Sahimo Electric Car: 568km on 1 Liter of Hydrogen!

www.cars-and-trees.com...

Something truly amazing comes from Turkey: some students from Sakarya University just released a prototype of what seems to be a car… but a car that consumes no more than a liter of hydrogen in a range of 568km (355 miles)!

Their new hydrogen car, called SAHIMO, weighs 110kg and was voted as the third-most fuel-efficient vehicle in the 26th Shell Eco Marathon contest last year. The student team behind the project is now looking at how to almost double the distance on the same 1 liter of hydrogen: 1000km.

568km/L of hydrogen, and it's only the third most fuel-efficient car?! Hmm......

reply to post by MajorDisaster


why waste more money trying to go 1000km?
finish developing the 568km one and sell it, meanwhile continue developing and researching the 1000km one.

Why do we have to keep waiting for these things when they are already available?

You guys did look at that care didn't you? It looks like a toddler could flip it over from the side like a turtle. It is tiny and no way that could go on the road.

reply to post by UFOTECH


if the technology can do this, then there is a hope for this to be developed onto a road worthy car. I mean, if the Mini Cooper can be roadworthy, please, this isn't far from that. Unless you really like being a slave to Middle Eastern oil. So how come these things never get mentioned again? Surely there isn't some sinister force at work here trying to keep us Dependant on oil. Why that would be ludicrous.

Man, they could up size this and make it meet US safety standards and sell it. Even if was to consumer 5 liters of hydrogen, you could easily get that out of an electrolizer.

Originally posted by warrenb
Why do we have to keep waiting for these things when they are already available?

It must be a conspiracy!

568km/L of hydrogen, and it's only the third most fuel-efficient car?! Hmm......

Seriously. What were the top two?

reply to post by Ntity


I wish I knew! But it doesn't say

Originally posted by UFOTECH
You guys did look at that care didn't you? It looks like a toddler could flip it over from the side like a turtle. It is tiny and no way that could go on the road.

Motorcycles are tiny, I guess we shouldn't allow those on the road either... oh wait

It can probably do that because it goes 20kmh and takes 1-2 minutes to get there. Scale it up, fit two people in it and make it go normal car speeds and acceleration and it will get the same or a bit better economy then a mini.

If you double the weight, you need 4 times the power for the same performance.

umm....1ltr of hydrogen doesnt really cost what 1 ltr petrolium costs... so working in the difference, its a bit more expensive to produce so we'll see that in the selling price therof as well.

Right now, producing hydrogen is expensive and energy intensive. It takes about six gallons of gasoline to make and compress a little over two pounds of hydrogen, which carries about the same amount of energy as a gallon of gasoline.

Originally posted by XL5
It can probably do that because it goes 20kmh and takes 1-2 minutes to get there. Scale it up, fit two people in it and make it go normal car speeds and acceleration and it will get the same or a bit better economy then a mini.

If you double the weight, you need 4 times the power for the same performance.

Is that true regarding the OP??

If yes, then this is nothing but hype :/

There's a principle that when you go faster, the more you fight aerodynamic drag, the energy requirement is exponential the faster you go.

Actually weight wouldn't matter for efficiency if you are using steel wheels driving on steel roads and equipped with a high efficiency regenerative systems. All you have to worry at that point is aerodynamic drag. Unfortunately, very sleek(aircraft-sleek) vehicles aren't very practical for normal use.

P.S. I would guess the #1 most efficient car is the solar car obviously

I'm not 100%sure if it can only get up to 20kmh, but its under 50 for sure at those efficiency values.

Even if it had no air resistance and no rolling resistance, weight would still be a major factor in efficiency. The longer you spend accelerating, the more energy you will use, so less weight means less inertia will let you accelerate faster and spend less energy.

Screw that little disposable snap-together roller skate!

Give me something with power and style like the new 2010 Camaro with the 426HP V8 engine:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/97cf8e028bf4.png[/atsimg]

What a bunch of BS. That is one of the worse science articles i have read in a long time.

568km/L of hydrogen, and it's only the third most fuel-efficient car?!

One liter of hydrogen but is that one liter at atmospheric pressure.
Or at 5000 psi
Or liquid hydrogen.

With hydrogen that would be a lot of hydrogen if liquid hydrogen.

One liter at atmospheric pressure might float a balloon. But not much elce.

The only problem with fuel efficiency in cars is weight.

The more a car weighs, the more fuel it is going to use, period.

IT is simple physics.

F=M*A

Force = Mass * Acceleration

As you increase the mass of the object being accelerated, you increase the amount of force required to do the acceleration.

All we have to do is construct aerodynamic cars, from lightweight materials.

Like this, for example:


OR This:


Smaller Is Better.

-Edrick

reply to post by ANNED

One liter of hydrogen but is that one liter at atmospheric pressure.
Or at 5000 psi
Or liquid hydrogen.

With hydrogen that would be a lot of hydrogen if liquid hydrogen.

One liter at atmospheric pressure might float a balloon. But not much elce.

Yeah... that's a really knowledgeable statement you just made there...

This is One liter of Hydrogen at atmospheric pressure.

