Fly Away Flywheels

Okay? How much energy do they throw away?

Per gallon af fuel use they move multiple times more mass than your own vehicles do.

Some comparative numbers to support your statement please.

I though it was orders of magnitude more mass per volume of fuel. If I find a reference, I will post it.

It may be that any mitigation effort to alleviate the, fraction of a percentage of normal operating time in a worst case situation, inefficiency may be more onerous during normal operation than is reasonable to accept.

Sorry guys, I should have read the rest of the posts. Good Answers!!

Do you have any information stating and backing up your views?

I would say it should be criminal to throw away as much energy as modern ocomotives do.

The research that I have found say differently as far as rail transportation.

Didn't take long to pull some info on it.

And the closest I could come to the negative of rail efficiency is that now state of the art truck design is getting close to rail efficiency.

Trains are so 19th century....well I guess there are a few left....I thought most were diesel engine driven generator to electric motor, with regenerative braking, and the trend was to LNG to replace the diesel....I personally think they should go nuclear...but fuel cells seems more doable....reversible fuel cells...

http://www.railway-technology.com/features/featurehydrail-lng-future-railway-propulsion-fuel/

Lets see here.

Typical automobile. 33 - 70 gallons per 1000 miles.

Typical heavy truck. 8.7 - 28 gallons per 1000 miles.

Typical locomotive. 2 - 3 gallons per 1000 miles.

From here.

Fuel efficiency of typical modes of transportation.

BTW guess who pays/the government gains the most in fuel and road tax from and has the highest emissions standard to meet too?

Also guess which one is emissions exempt and has the power to tell the EPA and government to go stuff themself over its compliance as well?

the figures quoted were for gallons fuel consumed per thousand ton-miles. Leaving out tons sort of negates the entire argument.

The only way I can foresee to improve train fuel economy right now is to introduce some hydrogen with the fuel to increase burn velocity if ICE is used, perhaps even in gas turbine locomotives.

As far as I know the fuel efficiency for a chocomotive is zero.

"the figures quoted were for gallons fuel consumed per thousand ton-miles. Leaving out tons sort of negates the entire argument."

Uh what?

So 1 gallon moving 400 tons one mile or 1 ton 400 miles is different than 2.5 gallons moving 1000 tons one mile or 1 ton 1000 miles?

Do explain.

A locomotive is not designed to move 1 ton a distance of 1000 miles on one gallon, or even 2.5 gallons of fuel, but it might move the 1000 ton load 1 mile on 2.5 gallons. Do you see the distinction?

gallons per ton-mile = gal/ton-mile means that specific conditions apply.

A train has a different coefficient of rolling friction for the load than a truck or a car. It is sort of an apple and orange thing, you know?

If all three had loads, on level roads or tracks, and rolling friction and air drag could be eliminated (which they can't), then all three should have vaguely similar load fuel economy numbers, but they don't now do they?

The same general operation conditions apply as does to all modes of transportation listed.

Numbers factored over typical day in and day out operation conditions which in a railroad locomotives application their day in and dayou average fuel consumption Vs tons move per unit of distance is,

~400 tons moved 1 mile or 1 ton moved 400 miles per gallon fuel used or

1000 tons moves 1 mile or 1 ton moved 1000 miles per 2.5 gallons moved.

What's so hard to follow with that? Power/energy used is equal as long as the ratio of the three variables stays the same.

If not, how do you figure it?

Not a problem at all. I didn't really understand what you were saying at first, but the tons moved a distance per gallon is another way to look at it also. I had to read the link to understand it in a way that makes sense.

The problem as I see it is that your #5 just said miles, not ton-miles. Ton-miles was in the link, but had to open that to find it.

I don't have a #5 in my post 13.

Do explain.

I was referring to your post #5

Yes. The "from here" leads the reader to the link to find the context. If you don't read the link they you have no idea what I am referring too.

I know, it's a dirty trick to make people actually have to click on a link and read something they may learn from but, hey. I'm evil that way.

OK, but it wouldn't have hurt to put ton-miles in the body of your post .

James Stewart made the same point in #7. You still didn't seem to get it in #8. He wasn't querying the arithmetic, just pointing out that it doesn't make sense without the "ton" in there. Unless he corrects me.

Thanks for that.

I'm not an english major or technical writer. Never claimed to be.

I assume people to be as capable of reading and following the inferred context of what I post as I am.

My assumptions are usually wrong.

I write in a hurry.

We have a 15 minute editing time which is not enough for coming back and correcting over sites.

Just be content with my doing a basic spell check and a once over proofread before posting.

OK no problem and no hard feelings

At least you made me look at the link, old buddy!

Yea, life's a real pain in the ass when not everyone hands you everything in a nice neat one sentence facebook blurb* that condenses a whole industry and technological systems down into one meaningless and likely misrepresentative word or number.

*(Train big, use much NRG, must improve, #LOL#.) <Like me!>

On that basis the best method of transport is the modern safety bicycle.

Although it would seem absurd, you do have a point. Look what India and Vietnam manage to get done with bicycles, and what the Japanese Army did with them in the taking of Singapore!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Campaign

Could of really cleaned up with patch kits eh?

