@@jonskowitz Yep, that's what I was going at. I wasn't that interested either back then so I was that kid some times, but a group of uninterested kids makes classes so unproductive. Respect for those teachers. And nice for Jason that he has just interested viewers that keep quiet while he is talking. :D
Did he really mention that CO2 is highly preferred pollution over NOx? Must of missed it. NOx is an oxidizing agent and will react with other gases, particles, etc What you end up with is ground level ozone, smog, acid rains and more issues. My main concern is that this guy know it but make no mention while claiming "at least we get rid of that Carbon pollution" without even a mention about NOx big issues. It cause respiratory problem, allergies, inflammation of the lungs and throat, etc. How do I know he does ? He know what he talk about on it for the rest of the video. Bit of a bias when you claim a good thing you get rid of is CO2 when you dont show the other is worse. Its hundredS of time more dangerous for our climate. Why do people never explain that impress me. But such is youtube I suppose. (not trying to pull him down, still a fun watch)
@@onlythewise1 You do realize that Hydrogen is the way forward... All electric cars are not... Until battery technology can advance to the point of recyclable, high capacity, high voltage, compact batteries arrive. Which there is already tests on solid state batteries and solid state hydrogen fuel cells that will be the future. Oh and you can make hydrogen in your garage from water using electricity... Can you do that with fossil fuels?! 👌😉😜
As a car guy I really enjoyed your content. I've been working on internal combustion engines for 40 years, and it was great to get your insight into what the future will bring. Thanks so much
@@JoaoSilva-bh3de I am a bit confused about the advantage in burning speed. All my knowledge points that you cannot make power with fast burning vapors in a combustion engine. There is no point in fast igniting when we are near TDC. What you need, is a fuel that still burns and produces more pressure when piston is in optimum angle, about 50% down. That is why nitromethane makes so much power, it burns slower than gasoline. And vapors in general burn 3x faster than gasoline, only some 10-20% of piston travel. So i assume that hydrogen engine cannot make significant power without reducing the speed of combustion. I understand that in racing they use water injection, but naturally that is not viable in street use. GM claims to bring hydrogen-combustion truck engine soon. But in the presentation if you reed between the lines, they still have not resolved this issue. And there is no guarantee that they ever will.
Excellent!!!! The only person that I know that can have 15 pages of text in engineering in a video less than 15 minutes long. Very dense content. With a whiteboard on the background? Priceless....
How does running lean reduces Nox if you run lean on a gasoline engine Nox will increases because of heat not decrease. Is there a difference between Hydrogen engines
@@natedavis5574 The activation energy to break the simple H2 bond is VERY low, and the reason Hydrogen gas is dangerous in quantity; the activation energy to break the C-H bond is higher, so because ignition temperature is lower, more oxygen reacts with Hydrogen than happens with Octane or other hydrocarbons. 2H2 + O2 => 2H2O is a much lower 'energy hill' to get over than with hydrocarbon combustion, so less of the triple N2 bonds are broken and less NOx is formed; make sense?
@@HuntingTarg If it's lean it means there is excess oxygen that can (potentially) react with nitrogen. (Don't claim a lean hydrogen burn has NO NOX at all, it it's not lean enough it will have nox for sure) Whether that happens pretty much depends on the temperature. H2+O2=H20 and N2+O2=NOX are 2 separate reactions, if O2+N2 get hot enough they will form NOx. The thing where hydrogen and petrol differ is this: when an lpg, cng, diesel, petrol, etc engine is running rich it means more liquid fuel will turn into a gas (this is why water injection reduces emissions) and if you inject too much fuel then there is no oxygen left to marry the nitrogen. If you run lean obviously the opposite is happening. For hydrogen engines the max flame temperature 2600°C is achieved at a stochiometric a/f mixture; the zeldovich reaction (N2+O/N+O2=nox) usually occurs above 1600°C, but it does occur below that temp as well under certain conditions. When a hydrogen a/f mixture is leaner it will burn cooler because there is less fuel(less energy) that has to heat up the same volume (all the gasses inside your reaction chamber). Hydrogen is already a gas, so when hydrogen burns there is no liquid that needs to boil, and boiling is an endothermic reaction. Even simpler said: it takes energy to turn a liquid into a gas, and when you inject water or inject extra diesel/petrol into your engine it's extra liquid that sucks up heat. Lean petrol runs hotter than stochiometric petrol, lean hydrogen runs cooler than stochiometric hydrogen. That's the difference.
It is nice to get this stuff at least at a basic university level and not dumbed down. As an engineer I find videos like this do a good job of explaining just short a deep dive into high level math. With the objection to that is that it would really limit your audience. This is a good balance between going all the way into it while explaining enough. On the other hand need for the chemistry is a given these days for this level of video. Overall, a really good well balanced job
Just proves one needn't delve too deeply into the higher maths to convey physics and chemistry. It's important to understand the 'mechanics' of processes before being thrown to the lions of calculus. As Einstein said: “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
I am not skilled from a chemistry perspective, but this was the best video I've seen that clearly explains the difference without too much technical complexity. Well done. Thank you
@@chrisnewman7281 I worked in automotive engineering for one of the Big 3 for many years. We were more or less required to called it a "thermal event", especially in written documentation and correspondence for reasons that, believe it or not, were required by the legal department. This is very important to protect intellectual property in the event of a law suit or recall. Better to say, "the brake test data does not meet the engineering criteria", rather than, "the brakes fade too quickly and are dangerous"
I remember looking at this in a Ford research study using cylinder pressure analysis. The study showed very high maximum rates of pressure rises compared to gasoline. We thought that the engine would have to be structurally much more robust to accommodate the pressure loads. This was way back in 2006 or 7 when the study was presented.
does that also mean hydrogen is right now a better fuel source for heavy duty machinery like trucks and farming/construction equipment? because I think unless the weight of the engine can be sorted out to both resist high pressure but also be light; I’m not sure it could rev up despite the power increase
The way you always integrate the mathematics into the science of your videos makes you one of the few credible sources on the internet. Thank you for that.
Came to the comments to say the same thing, I haven't been around quite as long but I was just thinking the other day about your more recent videos -- I do like them quite a bit, but the whiteboard videos are my favs.
Jason excellent as always..im requesting all my children watch all your videos ..great educational tools...i try and explain these concepts to them..they think im a mad man....your videos help them understand and appreciate the concepts. .excellent. thank you
@@EngineeringExplained So what would happen to the NO2 level and the combustion process if you added a typical nitrous plate below the throttle body and instead of injecting Nitrous oxide you injected a spray of water to cool the burn? Would it help lower the temp and lower the NO2 in the exhaust?
I wish my teachers taught like this rather than handing out worksheets, you give a picture which helps a ton from a visual standpoint and thoroughly explain it. Well done.
While not the focus of the video, at all, I think that was one of the best explanations of engine knock and its relation to octane that Ive seen around... Most 'car guy' vids manage to present it in either an extremely confusing, or flat out incorrect way. Nicely done!
White board got bigger after 2 million subs. After 3 million subs will the white board be like those chalk boards are universities that have a rolling ladder?
@@longboarderebright What ?? You've HEARD OF THEM huh ? HAHAHA wow of course they exist mate, you go to the local shop and you pick one up. Where do you live ? that they appear to be in short supply i'm in Australia
Jason, when I opened up your video this morning and saw the crowded whiteboard behind you, I almost turned off my iPad and went back to bed!😆 Seriously, another excellent, succinct lesson on rather complicated subject. You are the number one source for this aging, retired engineer/car guy on modern automotive technology!😃 I can’t tell you how much I enjoy watching your videos. 👍
Who said retired engineer? There is no such a thing sir. If you need, I'll be glad to have you file some patents. I'm sure you can type? Or do voice to text? Stay sharp. All the best.
Great video! Very well done and easy to understand. I did get the impression that control of the comparison leaned a bit toward gas and that naturally aspirated engines might not be the best vehicle for comparison also I would like to see an actual real world rundown comparing emissions of gasoline, nitrogen and LP
Yeah, RUclips's algorithm is a bit choppy today, so unfortunately the video didn't get pushed out much. There were basically zero views for an hour or so on RUclips, and I happened to schedule my video during that window (I post the same time every week haha).
@@gasdive why? They would have learned a lot from the people around them before. So long as they look into what they are trying to implement more before they do it (to fix any misconceptions), this is ok
Wow, I had no idea exactly how comply the modern engine was. But you did a amazing job of explaining it. Thank's for all your time and effort in making this video, I appreciate it because it has totally changed the way I see my car's engine. I'm glad I found your channel and I did subscribe to it, please keep up the AWESOME work and I'll keep coming back for more.
