Topic: Man, you guys are going to kill me.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

To address the transmission thing:

There's a lot of this discussion between various builders, and the general consensus ON A MOTORCYCLE, is that the weight, complexity, and added inefficiencies of a transmission tend to eliminate the benefit. If you have the room for a transmission, it's a better idea to stuff a few more batteries in there and up the voltage or parallel a few more batteries in there.

We've done some looking into CVTs from snowmobiles, and Square Wave used one on their race bike, but where having reliability issues so they ended up swapping it out for a bigger motor and more batteries. There is a bike called Brutus that has a Harley gearbox, but the owner built the frame with that in mind so he had plenty of room left over for his batteries and motor. The same room is not really available in my frame.

Regarding LPG:

At work we recently released a lift truck that uses LPG, and it still produces enough pollution to be unsafe for food environments and indoor use, unlike the electric trucks. It's just another side of the same internal combustion coin.

Regarding hydrogen:

I personally feel hydrogen is less capable than electric traction for a few reasons. You claim that it's becoming cheaper and more efficient to produce, but there are still a few inherent problems. Hydrogen storage being one of them (see Hindenburg). I also look at hydrogen as another way to sell a commodity fuel, why do you think oil companies invest so heavily in it?

In terms of infrastructure, our electrical grid is already in place (although in dire need of an upgrade), so the infrastructure is already somewhat in place. And there are obviously much "greener" ways to produce electricity, using solar and tide and wind and all that #$%*.

I'm not a total green weenie or anything, but there is a certain to powering your car off a power source that we can personally produce. There's a few guys over on the forum who have solar panels and wind turbines that they use to personally charge up their vehicles. Not depending on foreign oil for a fuel source is just refreshing.

[Retro Rocket]

At work we recently released a lift truck that uses LPG, and it still produces enough pollution to be unsafe for food environments and indoor use, unlike the electric trucks. It's just another side of the same internal combustion coin.

All forklifts here in Aus are run on LPG, there is no danger of contamination of food. I paint epoxy floors and all industrial type epoxy painting, so i am in industrial complexes almost every week, for this reason i have to have a forklift, cherry picker {boom lift} and scissor lift licenses, i drive these vehicles inside every complex i have worked in including food manufacturing and storage facilitiues, gas burns far cleaner than most all other fuels. You need to remember that most Taxi's here in Aus have been running gas since the 1970's and we have production gas cars and a thriving gas conversion industry, have done for 30+ years, gas vehicles are very common here, most of our buses run gas as well.  Here is a quote from a site in Aus
 

LPG is widely used in the Food Industry like Hotels, Restaurants, Bakeries,Canteens, Resorts etc. Low sulphur content and controllable temperature makes LPG the most preferred fuel in the food industry.

I personally feel hydrogen is less capable than electric traction for a few reasons. You claim that it's becoming cheaper and more efficient to produce, but there are still a few inherent problems. Hydrogen storage being one of them (see Hindenburg). I also look at hydrogen as another way to sell a commodity fuel, why do you think oil companies invest so heavily in it?

Thats a really poor example my friend, you store petrol, LPG or any other combustible fuel in a light thin container and you will end up with the same result. Proper storage containers for hydrogen are safer than car fuel tanks, so we can eliminate that conclusion. Hydrogen is the most available element in the universe, we would be absolutely stupid to discount something that is so readily available and clean as far as fuel usage goes, mark my words, it will be the future of powered personally owned and mainstream  transport, we have to just stop propping up poorly run auto companies and use the money to fund the future, not keep outdated industries alive for the sake of it.... Solar is another industry that is huge here and has been a normal part of our lives for almost 40 years, most houses where i live use solar hot water systems and they are now mandatory in new houses built here in Brisbane. There are also a large amount of houses now substituting power consumption with the use of solar panels, discounts and power buy back schemes are helping solar become mainstream here in Australia. We are also building massive solar farms, {the biggest in the world} and have lots of wind turbines as well, wave generators made of stainless steel are another power source being built to run off the consistent ocean currents running just off our coastline.....The problem i see with electric vehicles is that they still rely on coal fired power stations for their power, not really helping eliminate the worst type of emissions being released into the environment in ever increasing doses..  Don't even start me on Nuclear power.....  Don't let any of this stop you in your electric bike build mate, i love seeing people work outside the box and doing something different....