Last two questions:

Automobiles pay the most in fuel and road tax, and have higher emission standards.

Trains are exempt, and can tell the EPA to sit and spin, quietly while sucking on a lollipop.

And what do you want to know exactly?

BTW if you want to troll me that's fine.

Just have the courtesy to use the system the admin has set up for you and do it anonymously.

Hydraulic motors are available in many sizes, even suitable for a locomotive, and the hydraulic accumulator can be engineered up to larger sizes commensurate with storing a lot of braking energy, as in regenerative braking. Some locomotives already have regenerative braking using electric motor/generators.

Diesel over hydraulic was experimented with years ago for locomotive drive systems but it proved to be less efficient and higher maintenance than the now standard diesel over electric drive systems.

Going back to it would be a backwards step in technology, systems efficiency and cost even with accumulators added for regen purposes.

However in common automotive and trucking it has been studied to likely have merit given the present far lower operating efficiencies.

That overlooks the vast progress made in hydraulic motors in the last forty or fifty years. I would not cast the hydraulic systems out of hand so quickly.

They are being looked at for tank propulsion also, since the power available instantly can be made very high indeed, and only requires a smaller ICE or turbine engine to charge the cruising rate of consumption of pressure-volume work.

It seems one of the advantages of the hybrid hydraulic drive systems is the efficiency of the regenerative braking energy capture which is nearly three times as effective as electrical regenerative braking....This may suit the garbage trucks and city busses well...there are of course pilot projects testing the feasibility of these systems in progress for some years now....but I haven't seen any definitive results...the landscape changes so quickly sometimes it's hard to keep up with everything....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_hybrid_vehicle

http://www.nrel.gov/transportation/fleettest.html

In large trucks like you mention that do considerable amounts of stop and go driving it's seen as being potentially favorable being the overall energy levels involved in their rather low speed operation do not require substantial amounts of high pressure storage to make it work.

The other more practical thing I have been watching for some time now is with electric or hybrid drives that combine battery, supercapacitor and smaller high efficiency engines into such vehicles.

With the city bus and garbage trucks they do not need a high power engine being in their normal primary driving conditions their speeds are relatively low. In many places well under 30 MPH plus their primary driving pattern is done with fairly light acceleration which cuts their peak power consumption down even further.

I can't find the article but it was figured that haverge city bus could easily run off of a hybrid systems with a ~50 - 75 HP diesel generator system on board which is substantial reduction over the present 250 - 300+ HP engines they use now.

It's likely that other service vehicles like garbage trucks would also work well with asimilar system.

Still, even with all that they won't catch a standard train on the Mile-tons per gallon numbers!

Yes I have to agree, I think the next step in efficiency would be clean diesel engines driving generator to electric drive train...then fuel cell powered...

..."In the US, General Electric made a locomotive with sodium - nickel chloride (Na-NiCl₂) battery storage. They expect ≥10% fuel economy.^[11]

Variant diesel electric locomotive include the Green Goat (GG) and Green Kid (GK) switching/yard engines built by Canada's Railpower Technologies, with lead acid (Pba) batteries and 1000 to 2000 hp electric motors, and a new clean burning ~160 hp diesel generator. No fuel is wasted for idling — ~60–85% of the time for these type locomotives. It is unclear if regenerative braking is used; but in principle it is easily utilized.

Since these engines typically need extra weight for traction purposes anyway the battery pack's weight is a negligible penalty.^{[citation needed]} The diesel generator and batteries are normally built on an existing "retired" "yard" locomotive's frame. The existing motors and running gear are all rebuilt and reused. Fuel savings of 40–60% and up to 80% pollution reductions are claimed over a "typical" older switching/yard engine. The advantages hybrid cars have for frequent starts and stops and idle periods apply to typical switching yard use.^[12]"Green Goat" locomotives have been purchased by Canadian Pacific Railway, BNSF Railway, Kansas City Southern Railway, and Union Pacific Railroad among others."...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_vehicle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railpower_GG20B

The low efficiency of induction braking for regeneration WAS due to power density in storage acceptance; not the efficiency of the induction braking itself.

Note I used the past tense.

http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/144935

Hydraulic hybridization would not be my first choice. My first choice would be an ICE/Electric using capacitive storage and applying the Three Fundamental Efficiencies of Hybrid Technology as described in the following link. I ask that you look by the first paragraph and consider the Three Fundamental Efficiencies: Power Averaging, Regenerative Braking, and Peaking Power.

http://www.bestsyndication.com/Articles/2006/c/carter_mark/031206_hybrid_cars.htm

I first wrote about these fundamental efficiencies as a close out to an Individual Studies Project at the University of Northern Iowa in the Fall of 1978 using a regenerative capable locomotive switch engine as the study model. I followed on with an automotive application with an entry in the 1984 Rolex Awards competition.

A couple of years ago I responded to Mr. Okoye's request for assistance in writing a paper on ICE/Hydraulic hybrid power as applied to a bus. Mr Okoye explained that he was cooperating with other people at the Harbin Technical Institute in writing a technical paper in English. I agreed to cooperate with Mr. Okoye but ended up pretty much reconfiguring the process. Once I submitted the completed copy to Mr. Okoye, I never heard from him again. What follows is the editing I did on Mr. Okoye's original paper, which I still have. I have cut most but not all of the original copy; leaving largely the edited and reconfigured portion.

