Why are Hybrid Vehicles so Complicated?

This is my idea of a hybrid vehicle! (My idea of a nutter too! Top bloke.)

Hybrid stuff!

The beetle with a jet stuck in the back isn't a hybrid, its just a jet powered car. But it dose lead to an idea I had many years back. You take a 3,000 Hp gas turbine from a helicopter and connect a generator to it. Then you stick four stepper motors on the suspension arms, one for each wheel and control the whole thin with a computer. If you sucked the air in for the gas turbine from below the car is would stick to the road like glue. What do you think?

Hi Masu, I'm afraid I've got to disagree with you here, the Beetle is a hybrid, as it has two working engines that are both capable of powering the car. I didn't say it was a sensible hybrid…….As to the idea of sucking down the car to the road by vacuum, check out the Brabham-Alfa BT46B fan car.

I was under the impression that the standard motor had been removed. Since it hasn't I would then agree with you that it is in fact a hybrid, a somewhat unrealistic one, but still a hybrid.

What about my idea of a somewhat small gas turbine driving a generator which in turn drives a stepper motor at each wheel all controlled by a PLC? Everything you need can be purchased off the shelf, all that's needed is a good chassis and a bucket of money.

I think it's the bucket of money that's the problem!

I like the idea of a small gas turbine running a generator, and units large enough for a small car are available as aircraft APUs. However, although I think they sound kinda cool, and there is something appealing about the smooth running of a turbine, they are not models of efficiency. Now, gas turbines operate at about 27%, and the future potential appears to be 40% given enough development, and the use of ceramics. Right now, they fall between spark ignition and compression ignition engines in efficiency, and I don't think that order will change anytime soon -- if anything, more money is being thrown into development of diesels, in the sub 500 hp arena. APUs for trucks are all diesels, as far as I know.

Why stepper motors? Why not permanent magnet DC or AC traction motors, either of which can be over 90% efficient, and easy to drive with existing controllers. Do you have a source for 10-20 hp stepper motors and regenerative braking controllers?

I to thought the APU from something like a 747 would be a good way to go. Since it already has the generator attached and is specifically designed to run that generator there isn't a lot that needs doing.

There are a couple of reasons reason for the stepper motors. Firstly they are easier to control as you don't need to try and regulate the current flowing through them. All you need to do is adjust the frequency that you step between coils. This makes the circuitry a whole lot simpler and you can get stepper motor controllers for PLC off the shelf. Secondly while you apply power you get torque but no rotation unless you step between coils. So if you are stationary and power applied to the motors you won't roll back or forwards down a hill. Finally by varying the step frequency you can directly control the speed and breaking. This also allows you to run different speeds on all four wheels as you turn doing away with the differential. You can even use the speed differential to turn the vehicles.

You could of course do all this with a DC motors but the control circuitry would be a whole lot more difficult. Controlling stepper motors with microcontrollers is an absolute doodle compared to regulating the current through a DC motor.

Oh by the way it was never meant to be economical or environmentally friendly it was just meant to accelerate at a frightening rate and move like greased lightning.

'Oh by the way it was never meant to be economical or environmentally friendly it was just meant to accelerate at a frightening rate and move like greased lightning.'

Sounds like a good reason to me!

It could be worth your while looking on the Le Tourneau site, they are now using switched reluctance motors on their largest loaders and plan to expand the use of them to smaller units in time. Legacy technology has been brushed DC. The switched reluctance motor has advantages in efficiency, size and ability to regenerate to a complete standstill.

The other big earthmoving players (CAT, Komatsu, Hitachi, Unit rig, GE and Siemens) use 3 phase AC squirrel cage motors and ABB are getting good results with permanent magnet synchronous motors in mill applications, their size and weight savings could be useful in the automotive traction field. The 3 phase AC units are operating at around half the fuel useage of mechanical trucks, something Masu predicted with electric drive over mechanical. The ability to drop engine revs and still maintain road speed is a big saving as well as the elimination of torque converter losses and gear changes.

Volvo have been fiddling with Turbine Hybrids for road going trucks, but I don't yet have any figures.

Wouldn't a stepper motor be a rather "buzzy" propulsion system.

Very interesting. I'd assumed that virtually all earth movers used hydrostatic transmissions. Obviously, I haven't been paying much attention to these machines for the last 40 years or so.

Hydrostatics for earth moving is quite rare, Leibherr make a line of small dozers or at least they did. The travel drives in diggers (excavators) are usually hydrostatic. Haul trucks are sometimes mechanical (torque converter and auto gearbox and sometimes DC and increasingly AC traction. The Electric drives are derived from locomotive systems, for instance the 930E uses a 2700hp Cummins QSK60 engine coupled to a traction alternator and rectifier and two GTO based inverters. At cruise the QSK60 only provides enough power to maintain losses (sometimes as low as 130hp). I keep watching what the various players are up to with future technology, for instance MTU have high temperature Fuel Cells that run on Diesel in rather high power ratings. The only applications I've been able to track so far are stationary power. While these beasts are very efficient (utilising 650deg C waste heat too) it doesn't seem that they are ready for mobile deployment.