Haha love it! Thanks for the reply man, means a lot. You're one of the reasons I'm creating on RUclips myself on my own channel! Always loved your work man, please check out mine, any criticism or advice would be warmly welcomed! 👍
Lol... it's funny that at this point this is a dated reference. I wonder how many people got it. It still works out of context so I'm not sure I can just count the likes.
The big problem with hydrogen is fuel leaks. Hydrogen will leak through steel tanks with little difficulty. It also tends to form bubbles under overhanging roofs unless they are vented. This means that any enclosed space around a hydrogen tank will have hydrogen present, the wide air fuel ratio will mean the gas mixture will be explosive (the absolute lower explosive limit being about 1.5% hydrogen in air). This translates as having to make the interior of the car a legally defined electrical hazardous area, requiring all the wiring to be either explosion proof or intrinsically safe.
@@allangibson8494 Perhaps you didn't know, more house fires that are not arson are started by an electrical short in a car in an attached garage than anything else. Ask your insurance agent why attached garages increase premium cost. Also, spilled gasoline fumes will hug the ground without air stirring. H2 will 'float' away if vented. But yeah, hydrogen is much more difficult to contain.
With hydrogen you can actually step on the gas. Petrol is a liquid under standard conditions, so no idea why some people keep referring to it as a “gas”. 🤣
I'd love a video on hydrogen combustion vs hydrogen fuel cell. I'm sure it'll end up being similar to your EV vs ICE video, but I'm sure there are subtlties there that are worth explaining/exploring
Watching the video 24 hours later i got a question in ICE exam about the difference between gasoline and hydrogen engines THANK YOU ENGINEERING EXPLAINED
Wow... Your subtle little hand motion that accompanied your mention of a 4 stroke engine was what finally made it click in my head... I finally understand what that means.. And I can't believe I've been unsure about that for so long... It's so much simpler than I made it in my head.
As a retired Engineer, and having sat through more meetings than any person should have had to, it's a rare trait. Great job. PS, an actual argument between two PhD's, "Did not," "Did too!" "Did not!" "Did too!" I got looks of distain because I'd sit in the corner and laugh.
Thank you so much for this vid. Like many people I thought the only output from hydrogen fuel was water. I had no idea that when the stoichiometric ratio approaches that of petrol (gas) ie 1:34 that nox is produced as well. Not a problem because it can be neutralised with urea, but lets hope they build one better than the current Bosch offering installed in my MB. It keeps failing and costs thousands of dollars to keep fixing it!!!!! I learnt more about this subject in 14 mins than in my preceding 73 years - well done indeed.
Not really, H2 is still subject to fuel transportation limitation. You need H2 station infrastructure that is orders of magnitude more expensive than charging stations. Charging station infrastructures are not that bad in U.S. anymore, but H2 station infractructure is almost non-existent.
Han and the best companies to do that are Petronas, Shell. They already have an infrastructure that can be modified and scaled for hydrogen for not much cost. But as soon a they spend and start selling they’ll most likely gain back what they spent and still profit as usual. Smaller companies will struggle but it’s still feasible
@@DrummerBoii1411 If I remember correctly, the problem with H2 isn't just the infrastructure cost, it's also the production. With today's technology, H2 production is less efficient than lithium batteries.
@@Sickboyfriend -- I think HFCEVs could work for applications other than passenger vehicles. In cases where refueling has to be kept at a minimum in both duration and frequency while uptime has to be maximized, the drawbacks of fuel cells versus batteries start to become an acceptable price to pay. Heavy transport such as buses, cargo trucks and service trucks won't need as much infrastructure investment since only a single H₂ refueling station in a bus depot can provide for that entire fleet. The same can be said about trucks and trains.
@@triggermovies Lithium has a storage capacity limitation while *excess hydrogen* production could be injected into existing natural gas infrastructure. Where deep offshore wind power would be the only ideal source of hydrogen. As doubling of wind speed increases potential energy outout by eight. So a 2 MW wind turbine @ 12 mph wind would make around 16 MW @ 24 mph wind. To clarify, I'm not suggesting electrical cables being ran that far. What I'm proposing is pumping hydrogen that distance as it's cheaper and lighter than running electrical cables far distances. Once reaching land half should go towards dedicated hydrogen gas powered turbines for power generation that would recover water from the exhaust stream assisting water management. The remainder should be used for alternative fuel feed stocks such as methane or methanol. Sabatier process combines hydrogen + CO2 to produce methane, AKA CNG. Hydrogen + carbon monoxide can be processed to make methanol. Both these processes require heat that should ideally siphon it from existing power generation decreasing cooling tower demand and technically increase power plant efficiency. As it would be considered a combined heat and power generation plant.
Yes. I'm so excited for this video. Haven't even watched it yet. But I'm glad he's talking about hydrogen. Don't know if it will be about ice or fuel cell but I'm here for it.
And this is what I try to explain to every tech who thinks that they can supplement an engine with a 12 volt hydrogen generator. Great video. Thanks for your time.
@@sebastianm.4632 most people only keep their car for a few years anyways. I'm surprised the automobile companies don't use hydrogen more to validate that wasteful use. I wish I had the time to modify an engine into a hydrogen engine
@@sand0decker Hydrogen has its own operating parameters that must be designed for; and again, hydrogen can diffuse into metals under heat and pressure, disrupting their alloy configuration and changing their properties. Hydrogen is obnoxiously difficult stuff to work with (what with being a perfect fluid, flammable, combustible, etc; Elon Musk cited the "pain-in-the-@$$ factor" as one of the reasons for switching over to methane-LOX from LH2-LOX), and running a gasoline-designed engine block on H2 can cause more problems than running it on ethanol.
@@HuntingTarg I meant that as in a city use vehicle. Most people only go short distances and don't maintain their own vehicle, so as far as they are concerned, less gas is good. Just because something is hard to design for doesn't necessarily mean it's not worth the effort. I'm not sure, but I think some of our city buses use hydrogen. I think one of them had a logo saying it. It could have been a test item though, I did go to a college in the capital of my country
That sounds awesome. So if the future of cars gets into hydrogen fuel cells, there will still be a great (and better) option for car enthusiasts to drive a combustion engine. There are a few issues, but I am sure they will be overcome rather fast.
Thanks man! I've been curious about Hydrogen as fuel for internal combustion engines for a long time and you just answered a boatload of (important) questions I never knew existed.
Do you think metal embrittlement would be an issue with hydrogen? Also, do you think direct injection of pure O2 instead of naturally aspirating could offset some of the downsides of using H in an ICE? (ignoring, momentarily, the risks of putting a pure fuel and pure oxidizer in close proximity to each other..) Finally, great video! 👍
Yup, Hydrogen Embrittlement was exactly what I was wondering about. I also realized this is a big problem for Fuel Cell vehicles as well. During ignition and burn at high pressure there certainly would be a tiny amount of high temp ionized hydrogen atoms. These would work their way into almost anything. Glad to see someone else thought of this as well.
And much like the hydrogen, the Oxygen will be expensive to obtain, but as a by product of the hydrogen production. BTW, electrolysis of water about equals the energy obtained by the combustion of H₂ and O₂. and that energy will still come from remote power stations burning hydrocarbons, with greater than 50% energy loss in transmission.
@@brucefrank6119 Oxygen is a byproduct of Electrolysis of Water to produce Hydrogen However...Most Hydrogen Is Produced By Steam Reformation of Methane. As I understand it the products of Steam Reformation are Hydrogen and CO2 (or it could be just Carbon. Been a while since I did the studying). As for Electrolysis being equal in energy consumption to the amount of energy produced by burning H2 and O2 I believe you will find Electrolysis to be less efficient. Also it is important that we don't confuse Thermal Watts with Electrical Watts. They are very different in terms of looking at efficiencies. As for transmission losses...sheeeeee...don't get me started!
Hydrogen just seems like such a good fuel for the future. As energy dense as oil based fuels and with less emissions. It can also be created cleanly in limitless amounts using seawater and renewable energy sources.
Not quite true. It is indeed very much higher in energy density per kg, 141-120 MJ/kg at 690 bar where gasoline is 46.4 MJ/kg. The problem of hydrogen is that the gas itself if not very dense and if you see in the table concerning volume it has a energy density on about 5 MJ/L.
@@feonor26 yes. But hydrogen, unlike gasoline, can be compressed. So you can mitigate the volumetric density issue by pressuring it. You could also use liquid hydrogen, though thats significantly more challenging because you have to cool it to 20k. Pressurized hydrogen still isn't as volumetrically dense as gasoline. But its closer. And because its also much more efficient, you don't need to carry as much for the same range. So with hydrogen using the same tank space, you'll lose maybe 15-25% of the range. Which will still put it well above EVs. Also note, lithium batteries are fucktons less dense than even hydrogen.