Energy Management and Regenerative Recovery As Applied To Hydraulic Hybrid Vehicle Technology Using an Improved Hydraulic Transformer, Clean Diesel Combustion Technology and Prime Mover Power Averaging.

ABSTRACT

The primary focus of this paper is the integration of Hydraulic Power and Clean Diesel Combustion technologies into a Hybrid Hydraulic Vehicle (HHV). This hybrid power process incorporates four-wheel drive, allows for the regeneration of braking energy, and will include the integration of an improved broad range hydraulic transformer for drive and regenerative braking control. This proposed hybrid power process, when retrofitted to existing body and frame design, will meet or exceed baseline performance of the conventionally configured vehicle while significantly reducing vehicle emissions and radically improving fuel economy.

The motivation for this research is the impact that transportation energy usage has on the economic, political, and environmental stability of the planet.

1. INTRODUCTION

The rapid growth and development of world population has resulted in an exponentially increasing demand for petroleum based transportation fuels. Currently there are over 800 million vehicles consuming 40 million barrels of petroleum per day. This results in about half the urban pollution and 1/10 of anthropogenic green house gasses. (IEA 2000) Energy usage trends inherent to all nations indicate that the transportation sector of world economy will remain the largest user of petroleum based fuels into the future with wheeled vehicles using a disproportionate amount of those supplies. In addition, it is reasonable to assume that energy supply and demand will be a primary driving force in world political interaction. Any incremental increase in the efficiency of wheeled vehicle power processes will have a proportional and positive impact on world economic growth, environmental health and political stability.

1.1 Hydraulic Power Technology

The high power density, cycle rate, and life span of hydraulic accumulators make hydraulic technology very attractive in comparison to electro-chemical batteries for use in the drive and regeneration components of hybrid vehicles(Oko2005)(Buc79). This is particularly true in truck and bus applications where system mass is large and is combined with frequent stop and go cycles. In the proposed process, the enhanced energy management, regenerative braking, and increased efficiency in power supply for steering (Kab93//Shi2003) and other auxiliary systems will further improve overall efficiency with proportional reductions in gas and particulate emissions normally associated with conventional wheeled vehicle power processes.

It is believed that Hydraulic Power is inherently safer than Electro-Chemical Power when applied to Hybrid Wheeled Vehicle Processes. The long life cycle and general composition of the hydraulic components, when compared to equivalent electro-chemical components, should reduce the amount of hazardous materials entering the waste stream, this also is a very important consideration.

A significant challenge being met in the development of an efficient HHV is reducing thermal losses due to piping, valving, and accumulation which require supplemental cooling and treatment of the hydraulic fluids. Other challenges being met include effective program processed control of prime mover power to match averaged demand made possible by temporary storage and regenerative braking.

Although the power process is modeled as an Internal Combustion Engine/ Hydraulic Hybrid Vehicle the Loading Control Program and Power Flow Process is adaptable any type of prime mover using flywheel, electro-chemical, air pressurization, or other storage and drive methods.

1.2 Clean Diesel Combustion Technology

Diesel Engine emissions contribute to serious human health and environmental hazards. Reducing these emissions through application of CDC technology will help to address one of the most important air quality challenges facing the world. A significant reduction or elimination of nitrogen oxide (NOx), particulate matters (PM), hydrocarbon (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO) from diesel engine exhaust would have a profound impact on human health and environmental quality.

Clean diesel combustion technology is the combination of several innovative improvements in diesel engine technology. The improvements in fuel injection, re-optimization and refinement of air management/turbo charging systems results in cleaner and more efficient combustion of the fuel. (www.epa.gov/otaq/technology/420f04036.pdf) Increasing overall thermal and power process efficiencies reduces the amount of fuel burned for each unit of work performed with catalytic conversion and particulate matter traps in the vehicle exhaust system further reducing emissions. Natural Gas to Liquid Fuel technologies will also serve to support an overall reduction in diesel emissions by presenting a cleaner primary fuel.

Both General Motors and DaimlerChrysler have reported up to a 30% improvement in fuel economy when CDC technologies are used in modern vehicles (www2002 //Mag2003). Utilizing CDC in hybrid vehicles will further optimize CDC technology.

As CDC technology matures it is predicted to drastically reduce if not totally eliminate PM emissions by the end of 2020 as shown in figure 1.

2. PRESSURE COUPLED HHB

2.1 Major Power Production, Drive, and Control Components.

The proposed Pressure Coupled Hydraulic Hybrid Vehicle (HHV) has the following main components: Clean Diesel Combustion Prime Mover, Primary Pressurization Pump, High Efficiency Electronically Controlled Variable Displacement Transformer of radial multi cylinder design, Electronically Controlled Variable Displacement Hydraulic Pump/Motor Unit, Electronically Controlled Variable Displacement Hydraulic Drive Motor, Three Hydro-Pneumatic Accumulators, Electronic Controller, Control Valves, various Sensors, and Processor Based Loading Control Program.