[Sheik Yerbouti]

At work we recently released a lift truck that uses LPG, and it still produces enough pollution to be unsafe for food environments and indoor use, unlike the electric trucks. It's just another side of the same internal combustion coin.

All forklifts here in Aus are run on LPG, there is no danger of contamination of food. I paint epoxy floors and all industrial type epoxy painting, so i am in industrial complexes almost every week, for this reason i have to have a forklift, cherry picker {boom lift} and scissor lift licenses, i drive these vehicles inside every complex i have worked in including food manufacturing and storage facilitiues, gas burns far cleaner than most all other fuels. You need to remember that most Taxi's here in Aus have been running gas since the 1970's and we have production gas cars and a thriving gas conversion industry, have done for 30+ years, gas vehicles are very common here, most of our buses run gas as well.  Here is a quote from a site in Aus
 

LPG is widely used in the Food Industry like Hotels, Restaurants, Bakeries,Canteens, Resorts etc. Low sulphur content and controllable temperature makes LPG the most preferred fuel in the food industry.

I personally feel hydrogen is less capable than electric traction for a few reasons. You claim that it's becoming cheaper and more efficient to produce, but there are still a few inherent problems. Hydrogen storage being one of them (see Hindenburg). I also look at hydrogen as another way to sell a commodity fuel, why do you think oil companies invest so heavily in it?

Thats a really poor example my friend, you store petrol, LPG or any other combustible fuel in a light thin container and you will end up with the same result. Proper storage containers for hydrogen are safer than car fuel tanks, so we can eliminate that conclusion. Hydrogen is the most available element in the universe, we would be absolutely stupid to discount something that is so readily available and clean as far as fuel usage goes, mark my words, it will be the future of powered personally owned and mainstream  transport, we have to just stop propping up poorly run auto companies and use the money to fund the future, not keep outdated industries alive for the sake of it.... Solar is another industry that is huge here and has been a normal part of our lives for almost 40 years, most houses where i live use solar hot water systems and they are now mandatory in new houses built here in Brisbane. There are also a large amount of houses now substituting power consumption with the use of solar panels, discounts and power buy back schemes are helping solar become mainstream here in Australia. We are also building massive solar farms, {the biggest in the world} and have lots of wind turbines as well, wave generators made of stainless steel are another power source being built to run off the consistent ocean currents running just off our coastline.....The problem i see with electric vehicles is that they still rely on coal fired power stations for their power, not really helping eliminate the worst type of emissions being released into the environment in ever increasing doses..  Don't even start me on Nuclear power.....  Don't let any of this stop you in your electric bike build mate, i love seeing people work outside the box and doing something different....

Hydrogen may be the most abundant element in the universe, but it doesn't exist naturally on earth. We need to use a tremendous amount of energy to produce hydrogen using electrolysis, most often using methane and fossil fuels.

Hydrogen by nature has low energy per unit volume compared to traditional fossil fuels, making tanks large and heavy as well require very high tank pressures.

Many automakers and economics share my opinion on hydrogen powered vehicles:

 U.S. Department of Energy official Joseph Romm, "A hydrogen car is one of the least efficient, most expensive ways to reduce greenhouse gases." Asked when hydrogen cars will be broadly available, Romm replied: "Not in our lifetime, and very possibly never."[71] The Los Angeles Times wrote, in February 2009, "Hydrogen fuel-cell technology won't work in cars. ... Any way you look at it, hydrogen is a lousy way to move cars."[72] A 2007 article in Technology Review stated, "In the context of the overall energy economy, a car like the BMW Hydrogen 7 would probably produce far more carbon dioxide emissions than gasoline-powered cars available today. And changing this calculation would take multiple breakthroughs – which study after study has predicted will take decades, if they arrive at all. In fact, the Hydrogen 7 and its hydrogen-fuel-cell cousins are, in many ways, simply flashy distractions produced by automakers who should be taking stronger immediate action to reduce the greenhouse-gas emissions of their cars."[46][73]