The CEO of General Motors Holden said about 5 years ago the ICE only had about 25 years left in it before being superceded by H2 fuel cells. At the time I said they will want to be well sorted to compete with the highly evolved piston technology, I haven't changed my view.

One thing regarding the original question "Why are Hybrid Vehicles so Complicated" that I haven't answered is engine complexity. The engines don't have to be as complicated if car makers would use the "Orbital Combustion Process" developed and patented by Ralph Sarich of Perth Western Australia. Aprilia and the outboard manufacturers are doing quite well with the technology but car makers think it is too simple (and outside sourced proprietary) despite the California ratings. The "Orbital Engine Company" hold the patents.

I'm not hanging my hopes on a hydrogen economy. Although working on hybrids and full-electric cars now makes sense so that one is prepared for fuel cells, I too am not convinced the ICE is doomed in 20 years. I'd expect to see virtually all wheels driven electrically by that time, with a mix of technologies used to generate the electricity onboard or elsewhere. The next 20 years will certainly be interesting ones.

Orbital technology might be just the ticket for my current project. Thanks for your insights.

The serendipity associated with this site worries me at times. It sort of indicates we are all thinking alike and I don't know it that is a good thing or not. I was about to bring up Ralph Sarich's orbital engine but Emgay_4119 beat me to it. I remember seeing a model of one back in the 70s and sort of understand how it works.

I understand there are a few problem with cooling and lubrication, but there seems to be little detail or illustration of the concept, of Sarich's engine, on the net. Maybe somebody can post a link to a site that has a descent description and illustration of its operating principals.

I wonder if we are thinking of the same "Orbital" I am interested in Orbital Engine Company's direct injection technology. Sarich does not seem to be involved -- but maybe he was earlier?

http://www.orbeng.com.au/orbital/directinjection/dioverview.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_engine

Several years ago now Ralph Sarich pulled out of the management of Orbital Engine Company and went back to property development. By this time he had pulled the plug on the actual orbital engine as it was not going to get a guernsey. Instead he (and the company subsequently) concentrated on the direct fuel injection system. Over 10 years ago the technology was able to meet and exceed California 2006 requirements. The claim of putting out "cleaner" (less CO, less NOX, less HC) exhaust than the intake air has been bandied about. This sounds pretty much what Seaplaneguy wants built except the Orbital design was also designed to be light, fuel efficient and simple (2 stroke preferably 3 cylinder).

Much has been said about interference from GM especially via their local subsidiary Holden, but I will leave that for others to research.

Thanks for the info.

Rambling here: Given direct injection , 2 strokes can be reasonably clean (although I don't know that they could meet car standards, as opposed to motorcycle or marine standards.) The typical two stroke is quite dirty at many engine speeds because much of the effective timing of the exhaust port is acoustic rather than by the physical piston/port relationship. When the reflected wave from the expansion chamber arrives at the right time, then the cylinder gets recharged by mixture that was beyond the exhaust port a millisecond earlier, both "supercharging' the cylinder and reducing emissions. At anything other than the speed for which the expansion chamber was designed this works less effectively -- and, in fact, works not at all at some speeds. But in a series hybrid, you could make the engine run at just one speed. You'd have a light, simple, powerful engine, probably with acceptable emissions. Imagine retaining the 21 hp of a Kreidler 50cc racer with reasonable emissions. (Well OK, maybe owners would not want to replace rings every two hours of operating time.) Seems there could be some potential for resurrecting the two stroke.

Ken,

There is a plant manufacturing then in Milwaukee, that the Hawke Labour government let it go offshore was a national scandal at the time. Time has flown as Hawke hasn't been Prime Minister since before 1993. There was an adjustable port mechanism but my memory is now failing me. The original information was for a geared vehicle, maybe a CVT can't remember but not an electric vehicle. AC traction was only in its infancy then.

Is been well known for quiet a while that an increase moisture content in the air can increase the efficiency of internal combustion engines. The reason is that water droplets suspended in the air will vaporize resulting in greater expansion of the air after combustion and more efficient conversion of heat into kinetic energy.

Some years ago I had the idea of installing direct injection injectors on a standard engine and injecting a certain amount of water immediately after the combustion has occurred. This would have two effects. Firstly it would increase the efficiency of the engine as stated above and secondly it would reduce the exhaust temperatures and probably the quantity of nasty combustion products due to the reduced temperature in the combustion chamber.

What do you think?

Another thing I was thinking about is that if we are going to install one injector then why not 2, ie. one for fuel and the other for water? Also instead of using a mechanical system to open and close the valves why not an elector mechanical system? The advantages of having all the timing controlled electrically is that you can vary all of the parameters rather that having fixed ratios for some and variable for others.

Mind you all this is tinkering with an engine type that I have a feeling is well past its use by date. On the other hand people seem to fell comfortable tinkering with the same old reciprocating internal combustion engine so if it makes it work better why not?