2.1.1 Clean Diesel Combustion Prime Mover. (CDCPM)

A properly sized CDCPM as described in 1.2. CDCPM loading is controlled by the Processor Based Loading Control Program.

2.1.2 Primary Pressurization Pump. (PPP)

A hydraulic pump used to convert the mechanical energy from the prime mover to hydraulic power by pressurizing a common rail to the PPSA and auxiliary power systems.

2.1.3 Three Hydro-Pneumatic Accumulators

1. Primary Power and Storage Accumulator (PPSA) is fed from primary rail and serves as a temporary storage device for power averaging and peaking power supply. It accumulates power when secondary rail pressure is higher than primary rail pressure and feeds secondary rail when secondary rail pressure is below primary rail pressure. A negative pressure check valve prevents hydraulic feed back from the secondary rail during high pressure regeneration.

2. Secondary Regeneration Recovery and Feed Accumulator (SRRFA) receives and stores regenerated energy from the HT during regeneration and delivers energy to the HT during the next acceleration. During acceleration the SRRFA feeds the HT/secondary rail through a pressure differential and check valve when SRRFA pressure exceeds primary rail pressure. SRRFA pressurization will be considerably higher than PPSA pressure during temporary accumulation of regenerated energy. The differential and check valve also reserves capacity on the SRRFA based on LCP input. This insures adequate storage capacity for regenerated kinetic energy based on the velocity of the vehicle and independent of primary rail pressure.

3. Low pressure supply accumulator (LPSA) supplies pressurized hydraulic fluid supply to the HT to prevent cavitation during heavy loading.

2.1.4 Hydraulic Transformer. (HT)

A modified electronically controlled broad range adjustable valve angle plate hydraulic transformer used to transform and direct hydraulic power as demanded by the system. This multi-port transformer handles all power delivered too the drive system during power and all regenerated energy during regenerative braking.

2.1.5 Variable Displacement Hydraulic Pump/Motor (HP/M)

This device is integral with, or mechanically coupled to the front drive axel. It is used in the motor mode during initial acceleration and is switched to pump mode for regeneration of the linear kinetic energy of the vehicle during braking. This device is isolated during cruising and coasting.

2.1.6 Hydraulic Variable Displacement Hydraulic Drive Motor (HDM)

This device is mechanically coupled to the rear drive axel through a two speed forward and single speed reverse automatic transmission. It is used in conjunction with the front motor/pump during high pressure acceleration and serves as the single driving motor during cruising.

2.1.7 Control Valves, and various Sensors.

The Control Valves check and direct fluid power supply. Chop Valves interrupt hydraulic supply to secondary rail drive components during emergency braking. Various sensors feed input to the LCP and fail safe critical valves.

2.1.8 Loading Control Program (LCP)

The Loading Control Program receives input from, CDCPM RPM, vehicle velocity and cycle displacement, PPSA pressure, SRRFA pressure, and Reference Memory Files to maintain near constant loading of the prime mover by controlling the CDCPM fuel supply.

2.1.9 Power Component Control Unit.

The control unit receives input from conventional controls and converts that input to electronic control signals fed to the various power components.

3. Power Flow Control in Hydraulic Hybrid Vehicle

3.1 Initial Prime Mover Start Up and System Preconditioning.

After the prime mover has stabilized at idle, the operator will enter a choice of control programs at the dash mounted key pad. The Loading Control Program (LCP) will control prime mover loading from that point on. If needed, time is allowed for preconditioning of the PPSA to the initial operating pressure as called for by the LCP. The choice of control programs can be changed at any time in the transportation cycle.

After preconditioning, the prime mover begins to supply hydraulic energy to primary rail at the Loading Control Program averaged power.

3.2 Acceleration

During acceleration the HT is powered off secondary rail. Secondary rail is fed first from the SRRFA when SRRA pressure exceeds primary rail pressure. As SRRFA pressure drops to primary rail pressure, the primary rail outlet check valve opens allowing power to begin flowing from PPP/PPSA/primary rail and SRRFA. As velocity increases pressure decay on the HM/P line triggers the isolation of the HM/P for cruising with the HT then delivering all power to the HDM.

The prime mover continues to supply hydraulic energy to primary rail at the Loading Control Program averaged power.

3.3 Cruising

The HM/P has been conditioned for cruising by incremental isolation via a spring valve with all hydraulic power being directed to the HDM. Above a base line velocity, HDM line pressure triggers the gear set shift to reduce fluid flow rates and associated losses for increased efficiency.

The prime mover continues to supply hydraulic energy to primary rail at the Loading Control Program averaged power.

3.4 Coasting

The HT incrementally reduces hydraulic pressure to neutral at the HDM rear axel drive unit.

The prime mover continues to supply hydraulic energy to primary rail at the LCP averaged power.

3.5 Non-Emergency Regenerative Braking

In non-emergency braking the front axel HM/P unit is switched to the pump mode, reverse pressurizing the HM/P line, and driving the HT. The HT then feeds hydraulic energy to the SRRFA. The inherent properties of hydraulic power prevent axel lock and wheel slide during regenerative braking. Conventional Braking is incrementally blended based on demand.