The Washington Post asked in November 2009, "But why would you want to store energy in the form of hydrogen and then use that hydrogen to produce electricity for a motor, when electrical energy is already waiting to be sucked out of sockets all over America and stored in auto batteries"? The paper concluded that commercializing hydrogen cars is "stupendously difficult and probably pointless. That's why, for the foreseeable future, the hydrogen car will remain a tailpipe dream".[50] A December 2009 study at UC Davis, published in the Journal of Power Sources, found that, over their lifetimes, hydrogen vehicles will emit more carbon than gasoline vehicles.[76]

 Chairman and CEO of General Motors, Daniel Akerson, stated that while the cost of hydrogen fuel cell cars is decreasing: "The car is still too expensive and probably won't be practical until the 2020-plus period, I don't know."

[Retro Rocket]

Hydrogen may be the most abundant element in the universe, but it doesn't exist naturally on earth. We need to use a tremendous amount of energy to produce hydrogen using electrolysis, most often using methane and fossil fuels.

It no longer needs massive amounts of energy to produce, thats why i posted what i did. There are now Hydrogen power stations in some parts of Europe. There are a few new ways that have been developed recently to extract hydrogen.

Hydrogen by nature has low energy per unit volume compared to traditional fossil fuels, making tanks large and heavy as well require very high tank pressures.

The energy produced means absolutely nothing, its the way it burns and the lack of pollutants thats important here.  those quotes are outdated and anything coming from your government departments need to be taken with a grain of salt.  Reading some of that quote is just naive rubbish put together by politicians....

Many automakers and economics share my opinion on hydrogen powered vehicles:

Of course they do, they are the ones with the most to loose, it is well documented that the US auto makers do everything to resist change, even to their own detriment. GM bought a patient for a much more efficient type of engine developed by a West Australian by the name of Ralph Sarrich, they shelved it because retooling would cost a small fortune and they didn't want anyone else to use the technology which could put their outdated engine program out to pasture. While there is still billions to be made out of petrochemicals your auto industry will say and do anything to resist change, that goes for your economists as well. It really doesn't take much to work that out. You guys are the biggest polluters on the planet and the most resistant to change.... If your stupid politicians don't get their #$%* together you guys will be left behind..... I'm afraid that quoting auto manufacturers and politicians means absolutely nothing to me at all, they are the ones with the most to loose.....

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Hydrogen may be the most abundant element in the universe, but it doesn't exist naturally on earth. We need to use a tremendous amount of energy to produce hydrogen using electrolysis, most often using methane and fossil fuels.

It no longer needs massive amounts of energy to produce, thats why i posted what i did. There are now Hydrogen power stations in some parts of Europe. There are a few new ways that have been developed recently to extract hydrogen.

Hydrogen by nature has low energy per unit volume compared to traditional fossil fuels, making tanks large and heavy as well require very high tank pressures.

The energy produced means absolutely nothing, its the way it burns and the lack of pollutants thats important here.  those quotes are outdated and anything coming from your government departments need to be taken with a grain of salt.  Reading some of that quote is just naive rubbish put together by politicians....

Many automakers and economics share my opinion on hydrogen powered vehicles:

Of course they do, they are the ones with the most to loose, it is well documented that the US auto makers do everything to resist change, even to their own detriment. GM bought a patient for a much more efficient type of engine developed by a West Australian by the name of Ralph Sarrich, they shelved it because retooling would cost a small fortune and they didn't want anyone else to use the technology which could put their outdated engine program out to pasture. While there is still billions to be made out of petrochemicals your auto industry will say and do anything to resist change, that goes for your economists as well. It really doesn't take much to work that out. You guys are the biggest polluters on the planet and the most resistant to change.... If your stupid politicians don't get their #$%* together you guys will be left behind..... I'm afraid that quoting auto manufacturers and politicians means absolutely nothing to me at all, they are the ones with the most to loose.....

I wouldn't mind reading about the new methods of hydrogen production. You have any links?

[Syscrush]

I wouldn't mind reading about the new methods of hydrogen production. You have any links?

Same here, but there's no way around the fact that it takes more energy to electrolyze hydrogen out of water than what you get back when you run it through a fuel cell (40-60% efficient), or an internal combustion engine (30-35% efficient).