@@Erowens98 Yeah lithium ion batteries sucks balls compared to gasoline and hydrogen when we talk energy density. It functions okay on city driving etc., but those people who wants to put batteries in a plane? Lol...dream on. Unless we're going to get our hands on a super safe, super efficient alien battery technology soon, it's not gonna happen.
He got so much better, almost quit talking through the nose, quite impressive change for a better speaker. Used to drive me nuts, I would just skip it, now I listen! Impressed.
I enjoy your video's and you put so much energy into them, thanks.. In Australia we use a reasonable amount of Liquefied Petroleum Gas / propane to fuel some of our passenger and business vehicles and I would be interested in the comparison between those or even compressed natural gas to give a gas v gas type of comparison.. This isn't a criticism by the way... love your work..!!
Mazda already built one of these. Fast flame propagation would be nice, but since hydrogen has even less lubrication properties than gasoline I imagine the oiling system is more taxed. It'd be cool and I'm a rotary fanboy but I don't see how something like that goes mass market.
Just to clarify something. Most of the future planned hydrogen vehicle is hydrogen FUEL CELL. They are all using hydrogen and many platinum (or other similar) catalyst to generate electricity to drive electric motors. Think of Tesla, instead of battery they have large liquid H2 tank instead. Nikola Motor's trucks are great example of this. Hydrogen Combustion engine has only been really tested at small quantities and if you wish to turn your ICE to hydrogen Combustion you'll need to harden and replace most of the material in your current engine. (In my opinion and most of the industry) You'll be better off buying an engine that is designed for hydrogen combustion and sticking to your vehicle, which I don't even think exists widely. Source: Worked on both academic and commercial hydrogen fuel cell manufacturing and research groups.
videoofmike I’m not so sure you see BMW worked on hydrogen ICE in the mid-2000s and they even build 100 costumer cars back then. It was powered by a reworked V12 engine which was a derivation of the N73 B60 and could run on both petrol and hydrogen (if I remember correctly). When run on hydrogen it had around 270 HP (petrol 445HP). Despite having the regular fuel tank, which was good for 500 km it had 8kg of hydrogen in it for an additional 200 km. So the adaptation is fairly small (at least you would not need a total redesign but could lean heavily on what’s already achieved). I can only speculate if from an efficiency standpoint a direct injected compression process (like a diesel) would be better... I remember seeing the BMW prototypes and the “production” car at the Frankfurt Auto Show in the 2000s. I guess the financial crisis and relatively low oil prices finally killed the projects back then. Also the emphasis on environmental issues where less present.
You can totally run any ICE engine on hydrogen, back in the day with carburetors you could just feed it straight into the air intake and the car would work as if nothing changed. But long term you do get material degradation.
With current laws storing it will be the challenge. You dont want the general public to be driving around in bombs should they crash... the tank has to be damn near indestructible. Also making / purifying the Hydrogen in the first place is quite energy intensive
Modern teaching methods recommend 5 minutes of instruction followed by 10 minutes of group exercises followed by 20 minute debrief about students' feelings. EE is so old school. :)
Absolutely brilliant. So many points, so well explained. One question. The NOx, is it higher than a Diesel engine? Oh, 2 questions! Is it possible to collect the NOx, in a device such as a catalytic converter, or diesel particulate filter? Thanks 😀
Thanks, good overview. Note that liquification requires almost 100 degree lower temperature than methane, making it less suitable for transport than natural gas (LNG).
Very interesting thank you for this intro. I was just a bit curious whether you could further put flame advance speed into perspective. You mention that the speed is much lower when running lean, but it would be interesting to get a feeling for how much lower. So let's say would it be significantly slower than gasoline if you were to bring it down to for example 180:1?
Great specific information of this interesting comparison... One of the best ways to create power with the use of Hydrogen is to mix it with conventional petro-fuels at a central point of the intake manifold. One of the best ways to create hydrogen, is to seperate it from oxygen as it is in it's inert state in water...This has successfully been done onboard vehicles... The advantages to mixing these separated (disassociated) hydrogen & oxygen gas's with conventional petrofuels are : 1) Better more complete fuel burn , leading to more energy and fewer hydrocarbon emissions from petrofuels. 2) Increased fuel mileage of the petrofuels. Because of the improved fuel burn. 3) Water, can be the source of Hydrogen and Oxygen before it has been seperated, which is very dense. It Can easily and safely be stored in a vehicle, to provide this tremendous catylist to help the conventional petrofuels perform so much better, and greatly extend the capabilities of carbon based fuels. The 8 points of interest in this comparison are examples of WHY the HHO should be mixed with petrofuels to create energy , particularly the flame propagation rates and the diffuseability... There are reports & studies which reveal that mixing HHO with conventional petrofuels, has increased efficiencies of internal and external combustion engines, by as much as 50%... More later, on the research of which type of powerplants could run on pure HHO....
@@altruismfirst6489 the injection of HHO into the intake plenum of spark ignition reciprocating engines along with the normal fuel it usually burns, is probably the best way to apply it on an engine of that type... However, one of the best ways to harness re-newable / re-usable energy that HHO offers, is in a gas-turbine engine... The timing of the fuel burn is not extremely critical with those types of engines, and they will work very well with Pure HHO , because of the advantage of not having to produce fuels with predictable burn times, that the vast majority of the reciprocating type of engines have to operate with...And the potential power to weight ratio of gas turbine engines is FAR better than any type of reciprocating engines...
I have an ME degree and we barely touched on otto cycle and diesel cycle and even less on lamba/air fuel ratios.. Ive had to teach myself most of this stuff with the internet
Good stuff. I was hoping for info on water vapor as a by-product and it's effects on engine oil due to natural blow-by of the piston rings. Also 'steam cleaning' effects on any oil on the cylinder walls and how it may effect ring lubrication. A stainless exhaust would be mandatory too.
Amazing! I have been curious about H2 for ICE for ages but I’m not a car guy and didn’t even know all those factors existed. That looked like a lot of work... but could you do it again with Ammonia?
@@zephyrtolliver4113 Ammonia for cleaning is mostly water. Pure NH3 is very flammable, almost as good as gasoline and easier to store than H2. But I don’t have the depth of knowledge to compare in ICE use.
Love the video! Comment about the rocket stuff though, hydrogen having such low volume means that you need to have much larger (and therefore heavier) fuel tanks to achieve a given total impulse. If you're not fighting against gravity, that doesn't matter as much, but when launching from the surface of the Earth it's a significant drawback. Larger rockets are also more expensive to produce and more difficult/expensive to transport. This makes hydrogen a good fuel for upper stages, where gravity and size aren't such an issue, but not so great for first stages/boosters.
They use cryogenic hydrogen to make the tanks smaller, but there is still the drawback that such low temperatures need loads of insulation which adds weight again.
@@elekktrisch8087 The fuel has to be liquid, so obviously it's cryogenic. Liquid hydrogen requires around 11x more volume than kerosene or gasoline for the same mass. Even when factoring in the higher energy content of hydrogen, the tank volume required is still massively higher. Liquid hydrogen is also a much more difficult fuel to store and handle due to its extremely low temperature. This is why very few rockets use hydrogen fuel for their first stage; it's just not worth it.
I still think Hydrogen EV's and Hydrogen ICE vehicles are the real future over just plug in lithium Ion EV's. Run a turbocharged or twin turbocharged direct injection hydrogen engine with a catch can and a air to water intercooler and you have a real winner. A 1000MW Nuclear Power Plant produces 150,000 METRIC TONS of PURE HYDROGEN per year, so making the fuel and making it green is easy enough, just need the infrastructure, and with an NPP making the fuel a Hydrogen EV can be even more green than a Lithium Ion one, it would even make Lithium Ion EV's greener due to the energy source that is recharging them.
Nice presentation, love dealing with the fundamentals. So how about hydrogen's traits as a turbine fuel? Since long-haul aviation is a big carbon emitter, and seems destined to be one of the last holdouts that just won't be viable without a combustion fuel in liquid (er, slush) form.
Probably simpler to react the hydrogen with CO2 to make methanol and then use that as fuel. Much simpler to handle and store since it is liquid at room temperature and pressure. But it is lower energy density than kerosene so the range will suffer a bit.
shipping will be the last to switch, when u look at the emissions of container ships etc you realise they are massive polluters. and the amount of them can and have changed weather patterns in the pacific..
@@imoovabull6042 ships also have the option of using nuclear energy. If it weren’t for the relatively small canals we have, we’d see way more massive nuclear cargo ships.
Hydrogen is not a fuel source. It is merely a means of storing energy that has to be converted from another source. This makes it a rather inefficient fuel to burn. Especially since it is usually converted from propane.
So having a perfect engine is a must! No leaks from valves and piston rings and no red hot metal in the combustion chamber! Not good! Thanks for this lecture!