The prime mover continues to supply hydraulic energy to primary rail at the LCP averaged power.

3.6 Emergency Braking

If the control unit receives input from the conventional controls indicating emergency braking the LCP and Control Unit chops prime mover power to idle, triggers chopping valves on both sides of the HT, and uses conventional friction braking to supply braking force.

4.0 Power Flow Diagram for this Proposed Hydraulic Hybrid Vehicle Configuration.

A. Clean Diesel Combustion Prime Mover B. Primary Pressurization Pump C. Primary Power and Storage Accumulator D. Secondary Regeneration Recovery and Feed Accumulator E. Hydraulic Transformer F. Front Drive Train G. Rear Drive Train

5.0 Basic configuration of (HHV)

5.1 Hydraulic Hybrid Vehicle Configuration

Figure 2 shows the proposed Hydraulic Hybrid Vehicle (HHV)

Needs Diagram

Figure 2: Hydraulic Hybrid Vehicle Configurations

In this configuration, the engine is mechanically coupled to the Primary Pressurization Pump which pressurizes primary rail powering auxiliary systems, charging the PPSA, and feeding secondary rail. A check valve blocks reverse hydraulic flow from secondary to primary rail when the SRRFA is above PPSA/primary rail pressure.

The Hydraulic Transformer is placed between the Hydraulic Pump/Motor, Hydraulic Drive Motor, and Secondary Rail.

7. THE SIMULATION OF HYDRAULIC HYBRID VEHICLE

7.1 Comparison of HHB with traditional vehicles

The research model compares acceleration/deceleration performance between the traditional and hydraulic hybrid vehicle. It also compares the level of energy recovery with and without hydraulic transformer. The base vehicle selected is ??????? Its parameters are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Baseline Vehicle Specification

Body:

Mode:

Mass:

Engine:

Type: Transmission

Maximum Torque: Differential

Maximum Engine RPM: Accessories

Maximum Power: Power Steer

Figure 4: Acceleration Curve

Insert Acceleration Curve Here

Figure 4: The curve of acceleration performance

The modeling shows that integration of the hydraulic transformer with the hydraulic pump/motor and HDM allows for greater accelerative performance with smaller CDCPM peak horsepower.

Figure 5: Deceleration Curve and

Figure 6: Accumulator Pressurization Curve.

The deceleration performance of hydraulic hybrid vehicle is shown in Figure 5 and the SRRFA pressurization curve is shown in Figure 6. When the vehicle is driven at the speed of XX m/s, the deceleration performance of the HT equipped hydraulic hybrid bus is better than one not equipped with a HT.

Insert Deceleration Curve Here

Figure 5: The curve of deceleration performance

Insert SRRA Pressurization Curve Here

Figure 6: The SRRA Pressurization Curve.

The high pressure hydraulic fluid is used by hydraulic pump/motor unit to generate negative torque, braking the vehicle, and recovering the deceleration energy in a shorter time. Figure 6 shows clearly that with the help of a hydraulic transformer, the accumulator can recovery more energy.

8.0 General Efficiencies:

Summing CDCPM energy output and pressure variation of the hydraulic accumulators and following the high performance LCP the system puts XX Joules of energy into the process in X seconds giving the HHV a velocity of XX m/s. This translates to XX Joules of kinetic energy for a conversion efficiency of XX percent. This includes efficiency losses due to aerodynamic and road drag.

The HHV attains a maximum peaking velocity of XX m/s in XX seconds from stop when both accumulators are fully charged and the LCP is set to real time demand.

The CDCPM operates at XX Watts when operating at the designed cruising velocity of XXm/s.

The CDCPM operates at XX Watts when operating at the maximum sustained velocity of XX m/s.

9.0 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK

The use of hydraulic power technology can enhance both the safety and efficiency of hybrid wheeled vehicles. Hydraulic Hybridization can optimize evolving Prime Mover technologies of all types by increasing overall process efficiencies through efficient mechanical to kinetic conversion and regeneration. The integration of Hydraulic Transformers will play a key role in continuing the evolution of this exciting technology with continued research further refining and enhancing the inherent efficiencies found in hydraulic power. HHV technology is expected to be capable of capturing and reusing a large percentage of braking energy normally lost during conventional friction braking as well as optimizing prime mover power at near peak efficiency. Power Averaging and Regeneration will substantially increase overall fuel efficiency with proportionately positive environmental, economic, and political effects driving this technology into the future.

Future work will focus on reducing thermal losses and reducing if not totally eliminating the need for hydraulic coolers.

The coming evolution of HHV technology will integrate flywheel storage, to efficient prime mover and evolved hydraulic power processes allowing for super high performance with independent 4 wheel traction controlled drive.

Power Averaging techniques will have wide spread application outside wheeled vehicles to include small unit electrical power production and industrial processes.

Psychobabble and artbabble are now joined by hydrobabble.

I could be wrong, but I think that's just another daydream with the decimal point in the wrong place.

No depth....seems like random vague statements from an unsound mind.....no offense

Really; can you psychoanalyze a paragraph or two for me?