[Retro Rocket]

I wouldn't mind reading about the new methods of hydrogen production. You have any links?

I''ll see if i can find it all again, i had it all bookmarked but my computer recently died and i lost around 500 bookmarks. There was a story recently over here wher a guy in Melbourne has a simple converter fitted to his car and runs a normal car quite successfully on Hydrogen, he is also a huge sceptic when it comes to the establishments predictions or comments on Hydrogen and its uses.
There was another guy in the US doing similar things but , coincidence or not he was murdered..
His name was Stan Meyer.
Piles of stuff here..
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/4847

Here's an interesting page about salt water as a fuel..

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/alternative-fuels/salt-water-fuel.htm

More interesting stuff...

http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/meyerswatercell.htm

More info on Hydrogen

http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/blog2/index.php/hydrogen-fuel-production/new-hydrogen-production-methods-worth-noting/

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/06/cheap-hydrogen-production-from-water-using-cobalt-catalyst.ars

I'll see if i can find any of the other pages i had....

but there's no way around the fact that it takes more energy to electrolyze hydrogen out of water than what you get back when you run it through a fuel cell

Why would you ever say there's no way, crystal ball maybe...?

Hydrogen power plant in Italy

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/a-hydrogen-power-plant-in-italy/

[scottly]

To get back on track here, Sheik, what is the maximum voltage and amps your controller is rated for? (You can over-volt the motor by a fair amount with no problems.) 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

My controller is rated for 80V 400A peak.

[scottly]

Thanks. Get that sucker put together and give us a ride report!!!!

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I'm tryin but Retro Rocket has me stuck behind my computer arguing the validity of electric propulsion! (Just kidding dude, I'm excited to check out those links you posted)

[Retro Rocket]

I'm tryin but Retro Rocket has me stuck behind my computer arguing the validity of electric propulsion! (Just kidding dude, I'm excited to check out those links you posted)

No worries, i was going to apologize for the hijack but seeings though you were involved i thought it a waste of time....  

[Terry in Australia]

LPG is the cleanest fuel commonly available, with almost zero carbon pollution, and is much cheaper than gasoline.

This is so false it's ridiculous.  You need to study some chemistry, my man.

LPG aka Propane aka C3H8 has very, very little unburned hydrocarbon emissions, and unburned LPG is not toxic, which is nice.  But it's still a hydrocarbon and the main byproducts are CO2 and H2O.  NOx and CO is less than with gasoline, but still present, along with some organic compounds as a result of the SO2 that's added to the LPG.

LPG is great, but snide comments about greenies being irrational will come off better if you're not stating stuff that's factually incorrect in the same post.

Yeah mate, well googled........... But your last statement is correct, LPG is great, and at the moment, is the cleanest fuel available in commercial quantities. Trouble is, Greenies, hippies and other assorted dreamers desperately want electricity to be the "fuel of choice", regardless of the negatives (of which there are many, particularly in countries as large as the US) inherent in the production of electric vehicles,  the enormous burden of generating enough electricity to continue to power them, and the disposal of millions of additional batteries every year. As I said before, electric vehicles are great for their novelty value, but until the technology improves markedly, impracticle. Cheers, Terry.

[Syscrush]

Why would you ever say there's no way, crystal ball maybe...?

Basic thermodynamics.  If you could get more energy out of Hydrogen through combustion or fuel cell use than what it takes to electrolyze it out of water, then you'd have a perpetual motion machine.  It would be the same as claiming that you can get more energy out of a wheel rolling down a hill than what you put into pushing it up the hill.

[Syscrush]

Yeah mate, well googled...........

It's not about knowing how to use Google, it's about understanding basic chemistry.

You've put together some beautiful bikes and I always enjoy your posts on here, but you're off the mark on some of the chemical and physical details of this subject.

[Rgconner]

Why would you ever say there's no way, crystal ball maybe...?

Basic thermodynamics.  If you could get more energy out of Hydrogen through combustion or fuel cell use than what it takes to electrolyze it out of water, then you'd have a perpetual motion machine.  It would be the same as claiming that you can get more energy out of a wheel rolling down a hill than what you put into pushing it up the hill.