So... if we just use two gas tanks, one for hydrogen and one for oxygen, and take nitrogen out of the equation, then that solves most of the downsides, doesn't it?
We can use renewable and nuclear energy to harvest the hydrogen and oxygen from seawater. The only question I have is: is it more efficient to store the power from renewables and nuclear inside batteries and use those for transport vehicles OR is a tank of hydrogen (being used for an internal combustion engine) a more efficient power storage solution?
@@joshuaewalker No. The Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) is very inefficient for converting chemical energy to motion. The hydrolysis process is also very inefficient at converting electricity to chemical energy. There are further inefficiencies compressing these gasses to high pressure or chilling them to liquid. Then there are layers of economic inefficiency taking profit at each step in fossil fuel exploration subsidies, extraction, refining/production, transportation, storage and retail. Lithium-Ion batteries, such as those in Tesla vehicles, can full cycle at around 95% efficiency. (Assuming good driving practices and slow overnight charging.) The AC electric infrastructure is highly efficient and home solar collectors bypass the fossil fuel infrastructure.
@@joshuaewalker Use the H2 and O2 in a fuel cell. It's way more efficient than an ICE. Connected with a small battery and capacitor bank you'll have no issues with sudden accelerations (fuel cell efficiency decreases as power draw increases).
..very well presented. I understand better now and have to say for existing and past practical instances,..hydrogen burning vehicles are not yet offering what the consumer still wants,..and that is POWER!. Thank you again for the great presentation!
You can get more oxygen for combustion by using pure oxygen instead the nitrogen rich atmospheric blend. It might also fix the nox emission problem. When you use a hydrolyzer to generate hydrogen, it also generates pure oxygen. The hydrolyzer could generate the hydroxy mixture on demand, using water as the fuel. A small amount of water can produce vast amounts of hydroxy gas. That would take care of the oversized fuel tank situation. The only thing to work out is perfecting a highly efficient hydrolyzer, but people who have done so successfully in the past seem to have a tendency of winding up dead under mysterious circumstances. I'd imagine that might be due to the fact that oil based fuels becoming obsolete over night would collapse the economies off countries who's only exports are oil, and subsequently collapse the world economy.
Why burning oxygen what humand need for breathing? What about people living 24/7 inside crowded cities? You don't care about them, as long you can drive your noisy and air polluting car?
You can't run an engine on water because it takes the same energy to crack water into H2 and O2 gas as you get from burning the H2 and O2 gas. Therefore, you would need a separate engine in the car to create the electricity for cracking water. And this engine would be 30% to 40% to 50% efficient (gasoline ice, diesel ice, turbo jet, respectively). And the electrical systems would be about 90% efficient. And a hydrogen ICE would be between 25% and 40% efficient, whereas an H2 fuel cell is 50% efficient. All those engines and systems under one hood, resulting in less and less efficiency? Those mysterious deaths were probably guys working themselves to death to solve a problem that can't be solved.
14 Minutes of uninterrupted teaching. My high school teachers would be pretty jealous of your efficiency. Thanks!
Exactly! 14 minutes is a semester
Because they need to fill their 40h/week contract
Jason doesn't need to constantly deal with that disruptive kid in the back row.
@@jonskowitz Yep, that's what I was going at. I wasn't that interested either back then so I was that kid some times, but a group of uninterested kids makes classes so unproductive. Respect for those teachers. And nice for Jason that he has just interested viewers that keep quiet while he is talking. :D
@@jonskowitz glad someone said it. Corralling idiots in the worlds most expensive daycare doesn't do educators any favors
I really like how all the pro's and con's are presented in just the facts. I wish the news was like this.
Did he really mention that CO2 is highly preferred pollution over NOx?
Must of missed it.
NOx is an oxidizing agent and will react with other gases, particles, etc
What you end up with is ground level ozone, smog, acid rains and more issues.
My main concern is that this guy know it but make no mention while claiming "at least we get rid of that Carbon pollution" without even a mention about NOx big issues.
It cause respiratory problem, allergies, inflammation of the lungs and throat, etc.
How do I know he does ? He know what he talk about on it for the rest of the video. Bit of a bias when you claim a good thing you get rid of is CO2 when you dont show the other is worse.
Its hundredS of time more dangerous for our climate. Why do people never explain that impress me. But such is youtube I suppose.
(not trying to pull him down, still a fun watch)
Walter Cronkite delivered news via television in that manner just facts. One wanted to watch his newscasts.
@@littlegile5072 and the pollution of batteries to make them and throw away
@@littlegile5072 Because we have things called catalytic converters, and for diesels DEF exhaust fluid...
@@onlythewise1 You do realize that Hydrogen is the way forward... All electric cars are not... Until battery technology can advance to the point of recyclable, high capacity, high voltage, compact batteries arrive. Which there is already tests on solid state batteries and solid state hydrogen fuel cells that will be the future. Oh and you can make hydrogen in your garage from water using electricity... Can you do that with fossil fuels?! 👌😉😜
As a car guy I really enjoyed your content. I've been working on internal combustion engines for 40 years, and it was great to get your insight into what the future will bring.
Thanks so much
and dont forget with hydrogen back fire is easier :)
@@JoaoSilva-bh3de I am a bit confused about the advantage in burning speed. All my knowledge points that you cannot make power with fast burning vapors in a combustion engine. There is no point in fast igniting when we are near TDC. What you need, is a fuel that still burns and produces more pressure when piston is in optimum angle, about 50% down.
That is why nitromethane makes so much power, it burns slower than gasoline. And vapors in general burn 3x faster than gasoline, only some 10-20% of piston travel.
So i assume that hydrogen engine cannot make significant power without reducing the speed of combustion. I understand that in racing they use water injection, but naturally that is not viable in street use.
GM claims to bring hydrogen-combustion truck engine soon. But in the presentation if you reed between the lines, they still have not resolved this issue. And there is no guarantee that they ever will.
With these gas prices I’m wanting to convert my 454 1 ton to hydrogen 🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@mirafioristi you can actually control that in your ignition timing, retard or advanced depending on your setup
@Off The Grid What is the problem witch implemention on both hydrogen and evs?
Excellent!!!! The only person that I know that can have 15 pages of text in engineering in a video less than 15 minutes long. Very dense content. With a whiteboard on the background? Priceless....
Glad you enjoyed it, thanks for watching!!
How does running lean reduces Nox if you run lean on a gasoline engine Nox will increases because of heat not decrease. Is there a difference between Hydrogen engines
@@natedavis5574 The activation energy to break the simple H2 bond is VERY low, and the reason Hydrogen gas is dangerous in quantity; the activation energy to break the C-H bond is higher, so because ignition temperature is lower, more oxygen reacts with Hydrogen than happens with Octane or other hydrocarbons. 2H2 + O2 => 2H2O is a much lower 'energy hill' to get over than with hydrocarbon combustion, so less of the triple N2 bonds are broken and less NOx is formed; make sense?
@@HuntingTarg thanks for the education
@@HuntingTarg If it's lean it means there is excess oxygen that can (potentially) react with nitrogen. (Don't claim a lean hydrogen burn has NO NOX at all, it it's not lean enough it will have nox for sure) Whether that happens pretty much depends on the temperature.
H2+O2=H20 and N2+O2=NOX are 2 separate reactions, if O2+N2 get hot enough they will form NOx.
The thing where hydrogen and petrol differ is this: when an lpg, cng, diesel, petrol, etc engine is running rich it means more liquid fuel will turn into a gas (this is why water injection reduces emissions) and if you inject too much fuel then there is no oxygen left to marry the nitrogen. If you run lean obviously the opposite is happening.
For hydrogen engines the max flame temperature 2600°C is achieved at a stochiometric a/f mixture; the zeldovich reaction (N2+O/N+O2=nox) usually occurs above 1600°C, but it does occur below that temp as well under certain conditions. When a hydrogen a/f mixture is leaner it will burn cooler because there is less fuel(less energy) that has to heat up the same volume (all the gasses inside your reaction chamber).
Hydrogen is already a gas, so when hydrogen burns there is no liquid that needs to boil, and boiling is an endothermic reaction. Even simpler said: it takes energy to turn a liquid into a gas, and when you inject water or inject extra diesel/petrol into your engine it's extra liquid that sucks up heat.
Lean petrol runs hotter than stochiometric petrol, lean hydrogen runs cooler than stochiometric hydrogen. That's the difference.
It is nice to get this stuff at least at a basic university level and not dumbed down. As an engineer I find videos like this do a good job of explaining just short a deep dive into high level math. With the objection to that is that it would really limit your audience. This is a good balance between going all the way into it while explaining enough. On the other hand need for the chemistry is a given these days for this level of video. Overall, a really good well balanced job
Balanced, hehe
Just proves one needn't delve too deeply into the higher maths to convey physics and chemistry. It's important to understand the 'mechanics' of processes before being thrown to the lions of calculus.