Sure.

You're on the defensive now.

http://www.nrel.gov/transportation/fleettest_hybrid_coke.html

“During the on-road portion of the study, the hybrid vehicles demonstrated 13.7% higher fuel economy than their conventional counterparts, -- “

Hybrid power processes are best suited to highly variable power demand coupled with frequent stop, go, and grading cycles.

These disappointing results may be related to improper application, low regeneration efficiencies, and real time demand on the prime mover.

From the referenced article:

“It’s difficult to use a conventional battery for this purpose,” explains Mertiny. “You need to recharge and discharge a lot of energy very quickly. Batteries don’t last long under those conditions.”

I'm curious: As an alternative to batteries, why consider flywheels, which require a lot of electronics and electro-magnetics to work? Why not consider something solid-state, like capacitors, for storing and releasing electrical energy? Or inductors?

Capacitors have a very low energy density compared to batteries, and can't hold the charge for very long...

http://www.mpoweruk.com/alternatives.htm

but they can discharge quite rapidly then a battery could???

In the article (did you read it?) they were talking about light rail which has frequent starts and stops, not the heavy, long-haul freight trains that the OP was wondering about. In this article they said they don't even use batteries, they simply use resistors to drain away the excess power, discarding it as heat.

So my questions is: For this case of light rail with frequent start and stops, where battery techology can't hold up to the frequent charge/discharge cycles, why not use capacitors? They don't need to hold the charge for very long, nor do they need to store the amount of power a long-haul freight would require. They can charge up and discharge quickly. Seems like a bank of capacitors would be better than simply throwing away the energy as heat.

The link you included indicates capacitors can handle very high power densities.

In the case of frequent starts and stops a bank of ultracapacitors would certainly work in certain types of trains....The problem is voltage matching for purpose...

http://www.maxwell.com/products/ultracapacitors/125v-tran-modules

..."Regenerative breaking is a mature technology. It can be more easily applied to AC powered trains than to DC powered systems. In DC powered railway systems usually higher investment costs are needed. "..

..."The two main motivations to employ regenerative breaking are energy savings and reduced wear of mechanical brakes. The technique of regenerative braking is most effective in full stop passenger trains and subway trains (metro), because they stop often enough to make recovery worthwhile. Conventional freight trains only have a limited potential to recover power with the help of regenerative braking. (UIC,2002a) This is due to the high average weight of freight trains and the fact that only the locomotive axles are powered. The main share of braking is done by the mechanical brakes located on the freight cars, and only a small share originates from the locomotive itself."...

..."Electric railway systems can be either DC or AC powered. It is much easier to implement regenerative breaking for AC powered systems. For DC powered systems, there are two main barriers: (1) Most DC powered systems use relatively low voltages and (2) often the generated electricity cannot be fed back into the public electricity grid. In very dense suburban DC powered networks, however, regenerative breaking can be an effective way to reduce the electricity demand. In all other cases, the effectiveness of regenerative braking is rather low but may be enhanced by technological upgrades of vehicles and/or substations. These upgrades are associated with relatively high investment costs."...

http://www.climatetechwiki.org/technology/regenerative_braking_in_trains

http://www.maxwell.com/

Scalable from Locomotives to Human Powered Electromotive Bicycles.

Sry, I don't have time to look for Painter's term paper or I would link that; it is a good read.

My thought on the large number of miles moved on a gallon of fuel is that they are referencing once the train is up to speed, it only takes a gallon to move tons of cargo that many miles.

My compliant is how much fuel it takes to get up to speed and then all that kinetic energy is wasted away as heat as the train slows. They have all the hardware on the train to capture it but no way of storing it. Flywheels were ruled in in Painter's paper and unless he missed something or there has been some advance since then they are still not a good solution, and there is always the angular momentum problem when the axis are altered.

As for the idiling comments, as far as I know they idle to keep air pressure up in the system and everything warmed up but that could be done another (cheaper) way with the right motivation. I don't like my vehicle idiling at traffic lights either...but I do like the a/c to stay on :-/

Drew K

But you are moving 100's even thousands of tons of freight.

With a flywheel your savings will be spent and then some (a lot) on the toting along the flywheel's weight.

It is a pretty simple calculation for how much energy it takes to get hundreds of tons up to 100 kph. What I am saying is that they don't do enough to recover that energy and they have the tools to do it. The trains already use dynamic braking, they already convert that kinetic energy to electricity...then just radiate it out as heat.

Drew K

What I'm saying is, is it even feasible to not so much to collect, but to store this energy.

Unquestionably yes, with hydraulic accumulator (cars). More than enough energy could be stored to bring the "new" load to speed. Even while "idling" the locomotive engine at station, the power would all be put into further charging of the accumulators to the point that the train could decelerate a 60 car load, then take out a 100 car load to speed with ease.

In contexts where I have used/seen hydraulic accumulators, they don't store much energy, and because of pressure, they are heavy for their size. Are you describing some other type?