Australians are descended from criminals, they scoff at the Laws of Thermodynamics!

[Retro Rocket]

Why would you ever say there's no way, crystal ball maybe...?

Basic thermodynamics.  If you could get more energy out of Hydrogen through combustion or fuel cell use than what it takes to electrolyze it out of water, then you'd have a perpetual motion machine.  It would be the same as claiming that you can get more energy out of a wheel rolling down a hill than what you put into pushing it up the hill.

Not any more mate, did you look at any of the links i posted. They are splitting water with 1.5 volts and using some cheap metals like cobalt and , can't remember the other one at present. If you think technology won't catch up sooner or later then i find your post very pessimistic. The research is being done in Australia with the help of an American University, they have already achieved what you say is impossible...... Perpetual motion has nothing to do with it at all.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/artificial-leaf-0930.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090406102555.htm
http://vodpod.com/watch/1328771-mit-easily-splitting-water-into-oxygen-and-hydrogen

[Rgconner]

Why would you ever say there's no way, crystal ball maybe...?

Basic thermodynamics.  If you could get more energy out of Hydrogen through combustion or fuel cell use than what it takes to electrolyze it out of water, then you'd have a perpetual motion machine.  It would be the same as claiming that you can get more energy out of a wheel rolling down a hill than what you put into pushing it up the hill.

Not any more mate, did you look at any of the links i posted. They are splitting water with 1.5 volts and using some cheap metals like cobalt and , can't remember the other one at present. If you think technology won't catch up sooner or later then i find your post very pessimistic. The research is being done in Australia with the help of an American University, they have already achieved what you say is impossible...... Perpetual motion has nothing to do with it at all.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/artificial-leaf-0930.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090406102555.htm
http://vodpod.com/watch/1328771-mit-easily-splitting-water-into-oxygen-and-hydrogen

When in a hole, stop digging.

The links about the artificial "leaf" use sunlight to break down the water. No more power coming out than going in. Granted, the SUN is powering the system, so there are no fossil fuels going into the equation.

Secondly,

Voltage has nothing to do with how efficient the processes is going to be.

Watts is what is interesting, how many watts of energy go into splitting the water and how many watts do you get get out of the engine you burn it in.

There is no way with current physics that you can get more energy out of that cycle than you can put into it.

Unless you are talking about cold fusion.... then I have a couple of matched neutrons I want sell you.

Named them Pons and Fleischmann.

[Retro Rocket]

Watts is what is interesting, how many watts of energy go into splitting the water and how many watts do you get get out of the engine you burn it in.

Its more down to cost, it used to cost more to split than it was worth as a fuel, we are talking about water here, once the splitting process is down pat it will be far cheaper to produce than any other fuel, so if its a less efficient fuel it's benefits will still out weigh the cost of producing it.  If that wasn't the case it would not be being  used  to generate power in power stations, and Universities like MIT wouldn't be wasting time on something that a few deem impossible. I don't think i am in a hole at all mate, i am just a little more optimistic that this problem will be solved sooner than later. Nothing will convince me that hydrogen will not be the fuel of the future and we would be stupid not to pursue it....

[Syscrush]

Perpetual motion has nothing to do with it at all.

It absolutely does.

If it's possible to electrolyze H2 out of H20 in a way that requires less energy than what you get back when running it through a fuel cell or internal combustion engine, then you could use that internal combustion engine to drive a generator to provide the power for the electrolysis.  Furthermore, since the exhaust of the ICE is H2O, then you can have a closed system between the exhaust of the engine and the electrolysis tank.  There's your perpetual motion machine.

Which is how you know it's bull.

What H2 is primarily is a slightly cleaner, much more complicated battery technology.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Watts is what is interesting, how many watts of energy go into splitting the water and how many watts do you get get out of the engine you burn it in.

Its more down to cost, it used to cost more to split than it was worth as a fuel, we are talking about water here, once the splitting process is down pat it will be far cheaper to produce than any other fuel, so if its a less efficient fuel it's benefits will still out weigh the cost of producing it.  If that wasn't the case it would not be being  used  to generate power in power stations, and Universities like MIT wouldn't be wasting time on something that a few deem impossible. I don't think i am in a hole at all mate, i am just a little more optimistic that this problem will be solved sooner than later. Nothing will convince me that hydrogen will not be the fuel of the future and we would be stupid not to pursue it....