As Einstein said: “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
I am not skilled from a chemistry perspective, but this was the best video I've seen that clearly explains the difference without too much technical complexity. Well done. Thank you
There's not much chemistry in it though!
10:13 "Thermal event" I love how you describe "fire" at first. Highest geek level achieved..
Engineer would call it ignition, because there’s a quick flash with no flame present
@@chrisnewman7281 There's always a flame, you just need a slow motion camera to see it.
That's what I will call my farts from now on
Politicians in Australia will start referring to climate fires as thermal events to play down the seriousness of it all haha
@@chrisnewman7281 I worked in automotive engineering for one of the Big 3 for many years. We were more or less required to called it a "thermal event", especially in written documentation and correspondence for reasons that, believe it or not, were required by the legal department. This is very important to protect intellectual property in the event of a law suit or recall. Better to say, "the brake test data does not meet the engineering criteria", rather than, "the brakes fade too quickly and are dangerous"
I remember looking at this in a Ford research study using cylinder pressure analysis. The study showed very high maximum rates of pressure rises compared to gasoline. We thought that the engine would have to be structurally much more robust to accommodate the pressure loads. This was way back in 2006 or 7 when the study was presented.
Until you get into 1 car accident and with a tank full of hydrogen you'll blow everyone within 30 meters to straight to hell.
So, a diesel-like engine structure would be recommended?
@@exploranator my thoughts exactly. diesel-like would bypass some of the downsides presented in this video and Mike's observation.
does that also mean hydrogen is right now a better fuel source for heavy duty machinery like trucks and farming/construction equipment?
because I think unless the weight of the engine can be sorted out to both resist high pressure but also be light; I’m not sure it could rev up despite the power increase
@@egonzalezm If I remember they've done diesel to hydrogen conversions with just a few attachments
The way you always integrate the mathematics into the science of your videos makes you one of the few credible sources on the internet. Thank you for that.
I appreciate you the time invested in producing this video, thank you.
I appreciate that he gets paid for it so I understand that your appreciation is somewhat misplaced .. 🤑🤑🤑
I love all your videos, but the whiteboard videos are my favorite. I've been a subscriber since the inline 6 whiteboard video.
That's a while back, thanks for sticking around!! :)
@@EngineeringExplained oh im so trying this tomorrow, - hho video up by friday ;-)
Came to the comments to say the same thing, I haven't been around quite as long but I was just thinking the other day about your more recent videos -- I do like them quite a bit, but the whiteboard videos are my favs.
I'm a total dork, I LOVE all the engineering nerd talk and information that you generally will not get anywhere else.
I gotta say though, the transition to his new V8 whiteboard is much appreciated.
Absolutely love the fast paced presentation. Covered the bases so quickly and yet totally understandable. Brilliant! Thanks
Jason excellent as always..im requesting all my children watch all your videos ..great educational tools...i try and explain these concepts to them..they think im a mad man....your videos help them understand and appreciate the concepts. .excellent. thank you
Thanks for sharing with your kids Phillip! Hopefully they're not too bored with them haha.
@@EngineeringExplained you do a great job..!!
@@EngineeringExplained So what would happen to the NO2 level and the combustion process if you added a typical nitrous plate below the throttle body and instead of injecting Nitrous oxide you injected a spray of water to cool the burn? Would it help lower the temp and lower the NO2 in the exhaust?
I wish my teachers taught like this rather than handing out worksheets, you give a picture which helps a ton from a visual standpoint and thoroughly explain it. Well done.
Toyota would say this guy is wrong and this guy is a useless engineer.
Your teachers were taught in public schools. Vicious circle, yes?
While not the focus of the video, at all, I think that was one of the best explanations of engine knock and its relation to octane that Ive seen around... Most 'car guy' vids manage to present it in either an extremely confusing, or flat out incorrect way. Nicely done!
White board got bigger after 2 million subs.
After 3 million subs will the white board be like those chalk boards are universities that have a rolling ladder?
4M and we can have a big auditorium.
@@GilbertoMadeira83 live lessons from Jason haha. I would go.
I just saw that he only has 2M subs while PewDiePie has 75M. What's wrong with this world...
Chevy SparkEV you meant “almost 78 mil subscribers”, right?
@@mychevysparkevdidntcatchfi1489 Most people aren't smart enough to understand these white board videos.
I should get some sort of diploma from watching every Engineering Explained videos. 🤣
you need to learn not just listen and forget after a day or so
you don't get a diploma
YOU GET A MARS BAR
:P
@@martinkuliza ive heard of those they still exist?
@@longboarderebright What ?? You've HEARD OF THEM huh ?
HAHAHA
wow
of course they exist mate, you go to the local shop and you pick one up.
Where do you live ? that they appear to be in short supply
i'm in Australia
Or least a college credit. You learn way more here than most colleges
Great stuff as always ! I always want to know pro's and cons of alternatives and you do that very well . Thanks !
Diffusivity is the word of the day!
Use it with a friend, a teacher, a parent! Diffuse away!
As long as it doesn't have anything to do with farts diffusing...
In order for farts to effective they must diffuse.
"to be effective'
@@azopene lol. Indeed.
Had to click when I saw that whiteboard in the preview.
I e been a mechanic 40 years and this is the best tutorial I’ve ever watched. Thanks for posting this 😊
Jason, when I opened up your video this morning and saw the crowded whiteboard behind you, I almost turned off my iPad and went back to bed!😆
Seriously, another excellent, succinct lesson on rather complicated subject. You are the number one source for this aging, retired engineer/car guy on modern automotive technology!😃 I can’t tell you how much I enjoy watching your videos. 👍
Thank you so much for watching!! :)
Who said retired engineer? There is no such a thing sir.
If you need, I'll be glad to have you file some patents. I'm sure you can type? Or do voice to text? Stay sharp. All the best.
@FAWEXX don't get me started on German cars.
PolskaWalczaca
😆
@@itsalgud1459 👍🍺
When i start this video and see those white board, you know something about to get serious. Great video, i love it.
Thanks! Hydrogen combustion engines are pretty neat!
Great video! Very well done and easy to understand. I did get the impression that control of the comparison leaned a bit toward gas and that naturally aspirated engines might not be the best vehicle for comparison also I would like to see an actual real world rundown comparing emissions of gasoline, nitrogen and LP
As all ways, White board skills are on point
always*
Impressive like to view ratio
Yeah, RUclips's algorithm is a bit choppy today, so unfortunately the video didn't get pushed out much. There were basically zero views for an hour or so on RUclips, and I happened to schedule my video during that window (I post the same time every week haha).
Engineering Explained Is this a Honda Clarity review teaser?
@@bleebleblahble8833 He wouldn't say that haha.
Now I understand a lot more about Hydrogen and the difference of gasoline in combustion ! Thank you for your great video !!!
I am pursuing automobile engineering and your videos help me a lot. Keep posting such content.
Glad you enjoy the content, and best of luck in the engineering world!
It's just slightly disturbing that the next generation of engineers is learning from RUclips
@@gasdive why? They would have learned a lot from the people around them before. So long as they look into what they are trying to implement more before they do it (to fix any misconceptions), this is ok
Keep learning from several sources. It's just another tool in your arsenal. Good luck.
Wow, I had no idea exactly how comply the modern engine was. But you did a amazing job of explaining it. Thank's for all your time and effort in making this video, I appreciate it because it has totally changed the way I see my car's engine. I'm glad I found your channel and I did subscribe to it, please keep up the AWESOME work and I'll keep coming back for more.
Thanks for watching Randall!
Outstanding lesson. You never cease to amaze me.
Hydrogen be like "I NEVER KNOCKED ON NOBODY!"
And you know what! It was YOU!
Haha love it! Thanks for the reply man, means a lot. You're one of the reasons I'm creating on RUclips myself on my own channel! Always loved your work man, please check out mine, any criticism or advice would be warmly welcomed! 👍
Lol... it's funny that at this point this is a dated reference. I wonder how many people got it. It still works out of context so I'm not sure I can just count the likes.
The big problem with hydrogen is fuel leaks. Hydrogen will leak through steel tanks with little difficulty. It also tends to form bubbles under overhanging roofs unless they are vented.
This means that any enclosed space around a hydrogen tank will have hydrogen present, the wide air fuel ratio will mean the gas mixture will be explosive (the absolute lower explosive limit being about 1.5% hydrogen in air).
This translates as having to make the interior of the car a legally defined electrical hazardous area, requiring all the wiring to be either explosion proof or intrinsically safe.