Have seen ones designed for an automobile that was to get 160 mpg, cruise 1000 miles on a 6 gallon tank of fuel. The accumulators are large enough to take care of uphill power, braking energy, and acceleration. The motor is a low horsepower (28 HP I recall) ICE with opposing piston axial design with fuel injection in the disk between pistons. There is no rotary motion, just linear motion, as the rods are the hydraulic pistons that charge the accumulator/drive the hydraulic motors (one on each wheel).

It's not hundreds of tons. It's ten thousand plus.

A typical loaded railcar can weigh over 100+ tons by itself and there can be 100+ on a single train.

I worked for a company that fueled the locomotive sin ut local rail yard so I got up close and personal with those monsters every day.

Most of the new ones had 5200 - 5400 gallon fuel tanks and it was pretty common to dump 10,000 gallons in just three engines doing top off to 4600 - 4800 gallons on a sight glass reading.

As for the 400 ton/miles per gallon that's figured just the same as you figure you vehicle fuel milage. Stop and go just as you do.

FYI the heaviest trains on the tracks are grain trains. They typically gross 100 - 130 tons per car and have 100 - 110 cars per train in the midwest and can gross 12,000 - 14,000+ tons. They often run a 2 + 2 engine configuration with two front pullers and two rear pushers capable of putting over 16,000+ HP to the tracks at any one time just for flat land operation and usually have a 35 MPH speed limit at that!

If using gas turbine or diesel ICE, keeping the engine warm has less pollution than the equivalent number of cold starts, whatever equivalent works out to be.

For a gas turbine, it is clearly best to keep the thing on rpm, on its own oil pump, and cooling aspects. Just like anything else, with the temperatures involved, the less thermal cycling from cold to full temperature, the better.

Sorry, I read the article more closely.

This applies to light rail. Frequent starts and stops with minutes of idle time at each stop.

" The city has installed banks of flywheels at each station to capture energy as trains arrive for use later. Locating the flywheels at each station meant that Hanover’s trains did not have to be retrofitted for the development."

Much of what has been said relates to long haul, freight trains.

Still, I don't see the advantage.

Can you educate me?

This means the locomotive does not have to apply full engine power when pulling away from the station. I just want to see this carapult in action.

Sort of like that bus from Seminole, TX to Hobbs, NM that leaves at 5:00 p.m., and arrives at 4:59 p.m.

But, LIGHT rail lines are electric, not diesel.

Oh well, then do they not have electrified tracks? Just put braking energy back into the grid where it came from.

I would love someone to develop a wireless way of transmitting energy so they could 'beam' from the train but electrifying the rails or even a 3rd rail in unsecure areas would be a bad idea. My thoughts are for a catenary wire system like has been used in cities across the world. They would only need to be built in sections where braking / acceleration is common. Train hits the dynamic braking, dumps the current on the grid, other trains on the grid idile down their engines and take the current. It might take come creative controlling hardware / software but that should be paid for with a few years worth of fuel savings.

Drew K

The forgotten genius

Nothing but a giant bug zapper....

..or maybe he was just obsessed with giant phallic symbols....

The primary variables in regenerative capable transportation systems would seem to be;

The kinetic and gravitational energy dissipated in a conventional transportation cycle.

The power acceptance of the temporary storage medium and its impact on regeneration efficiency.

The base efficiency of the prime mover where Saved Energy approximates the regenerated energy divided by the fractional efficiency factor. (i.e. 25% = .25) For an ICE the saved energy in a regenerative capable process ---- Combustion Energy Saved = (Efficiency factor of the regeneration cycle) * (Kinetic + Gravitational Energy Recovered) / (Efficiency Factor of the Prime Mover.)

Regeneration and the storage methods related to it enable other efficiencies; specifically the efficiencies that can be attained by near constant power input as well as the significant reductions in maximum power of the prime mover. (Read – reduced mass and volume fractions dedicated to the prime mover).

Unrelated to energy efficiency but still important is what properly designed regenerative capable transportation power processes can do overall performance.

Perhaps the advantage of electromotive over hydraulic hybrids is scale-ability. From Switching locomotives to human powered bicycles and pedicabs.

We seem to be revisiting a lot of ground that has already been covered here on CR4 over the past few years.

The real champion in "Tons moved per mile/per gallon of fuel" goes to the cargo container ships.And they burn "tramp oil",so thick it has to be heated to be moved.

I don't see how they make that "tar" explode.

All about atomization and vaporization I guess.

(I really do understand,but it is still incredible how they do it).

I have worked on boiler systems that would burn #6 fuel oil,and it also had to be heated to be moved through the piping.

In the case of the cargo ships,size does matter.Giant diesels are used.

Nuclear would be more efficient,but civilian companies will never be allowed to use it for obvious security and environmental reasons,aside from the highly trained and skilled operators required.

Insofar as hydraulic storage,it seems to be "forward to the past"

In the 1970's,I remember reading an article about a full sized Ford vehicle(LTD,I think),that was modified to run on a hydraulic storage system.

The stock engine had an electronic clutch that enabled it to be disconnected and turned off when not needed.

The stock tranny was removed,and replaced with a spherical storage tank.

Each rear wheel was powered by a hydraulic motor,and the speed was controlled electronically by a Z80,yes an old Z80 8 bit CPU.