I had no idea people were so pessimistic about the future of batteries?

[TwoTired]

I guess Cobalt is cheap until you actually have to buy it?

I recall a reading about new battery technology that was using cobalt to help boost power density.  (For the Chevy Volt, I think.)  But, they were quite expensive because they used Cobalt, then classed as an expensive metal.  And, of course, if the demand for Cobalt goes up, so will the price.  (As did lead when the Hybrids like the Prius began to get popular, or be made in significant production quantities.) 
Anyway, the pricing very nearly blows the Cobalt based battery out of long term viability.  Funny how commodities and mass production inter-relate.

I recall ordinary rocks getting quite pricey when they became "pets". 

I really have nothing against Hydrogen technology.  It's clear they can be dealt with if proper care is given.  However, even today's auto technology is way above 80% of the buying public, who believe carburetor technology is beyond their understanding, and often abused to the point of danger.
Imagine the complexity of hydrogen cars in the hands of an ignorant public who want to make it faster.  Sure, it CAN be safe.  But, not with a high school hacker who just want to try something different, and bypass some safety components, so it can be faster.
Fortunately, the mushroom clouds will be smaller than a when a nuke plant attracts similar "meddling".

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Actually, RC batteries contain some cobalt in their lithium chemistry, and that ups their energy density, but also ups there explosiveness if there is a catastrophic failure.

[scottly]

I suspect the increase in the demand for cobalt is more likely due to its use in making very strong permanent magnets. Ever check out the magnet inside a disc drive? Don't get your fingertips between it and a flat piece of steel! As the technology improves, these magnets can be applied to larger motors, greatly improving their efficiency.   

[TwoTired]

I had no idea people were so pessimistic about the future of batteries?

I built an electric car in the 80s.  Battery technology was reported to be on the "verge" of becoming 10 times more power dense.  Of course, all I could get at the time were lead acid RV marine batteries.  I bought 18 of them for the car. (A fiberfab Avenger)
I did the calculations.  Range was estimated at 100 miles, which was 20 miles more than my trip to work and back.
Electricity cost and factoring in the then current battery replacement cost, showed a 30% saving in transportation cost.
Then California decided to limit the the electrical power use in each home, and set an arbitrary allowance per household.  Go over the allowance and the rates got more pricey, with surcharges of 100%, 200%, and 300% incrementally.  They also eliminated the off peak price reduction for usage.

All this meant that using the electric car would now be on par or even more expensive than using a gas fueled car.  The only remaining advantage was that I could use the commute lane help avoid rush hour traffic back ups.  3 years later, they changed the rules and no longer allowed electric cars to use commute lanes, unless they had two or more passengers, same as gas fueled cars.  The CB550 became my main commute vehicle.

I had to give up on the electric car, and mine sits abandoned in the garage (the batteries now sulfated).  It waits for the right batteries to make it viable, which are still "on the verge", like in the 80s.  Batteries HAVE gained power density, but the power density to cost has also increased, far higher than the power density to weight ratio.  And, the recharge costs have gotten even worse.

It was a fun toy, and I learned a lot in the process, but it isn't economically practical, and won't be until the charging stations are as populous as gas stations.  The infrastructure only supports gas fueled cars.  And no entrepreneur i going to invest in infrastructure unless there are profits to be made, which means it will be more expensive than current gasoline infrastructure.  The government has a huge incentive to impede any transition, as their tax component on electricity is nowhere near what is garnered from petroleum fuel taxes.
In my opinion, the entire "green" movement has really been corrupted and converted into getting more income from the populace.  I was "green" way before it was popular, the reward was then and always will be that everyone must pay (more) to become that.

Anyway, that's why I'm pessimistic about batteries.  Still waiting for the power density to go up, the cost to be competitive with the entrenched petroleum "solution", and the weight to power ratio to get more viable, which will make the range far more acceptable, even in hilly terrain.

I'm not trying to talk you out of your project.  It looks fun and should be a great learning tool.  If it turns into a practical machine as well, you'll be a proud and educated owner!

Cheers,