@@allangibson8494 Perhaps you didn't know, more house fires that are not arson are started by an electrical short in a car in an attached garage than anything else. Ask your insurance agent why attached garages increase premium cost. Also, spilled gasoline fumes will hug the ground without air stirring. H2 will 'float' away if vented. But yeah, hydrogen is much more difficult to contain.
With Hydrogen you can still step on the gas :)
With hydrogen you can actually step on the gas. Petrol is a liquid under standard conditions, so no idea why some people keep referring to it as a “gas”. 🤣
@@JamesUKE92 Because in the states it is called gasoline not petrol.
Tonight I'll fly
@@JamesUKE92 because it atomizes before ignition?
Can you with a diesel?
One of the best pros and cons explanations on relative fuel performance👏👏👏. Kudos to you my friend.
I'd love a video on hydrogen combustion vs hydrogen fuel cell.
I'm sure it'll end up being similar to your EV vs ICE video, but I'm sure there are subtlties there that are worth explaining/exploring
Watching the video 24 hours later i got a question in ICE exam about the difference between gasoline and hydrogen engines
THANK YOU ENGINEERING EXPLAINED
Wow... Your subtle little hand motion that accompanied your mention of a 4 stroke engine was what finally made it click in my head... I finally understand what that means.. And I can't believe I've been unsure about that for so long... It's so much simpler than I made it in my head.
This is like the opposite of being exposed to lead at an early age
What?
@@lorenzhartl8466 Being exposed to lead at an early age stunts intellectual development. This channel does the opposite.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
🤣🤣🤣🤣
🤣🤣🤣
🤣🤣
🤣...
🤔
This young man is awesome in explaining things
Duck. I was looking for an easy explanation. Not a reminder as to why I didn’t major in math. Love it.
I love the fact you hardly ever repeat yourself
Thanks bob! I try to only if it seems necessary. Easy to play it back, after all. :)
As a retired Engineer, and having sat through more meetings than any person should have had to, it's a rare trait. Great job.
PS, an actual argument between two PhD's, "Did not," "Did too!" "Did not!" "Did too!"
I got looks of distain because I'd sit in the corner and laugh.
You have to do a video about Microwave Ignition (MWI AG). On their website they state it could reduce fuel consumption and emissions up to 30 percent!
Thank you so much for this vid. Like many people I thought the only output from hydrogen fuel was water. I had no idea that when the stoichiometric ratio approaches that of petrol (gas) ie 1:34 that nox is produced as well. Not a problem because it can be neutralised with urea, but lets hope they build one better than the current Bosch offering installed in my MB. It keeps failing and costs thousands of dollars to keep fixing it!!!!!
I learnt more about this subject in 14 mins than in my preceding 73 years - well done indeed.
Careful! Thermal events can lead to spontaneous disassembly! Great video.
*_Elon Musk has left the chat_*
Not really, H2 is still subject to fuel transportation limitation. You need H2 station infrastructure that is orders of magnitude more expensive than charging stations.
Charging station infrastructures are not that bad in U.S. anymore, but H2 station infractructure is almost non-existent.
Han and the best companies to do that are Petronas, Shell. They already have an infrastructure that can be modified and scaled for hydrogen for not much cost. But as soon a they spend and start selling they’ll most likely gain back what they spent and still profit as usual. Smaller companies will struggle but it’s still feasible
@@DrummerBoii1411 If I remember correctly, the problem with H2 isn't just the infrastructure cost, it's also the production. With today's technology, H2 production is less efficient than lithium batteries.
@@Sickboyfriend -- I think HFCEVs could work for applications other than passenger vehicles. In cases where refueling has to be kept at a minimum in both duration and frequency while uptime has to be maximized, the drawbacks of fuel cells versus batteries start to become an acceptable price to pay. Heavy transport such as buses, cargo trucks and service trucks won't need as much infrastructure investment since only a single H₂ refueling station in a bus depot can provide for that entire fleet. The same can be said about trucks and trains.
@@triggermovies Lithium has a storage capacity limitation while *excess hydrogen* production could be injected into existing natural gas infrastructure.
Where deep offshore wind power would be the only ideal source of hydrogen. As doubling of wind speed increases potential energy outout by eight. So a 2 MW wind turbine @ 12 mph wind would make around 16 MW @ 24 mph wind. To clarify, I'm not suggesting electrical cables being ran that far. What I'm proposing is pumping hydrogen that distance as it's cheaper and lighter than running electrical cables far distances.
Once reaching land half should go towards dedicated hydrogen gas powered turbines for power generation that would recover water from the exhaust stream assisting water management. The remainder should be used for alternative fuel feed stocks such as methane or methanol.
Sabatier process combines hydrogen + CO2 to produce methane, AKA CNG. Hydrogen + carbon monoxide can be processed to make methanol. Both these processes require heat that should ideally siphon it from existing power generation decreasing cooling tower demand and technically increase power plant efficiency. As it would be considered a combined heat and power generation plant.
Jason,Your an excellent professor and your a professional teacher. Thanks for your time..!
Exquisitely orchestrated, bravo to you sir!! This was quite beautifully put together
Yes. I'm so excited for this video. Haven't even watched it yet. But I'm glad he's talking about hydrogen. Don't know if it will be about ice or fuel cell but I'm here for it.
Engines! Hoping that makes it clear it's about combustion, and the thumbnail haha. :)
Thanks 4 eye opening information 2 rest of us dummies 4 all the pro, cons, n similarities.
Beautiful! I'm glad you explained all this and cleared the many myths around this topic.
It would be nice to have a summation that included highway efficiency of current Hydrogen cars or cost to run per thousand miles.
The ultimate question is compare mpg and cost versus distance with hydrogen and its cost. Excellent article Thankyou uk.
The Brian Cox of internal combustion engineering delivers another great video 😎
My god!
Physics for the masses.....,and I love it!
And this is what I try to explain to every tech who thinks that they can supplement an engine with a 12 volt hydrogen generator. Great video. Thanks for your time.
BMW built a hydrogen powered v12 7-series in the mid-2000's. It could be run or gas or hydrogen and I think they made like 100 or so of them.
They stopped it due to problems cause by hydrogen. Hydrogen makes most metals brittle over time.
@@sebastianm.4632 most people only keep their car for a few years anyways. I'm surprised the automobile companies don't use hydrogen more to validate that wasteful use.
I wish I had the time to modify an engine into a hydrogen engine
@@sand0decker
Hydrogen has its own operating parameters that must be designed for; and again, hydrogen can diffuse into metals under heat and pressure, disrupting their alloy configuration and changing their properties.
Hydrogen is obnoxiously difficult stuff to work with (what with being a perfect fluid, flammable, combustible, etc; Elon Musk cited the "pain-in-the-@$$ factor" as one of the reasons for switching over to methane-LOX from LH2-LOX), and running a gasoline-designed engine block on H2 can cause more problems than running it on ethanol.
@@HuntingTarg I meant that as in a city use vehicle. Most people only go short distances and don't maintain their own vehicle, so as far as they are concerned, less gas is good.
Just because something is hard to design for doesn't necessarily mean it's not worth the effort.
I'm not sure, but I think some of our city buses use hydrogen. I think one of them had a logo saying it. It could have been a test item though, I did go to a college in the capital of my country
@@sand0decker did you really just say people only keep their cars for a few years so we can afford the engine degrading faster?
That sounds awesome. So if the future of cars gets into hydrogen fuel cells, there will still be a great (and better) option for car enthusiasts to drive a combustion engine.
There are a few issues, but I am sure they will be overcome rather fast.
Thanks man! I've been curious about Hydrogen as fuel for internal combustion engines for a long time and you just answered a boatload of (important) questions I never knew existed.
Nice euphemistic use of language.
Last month Notre Dame Cathedral had a "thermal event".
@Edmond Schwab indeed it did.
Nah it had a non european immigration event
Beautifully explained - I learnt something today! 👍🏻
Do you think metal embrittlement would be an issue with hydrogen?
Also, do you think direct injection of pure O2 instead of naturally aspirating could offset some of the downsides of using H in an ICE? (ignoring, momentarily, the risks of putting a pure fuel and pure oxidizer in close proximity to each other..)
Finally, great video! 👍
How do you want to extract the O2 from the air that enters the engine?
@@annekecornee very likely by using a liquid oxygen tank, but that would increase weight and reduce efficiency.
Yup, Hydrogen Embrittlement was exactly what I was wondering about. I also realized this is a big problem for Fuel Cell vehicles as well. During ignition and burn at high pressure there certainly would be a tiny amount of high temp ionized hydrogen atoms. These would work their way into almost anything. Glad to see someone else thought of this as well.