When coasting,or braking,the wheel motors functioned as pumps and sent pressure back into the reservoir.

I can see the need for a 2 stage storage system because the pressure from the pumps is going to be less that from the main engine.

The low pressure stage would be used for low-pressure demands,saving the high pressure stage for larger energy needs.

For instance maintaining speed at 5 mph would require very little energy compared to starting from a dead still condition.

Intelligent driviers(purely hypothetical creature) could minimize the number of stops.

The Z80 also controlled the motor functions,and stopped the engine when the setpoint pressure was reached.It restarted the engine via hydraulic pressure when needed.

The total cost of all the components,using off the shelf parts at the time was cheaper than the automatic transmission.

On a manufacturing scale the cost would have been even lower.

The advantages on highway driving were minimal,but in stop-and-go traffic were great.

So here we go again,looking to the past for our future efficiency improvements

With modern advances in hydraulics and computers,revamping the old ideas seems to be a viable route to improvement in efficiency.

On the I-5,and other interstate "parking lots" a simple lawn motor engine would move the vehicle at the local speed of traffic.

So why not have a vehicle with 2 engines;one for stop and go and the other for higher speeds,or alternatively, gee,I don't know, something like the system I just described,for instance.

The motor would probably only have to run for a short period to keep pressure up,and the motor would restart silently by hydraulics.

I can also see a use for this in taxi fleets,postal delivery vehicles,buses,industrial fork lifts and other slow moving intermittent duty cycle purposes.

Well,that is my $.02 worth ( pre-tax,fica,local,federal,state,excise,recycling,highway usage,sales,delivery,shipping and handling fees.)Net value=$i(imaginary number),but much less than zero.

The #1 problem behind hydraulic energy storage is the volume to energy stored ratio. It's dang poor for mobile applications.

Hydraulic Accumulator Energy Storage Systems.

as shown in the link*,the size of a tank to just hold a 100 watt hours of energy is sizeable which if scaled up to handle the 50 - 150+ KWH's of energy a loaded freight train may have to dissipate doing a single stop that tank becomes unworkably large both in physical size,mass and volume of components and fluids plus mechanical gear to make it work.

Whereas with present supercapacitor tech that same energy storage could be done in a system weighing about 3 tons that is largely already compatible with existing Diesel Electric drive systems tech and be refit on a conventional locomotive without difficulty.

* (yea some of you lazy SOBs will have to read it and use a calculator of your own now to get what I am talking about now. On purpose.)

Yeah, the braking energy for a 100 car train is way way higher than for a car, or a tank.

In a power averaged process the storage requirements are quite small. Somewhere between one acceleration to operating speed for optimal efficiency to 4 accelerations for high performance capability.

Given modern super-capacitor technology this is doable; and scale-able from a switching locomotive to an electromotive bicycle.

There it is. Right in front of us all along.

We'll build a giant canal system crossing the continent, in multiple directions, the same width/depth as the Panama and Suez Canals.

An added bonus is that all the arid land now sitting idle can be supplied with water from this canal so that developers can reap trillions of $$$ building houses in the desert where there formerly was no water. The salt content shouldn't be too much of a problem, we'll just divert the Missouri, Mississippi and a few other rivers to fill it up and put locks at the ocean entrances.

©LynDoor™Industries, September 2016.

I suppose all the renewable energy capacity being built could power enough pumps to produce RO water from the seawater in the canal. Rather than a canal that could end up at the bottom of 10,000 foot cliffs, why not install locks all along the way, and also ship lifts every so often where escarpments are present? Surely, that is not too hard a mountain for Coors drinkers to climb - whatever your mountain - climb it.

Personally, i would stick with trains, they have good enough technology.

Hell, I'd just kick back and wait for the election to be over.

Then all our problems will be solved.

Building great canals should be no problem for the self-proclaimed smartest man in the world. He already knows how to build great, free walls, he has told us it is so.

And, with all the new re-shored manufacturing and industry coming back online we'll all be in tall cotton, buying new cars, boats and private trains to replace the outmoded freight haulers no longer needed.

I think we should go nuclear, that would solve all these problems....

http://barentsobserver.com/en/sections/society/russia-designs-nuclear-train

That is not far-fetched at all, considering that nuclear containers can already withstand an impact by a train.

And the British are preparing to roll out their fleet of Modular Nuclear (fission) reactors, of 50-100 MW size. No reason they could not be

whittled down to the size of a 20 MW freighter.

Actually all the dirt out of the canal is going into the wall concrete. Canada will pay for the canal, if we allow them to move their oil to us, and Mexico will pay for the wall to keep us Texans out.

Long time, no see.

PWSlack should be here to see this.

Hope all is well.

The so-called fire-less or soda locomotive engines were most interesting, dangerous, and probably not efficient enough to make honorable mention in the long run.

Why not make a wide track train? The freighters get bigger every year, but the trains have ridden on the same width tracks for ever.....or a 4 track train...

Just string a bunch of these together....haha

I think some places like New Jersey could do better just to get PTC (positive train controls) in place.

Disaster always triggers change....it's a process where engineers are proven right...