Which contains .01 Mega Joules per liter
Compared to Gasoline, which contains 31.2 Mega Joules per liter


Now, before you say that hydrogen is WEAK or some such nonesence...

Consider the Energy Density per MASS:

Gasoline: 11.86 Kilowatts per Kilogram
Hydrogen: 33.3 Kilowatts per Kilogram

So, as you can see, hydrogen contains 3 times the energy as an equivalent mass of Gasoline.

Source: www.minihydrogen.dk...

Honestly, I don't see where people get off on shunning hydrogen.

You do know that Gasoline is a HYDROcarbon, right?

As in, it gets it's chemical energy from HYDROGEN!?

And the Hydrogen Oxygen reaction has much more energy than the Carbon oxygen reaction.

So, hydrogen as a fuel is MUCH more efficient than gasoline.


And for the "WE can't Store it" Crowd...

We have been doing this for DECADES.

Molecular Hydrogen does not embrittle Metals, only Atomic Hydrogen does.

and Atomic hydrogen is a byproduct of ARC Welding, not Hydrogen production.


AAAAND... Hydrogen is no more dangerous (Explosions, Fire, etc) than gasoline.

IF you rupture the tank (Even if it is compressed) you are not going to get an explosion, you are going to get a flame.

Just like with Gasoline.


The only way to "Explode" a Hydrogen storage container is by using *EXPLOSIVES*

-Edrick

Originally posted by Edrick
The only problem with fuel efficiency in cars is weight.

The more a car weighs, the more fuel it is going to use, period.

IT is simple physics.

F=M*A

Force = Mass * Acceleration

As you increase the mass of the object being accelerated, you increase the amount of force required to do the acceleration.

Yes and yes BUT. The future of automotive efficiency involves regenerative systems. Hybrid cars today actually use a rudimentary form of regenerative systems. It solves the weight problems with efficiency.

What's in it for you? Of course, you follow the simple rule of F=M*A. To accelerate to a certain speed, you consume energy. Thus, the more massive the vehicle is, the more energy is consumed....

BUT that is where it ends with regenerative systems. The more massive and higher speed is attained, the more energy is restored to the system via *electromagnetic(dynamo) braking*

A 100% efficient regenerative system will actually make it look like your car weigh nothing at all if you drove on very hard tires!! In reality, up to 90% efficiency is attainable and that is still a very good figure!

The only problem left is aerodynamic efficiency, weigh won't matter much in the future in terms of efficiency

[edit on 7-7-2009 by ahnggk]

reply to post by ahnggk

Yes and yes BUT. The future of automotive efficiency involves regenerative systems. Hybrid cars today actually use a rudimentary form of regenerative systems. It solves the weight problems with efficiency.

Really?

The material overuse problem?

The Dangerous Heavy tank of death problem?

The weight induced ground friction problem?

The wear and tear problem?

Seem like legitimate complaints to me.

What's in it for you? Of course, you follow the simple rule of F=M*A. To accelerate to a certain speed, you consume energy. Thus, the more massive the vehicle is, the more energy is consumed....

Yeah, but you still have to overcome Mass induced friction, and you can't get that back with regenerative braking.

Plus, you still NEED more power to accelerate, and even if you use regenerative systems, you still need more "Temporary" storage (Batteries) to hold all of that power in order to use it again.

BUT that is where it ends with regenerative systems. The more massive and higher speed is attained, the more energy is restored to the system via *electromagnetic(dynamo) braking*

Yes, but the majority of energy used in powering an automobile is maintaining speed against friction, not accelerating.

A 100% efficient regenerative system will actually make it look like your car weigh nothing at all if you drove on very hard tires. In reality, up to 90% efficiency is attainable and that is still a very good figure!

Does not matter what your efficiency is....

Where are you going to store all that power?

More mass = More energy from regenerative braking.

More energy for regenerative braking means more batteries.

More batteries mean more mass... etc, etc, etc...


Lighter cars are BETTER.

Period.

-Edrick

Originally posted by Edrick

Yeah, but you still have to overcome Mass induced friction, and you can't get that back with regenerative braking.

Plus, you still NEED more power to accelerate, and even if you use regenerative systems, you still need more "Temporary" storage (Batteries) to hold all of that power in order to use it again.

I'm an engineer and I know a lot about bearings. The increase in friction say, a sub compact vs full-size SUV in the wheel axle with roller bearings is negligible. The increase in friction is actually coming from the tires to ground contact that's why I used 'very hard' tires in my example, which again made friction differences negligible. I'm actually considering future tire concepts which is more efficient than today's in wasting energy in the form of heat.

Efficient regenerative systems don't use batteries, they use capacitors because they recharge *real time* with little loss in energy. Consequently, capacitors, also give up store energy very quickly compared to batteries but you don't need that much energy for one burst of acceleration anyway after every braking. The battery is there for backup, not the main part of the regenerative system. If the system added to the weight, again, the excess weight is scavenged back to the temporary storage - capacitors by demanding more work from the dynamos to stop the vehicle.

I've experimented with regenerative systems before so I know the principle intimately, the math, and suitable equipment to use

Although I agree with you on one thing that ligther vehicle are far easier to take care of. And currently, lighter vehicles are the logical choice for many reasons.

[edit on 7-7-2009 by ahnggk]