And much like the hydrogen, the Oxygen will be expensive to obtain, but as a by product of the hydrogen production. BTW, electrolysis of water about equals the energy obtained by the combustion of H₂ and O₂. and that energy will still come from remote power stations burning hydrocarbons, with greater than 50% energy loss in transmission.
@@brucefrank6119 Oxygen is a byproduct of Electrolysis of Water to produce Hydrogen However...Most Hydrogen Is Produced By Steam Reformation of Methane. As I understand it the products of Steam Reformation are Hydrogen and CO2 (or it could be just Carbon. Been a while since I did the studying). As for Electrolysis being equal in energy consumption to the amount of energy produced by burning H2 and O2 I believe you will find Electrolysis to be less efficient. Also it is important that we don't confuse Thermal Watts with Electrical Watts. They are very different in terms of looking at efficiencies. As for transmission losses...sheeeeee...don't get me started!
Thanks for the splendid presentation, you've helped me a lot!
Hydrogen just seems like such a good fuel for the future. As energy dense as oil based fuels and with less emissions. It can also be created cleanly in limitless amounts using seawater and renewable energy sources.
Not quite true. It is indeed very much higher in energy density per kg, 141-120 MJ/kg at 690 bar where gasoline is 46.4 MJ/kg. The problem of hydrogen is that the gas itself if not very dense and if you see in the table concerning volume it has a energy density on about 5 MJ/L.
@@feonor26 yes. But hydrogen, unlike gasoline, can be compressed. So you can mitigate the volumetric density issue by pressuring it. You could also use liquid hydrogen, though thats significantly more challenging because you have to cool it to 20k.
Pressurized hydrogen still isn't as volumetrically dense as gasoline. But its closer. And because its also much more efficient, you don't need to carry as much for the same range. So with hydrogen using the same tank space, you'll lose maybe 15-25% of the range. Which will still put it well above EVs.
Also note, lithium batteries are fucktons less dense than even hydrogen.
@@Erowens98 Yeah lithium ion batteries sucks balls compared to gasoline and hydrogen when we talk energy density. It functions okay on city driving etc., but those people who wants to put batteries in a plane? Lol...dream on. Unless we're going to get our hands on a super safe, super efficient alien battery technology soon, it's not gonna happen.
@@feonor26 yeah, not to mention towing any significant load. You get less than half the range.
@@Erowens98 compressing the hydrogen will makeit much less eficient, a lot of energy in needed to do it, thus making it unviable
He got so much better, almost quit talking through the nose, quite impressive change for a better speaker.
Used to drive me nuts, I would just skip it, now I listen!
Impressed.
I enjoy your video's and you put so much energy into them, thanks.. In Australia we use a reasonable amount of Liquefied Petroleum Gas / propane to fuel some of our passenger and business vehicles and I would be interested in the comparison between those or even compressed natural gas to give a gas v gas type of comparison.. This isn't a criticism by the way... love your work..!!
I'd like to see this as well.
i want hydrogen rotary engine
wouldnt make ANY sense but yeah why not lul
ECO-doritos. 🍂 🌎
no
@@usingthecharlim needs a rotary engine that doesn't use Doritos as it's rotor
Mazda already built one of these. Fast flame propagation would be nice, but since hydrogen has even less lubrication properties than gasoline I imagine the oiling system is more taxed. It'd be cool and I'm a rotary fanboy but I don't see how something like that goes mass market.
WOW! Great job! We need to tell this to our politicians now, in 2021. Who are all the way into e-cars.
Yes
Just to clarify something. Most of the future planned hydrogen vehicle is hydrogen FUEL CELL. They are all using hydrogen and many platinum (or other similar) catalyst to generate electricity to drive electric motors. Think of Tesla, instead of battery they have large liquid H2 tank instead. Nikola Motor's trucks are great example of this.
Hydrogen Combustion engine has only been really tested at small quantities and if you wish to turn your ICE to hydrogen Combustion you'll need to harden and replace most of the material in your current engine. (In my opinion and most of the industry) You'll be better off buying an engine that is designed for hydrogen combustion and sticking to your vehicle, which I don't even think exists widely.
Source: Worked on both academic and commercial hydrogen fuel cell manufacturing and research groups.
Correct, this is about engines, not fuel cells. I have a separate video on fuel cell vehicles: ruclips.net/video/0jnZFGx_4kY/видео.html
Yeah, which is why hydrogen cars are going to be way more lame than they should be.
videoofmike
I’m not so sure you see BMW worked on hydrogen ICE in the mid-2000s and they even build 100 costumer cars back then. It was powered by a reworked V12 engine which was a derivation of the N73 B60 and could run on both petrol and hydrogen (if I remember correctly). When run on hydrogen it had around 270 HP (petrol 445HP). Despite having the regular fuel tank, which was good for 500 km it had 8kg of hydrogen in it for an additional 200 km.
So the adaptation is fairly small (at least you would not need a total redesign but could lean heavily on what’s already achieved). I can only speculate if from an efficiency standpoint a direct injected compression process (like a diesel) would be better...
I remember seeing the BMW prototypes and the “production” car at the Frankfurt Auto Show in the 2000s. I guess the financial crisis and relatively low oil prices finally killed the projects back then. Also the emphasis on environmental issues where less present.
You can totally run any ICE engine on hydrogen, back in the day with carburetors you could just feed it straight into the air intake and the car would work as if nothing changed.
But long term you do get material degradation.
With current laws storing it will be the challenge. You dont want the general public to be driving around in bombs should they crash... the tank has to be damn near indestructible. Also making / purifying the Hydrogen in the first place is quite energy intensive
That hydrogen flame velocity is ideal AF!
Modern teaching methods recommend 5 minutes of instruction followed by 10 minutes of group exercises followed by 20 minute debrief about students' feelings. EE is so old school. :)
Absolutely brilliant. So many points, so well explained. One question. The NOx, is it higher than a Diesel engine? Oh, 2 questions! Is it possible to collect the NOx, in a device such as a catalytic converter, or diesel particulate filter? Thanks 😀
I have a question about box #4.
A lean hydrogen mixture burns slower than stoich hydrogen. Does the lean H2 burn faster than stoich gasoline?
If the second drawing is accurate, then yes.
You're so good at what you do, it's such a pleasure to learn from you man!
Hey man, what a great video, thank you for sharing this knowledge
Excellent presentation, so thank you.
Thanks, good overview. Note that liquification requires almost 100 degree lower temperature than methane, making it less suitable for transport than natural gas (LNG).
Damm great video, well explained. In-depth tutorial!! 👏👏👏
Very interesting thank you for this intro. I was just a bit curious whether you could further put flame advance speed into perspective. You mention that the speed is much lower when running lean, but it would be interesting to get a feeling for how much lower. So let's say would it be significantly slower than gasoline if you were to bring it down to for example 180:1?
Sounds like timing can be adjusted both with spark timing and mixture proportion.
That was so clear and well explained. Thank you.
Great specific information of this interesting comparison... One of the best ways to create power with the use of Hydrogen is to mix it with conventional petro-fuels at a central point of the intake manifold. One of the best ways to create hydrogen, is to seperate it from oxygen as it is in it's inert state in water...This has successfully been done onboard vehicles... The advantages to mixing these separated (disassociated) hydrogen & oxygen gas's with conventional petrofuels are : 1) Better more complete fuel burn , leading to more energy and fewer hydrocarbon emissions from petrofuels. 2) Increased fuel mileage of the petrofuels. Because of the improved fuel burn. 3) Water, can be the source of Hydrogen and Oxygen before it has been seperated, which is very dense. It Can easily and safely be stored in a vehicle, to provide this tremendous catylist to help the conventional petrofuels perform so much better, and greatly extend the capabilities of carbon based fuels. The 8 points of interest in this comparison are examples of WHY the HHO should be mixed with petrofuels to create energy , particularly the flame propagation rates and the diffuseability... There are reports & studies which reveal that mixing HHO with conventional petrofuels, has increased efficiencies of internal and external combustion engines, by as much as 50%... More later, on the research of which type of powerplants could run on pure HHO....
My Uncle used HHO and gasoline hybrid and got a ripper of a sidevalve application, Torque and economy went through the roof.
@@altruismfirst6489 the injection of HHO into the intake plenum of spark ignition reciprocating engines along with the normal fuel it usually burns, is probably the best way to apply it on an engine of that type... However, one of the best ways to harness re-newable / re-usable energy that HHO offers, is in a gas-turbine engine... The timing of the fuel burn is not extremely critical with those types of engines, and they will work very well with Pure HHO , because of the advantage of not having to produce fuels with predictable burn times, that the vast majority of the reciprocating type of engines have to operate with...And the potential power to weight ratio of gas turbine engines is FAR better than any type of reciprocating engines...
Toyota just did the unthinkable; a Corolla with a HCE.
