cell systems can use multiple fuels such as natural gas, methanol, petroleum, and hydrogen. They have sufficient power density to power an automobile and the refueling ease of an ICE." I think you misunderstood me. I'm sure the 42 volt systems will be around for quite some time. What I was saying is that the combination of 42 volt systems and internal combustion engines will probably be short lived. I think we will move onto the electric engines, and 42 volt systems. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I think Michael is right. A big problem is our supply, and that is why we are looking elsewhere. Polutants are only a part of it. Eliminating those doesn't help the problem with a limited supply. Do a search on the Ballard site, and you will see all the vehicles they have produced and tested. There are many buses in several different cities using Ballard fuel cells. But if the government steps in and makes requirements to the manufacturers to reduce polutants and reduce oil consumption, then it will change. We are seeing this happening right now.