I'm STILL ! Waiting !! For !! The ! CELICA ! XT !! and LT ! Models ! To be in The SHOWROOM !!
Thank you for the info, i can't help but feeling a bias or a lack of neutrality, buvin genral great info
Imagine the bump sticker "it runs on rocket fuel"
when you are watching and you don't know what the hell he is talking
But still watching it 😊
Haha ask questions, I'm here to help! :)
Ha, I tried as well !. Ive got a mechanical engineering degree, and I was struggling.
I have an ME degree and we barely touched on otto cycle and diesel cycle and even less on lamba/air fuel ratios.. Ive had to teach myself most of this stuff with the internet
@@EngineeringExplained Please cover hydrogen commercial vehicles, both prototypes and mass production. I find it a very interesting topic.
Excellent. Keep up the good work.. Pounding away on a subject that few of us understand.
Good stuff. I was hoping for info on water vapor as a by-product and it's effects on engine oil due to natural blow-by of the piston rings. Also 'steam cleaning' effects on any oil on the cylinder walls and how it may effect ring lubrication. A stainless exhaust would be mandatory too.
Gasoline and diesel already produce water in combustion, and yes, exhausts should be stainless by law, I think.
Please do a video about Uranium engines next. They definitely have a good energy to volume ratio
Very funny... ;)
Excellent overview of the differences - TOP ! Thank you.
Amazing! I have been curious about H2 for ICE for ages but I’m not a car guy and didn’t even know all those factors existed. That looked like a lot of work... but could you do it again with Ammonia?
aMmONiA IsN'T VerY fLAmMaBLe
@@zephyrtolliver4113 Ammonia for cleaning is mostly water. Pure NH3 is very flammable, almost as good as gasoline and easier to store than H2. But I don’t have the depth of knowledge to compare in ICE use.
Aramco has teased NH3 for a variety of applications, with the primary focus being Aviation
Love the video! Comment about the rocket stuff though, hydrogen having such low volume means that you need to have much larger (and therefore heavier) fuel tanks to achieve a given total impulse. If you're not fighting against gravity, that doesn't matter as much, but when launching from the surface of the Earth it's a significant drawback. Larger rockets are also more expensive to produce and more difficult/expensive to transport. This makes hydrogen a good fuel for upper stages, where gravity and size aren't such an issue, but not so great for first stages/boosters.
They use cryogenic hydrogen to make the tanks smaller, but there is still the drawback that such low temperatures need loads of insulation which adds weight again.
@@elekktrisch8087 The fuel has to be liquid, so obviously it's cryogenic. Liquid hydrogen requires around 11x more volume than kerosene or gasoline for the same mass. Even when factoring in the higher energy content of hydrogen, the tank volume required is still massively higher. Liquid hydrogen is also a much more difficult fuel to store and handle due to its extremely low temperature. This is why very few rockets use hydrogen fuel for their first stage; it's just not worth it.
The same handling problems exist no matter what stage it is.
@@tedmoss Yes, but the other issues largely disappear when talking about upper stages.
@@harbingerdawn Thank you for the explanation, that was brilliant how you state this fact
In England JCB have developed a Hydrogen engine which works without the problems you think they will have, it's running and it works, so watch it
In Scotland we have been running busses without problem for over a decade....
But no, you may not run your car on it ! 😂
Great video, I will never go electric, but give me a hydrogen ICE engine and I'm all for it!
And a manual 💪🏼
I still think Hydrogen EV's and Hydrogen ICE vehicles are the real future over just plug in lithium Ion EV's. Run a turbocharged or twin turbocharged direct injection hydrogen engine with a catch can and a air to water intercooler and you have a real winner. A 1000MW Nuclear Power Plant produces 150,000 METRIC TONS of PURE HYDROGEN per year, so making the fuel and making it green is easy enough, just need the infrastructure, and with an NPP making the fuel a Hydrogen EV can be even more green than a Lithium Ion one, it would even make Lithium Ion EV's greener due to the energy source that is recharging them.
Lol nothing to say here your audience is on point just as you are... Everybody give this man a hand!!!!!!!!
Nice presentation, love dealing with the fundamentals. So how about hydrogen's traits as a turbine fuel? Since long-haul aviation is a big carbon emitter, and seems destined to be one of the last holdouts that just won't be viable without a combustion fuel in liquid (er, slush) form.
Probably simpler to react the hydrogen with CO2 to make methanol and then use that as fuel. Much simpler to handle and store since it is liquid at room temperature and pressure. But it is lower energy density than kerosene so the range will suffer a bit.
@@zapfanzapfan Right. Fuel tanks 15 to 30 times larger makes for huge aeroplanes
shipping will be the last to switch, when u look at the emissions of container ships etc you realise they are massive polluters. and the amount of them can and have changed weather patterns in the pacific..
Great very informative
@@imoovabull6042 ships also have the option of using nuclear energy. If it weren’t for the relatively small canals we have, we’d see way more massive nuclear cargo ships.
When you an environmentalist but also a petrol head at the same time.... hydrogen engines
Or some other clean(er) fuel, that preferably is more practical (like DME)
Thom kouwen what’s dme
Winslow Greaves would rather have hydrogen cars than electric cars.
DME = Dimethyl Ether.
Also known as "Bio-Diesel" here im Brazil
Hydrogen is not a fuel source. It is merely a means of storing energy that has to be converted from another source. This makes it a rather inefficient fuel to burn. Especially since it is usually converted from propane.
So having a perfect engine is a must! No leaks from valves and piston rings and no red hot metal in the combustion chamber! Not good! Thanks for this lecture!
So... if we just use two gas tanks, one for hydrogen and one for oxygen, and take nitrogen out of the equation, then that solves most of the downsides, doesn't it?
We can use renewable and nuclear energy to harvest the hydrogen and oxygen from seawater. The only question I have is: is it more efficient to store the power from renewables and nuclear inside batteries and use those for transport vehicles OR is a tank of hydrogen (being used for an internal combustion engine) a more efficient power storage solution?
@@joshuaewalker
No. The Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) is very inefficient for converting chemical energy to motion. The hydrolysis process is also very inefficient at converting electricity to chemical energy. There are further inefficiencies compressing these gasses to high pressure or chilling them to liquid. Then there are layers of economic inefficiency taking profit at each step in fossil fuel exploration subsidies, extraction, refining/production, transportation, storage and retail.
Lithium-Ion batteries, such as those in Tesla vehicles, can full cycle at around 95% efficiency. (Assuming good driving practices and slow overnight charging.) The AC electric infrastructure is highly efficient and home solar collectors bypass the fossil fuel infrastructure.
@@joshuaewalker Use the H2 and O2 in a fuel cell. It's way more efficient than an ICE. Connected with a small battery and capacitor bank you'll have no issues with sudden accelerations (fuel cell efficiency decreases as power draw increases).
How Dare You!
You are stealing my childhood!
..very well presented. I understand better now and have to say for existing and past practical instances,..hydrogen burning vehicles are not yet offering what the consumer still wants,..and that is POWER!.
Thank you again for the great presentation!
You can get more oxygen for combustion by using pure oxygen instead the nitrogen rich atmospheric blend. It might also fix the nox emission problem. When you use a hydrolyzer to generate hydrogen, it also generates pure oxygen. The hydrolyzer could generate the hydroxy mixture on demand, using water as the fuel. A small amount of water can produce vast amounts of hydroxy gas. That would take care of the oversized fuel tank situation. The only thing to work out is perfecting a highly efficient hydrolyzer, but people who have done so successfully in the past seem to have a tendency of winding up dead under mysterious circumstances. I'd imagine that might be due to the fact that oil based fuels becoming obsolete over night would collapse the economies off countries who's only exports are oil, and subsequently collapse the world economy.
Why burning oxygen what humand need for breathing?
What about people living 24/7 inside crowded cities? You don't care about them, as long you can drive your noisy and air polluting car?
@@eDriver The oxygen is already used by gasoline and Diesel engines... And this engine would use PURE oxygen, that is in the water...
You can't run an engine on water because it takes the same energy to crack water into H2 and O2 gas as you get from burning the H2 and O2 gas. Therefore, you would need a separate engine in the car to create the electricity for cracking water. And this engine would be 30% to 40% to 50% efficient (gasoline ice, diesel ice, turbo jet, respectively). And the electrical systems would be about 90% efficient. And a hydrogen ICE would be between 25% and 40% efficient, whereas an H2 fuel cell is 50% efficient. All those engines and systems under one hood, resulting in less and less efficiency? Those mysterious deaths were probably guys working themselves to death to solve a problem that can't be solved.
MultiPleaser I think you totally missed the point of his post. You just overly explained the problem that he already mentioned.
Why do you want to carry oxidiser onboard when you get it for free from the atmosphere?