Masu:

I have a great idea: I am going to insert, in the middle of the drive shafts of my Honda, some bearings. This is gonna be really cool! The inserts will consist of an aluminum tube 4" long, with bearings pressed into each end. The original axles (with 2" cut out of the middle) are then pressed into the inner races of these bearings. You can probably see where this is going.

You'd say, "Wait! Doesn't that render the axles completely ineffective at transmitting torque??!! I'd say "Well yes, but you are clearly not aware of the new force, which is under mind control. Simply read the "plane on a conveyor" thread, and the mystery will be revealed. I am certain that by using my system, these bearings will enable the car to be powered while using no horsepower whatsoever! The car moves by this previously unknown force. The bearings ensure that the engine can transmit no torque, and will therefore use very very very little fuel!!

Sheeesh... I can see why your eyes are so bloodshot. I'm glad you took over on the other recent quest for modifying physics in such a way that things would run forever, creating energy all the while. You've got great patience.

But... Getting back to this thread: Yes, I think water injection has some real merit, especially now that we have all the equipment and processing available to control it effectively. As I was googling re water, I came across a six stroke engine. Given recent history on CR4 (as mentioned in my first three paragraphs), I started to think, OH NO, NOT ANOTHER ONE! But actually, I think the idea has merit. Some technical hurdles, but merit. It's hard to imagine condensing the water quickly enough to make a close loop system -- but that's purely gut feel -- I haven't done the math.

Lemme see. If we wanted to fill a 500cc cylinder at 20 atmospheres... at 1600:1 we'd need (500 x 20 / 1600) 6.25 cc liquid per stroke. At 5000 rpm, that would be 31,250 cc/minute! Could that be close? 31 liters per minute! maybe 20 atmospheres is too high a BMEP, but that's only about twice the ordinary pressure at the top of the compression stroke, before ignition. Hmmm, I'll poke around when I have time. OK what the heck I'll poke around now.

Turns out BMEP in a SI ICE is more like 7 bar. Wow; way lower than I'd have guessed. and I suppose we wouldn't have to go that high; maybe we could be satisfied with half that, given that something is better than nothing: So lets' say 3.5/20 * the original 31 liter estimate: roughly 5 liters per minute. If you had to pull this out of a tank, you'd be in trouble, but recirculating that volume would be easy.

There'd be all the sludge you'd have to get rid of: but how about reforming that (on board) into sugar, adding a little flavor, and spitting out candies along your route.

Hmmm. Interesting, I'll have to look up the patent,and see what it says. I think Crower is a pretty straight shooter, so there is probably some merit in the idea. And likewise in yours too (although you might want to inject water earlier, so that the water could be cooling the charge during compression, maybe).

The weird thing about all this, is that after deciding that the Crower idea had some merit, I fould a reference to it on a sight full of over unity machines, including the pendulum one! However, I did not have an immediate heart attack, because the sight seemed to be looking uncritically at all sorts of alternative energy sources -- some plausible, some not. But given the strange physics here, and then to find this seemingly credible engine on what first appeared to be yet another weird science site... the old heart skipped a beat. Here's that site, BTW.

This whole area of free energy, over unity machines, perpetual motion machines seems to have really heated up. Maybe it's only my perspective, and certainly it has to do with the web' ability to publish and promote all sorts of ideas. I find it a little discouraging when on the Top 100 list, the PESWiki site has the Tesla car -- something that is nicely engineered, that really works, and can be driven -- IMMEDITELY next to Steorn, which is at best highly controversial: the company selects the scientists to use??? Where is the science in that??

Way down the list is the Aptera, for which I've done the calculations. They are exaggerating re the 330 mpg at 65mph: doing so would require a Cd of .06 (which they have actually claimed, according to a source I dug up). .06 is the Cd for a finless torpedo, and impossible to obtain in shape that has niceties such as wheels, suspension members, etc. They may or may not be aware that they are exaggerating (CFD programs can give all sorts of incorrect numbers for all sorts of reasons -- many related to blind faith and limited knowledge of the person driving them) But their shape is very clean: could be as low as .010. If you give them some optimism re the efficiency of their diesel, etc. you can come up with about 265mpg, on a perfectly flat road, with no traffic or trees around, on a no-wind day, with no acceleration or deceleration. (This is assuming they are not relying on stored energy from the capacitors -- if they are, then they might as well claim 1000 mpg). But the car will work -- in everyday driving it may be around 150 mph, and that is extremely good. But this reasonable technology is way down the PESwiki list, and Steorn is number 2. Go figure.

Rather than rave here, maybe I'll post a thread.

Please, please I beg you

NO MORE OF THAT INFURATING BLOODY AEROPLANE ON THAT EXASPERATING SMEGING TREADMILL!!!!!!!!!!

I think that's what made my face turn blue

I thought that was sun block! By the way, are you aware of the meaning of smeg? (I was always amazed that Red Dwarf got away with it!)

I thought Smeg manufactured kitchen appliances.

Ah, you mean the Italian company that's makes kitchen equipment? But I don't think you would say 'Get the cooking appliance out of here!'

Or would you?

I was going to ask about smeg, but inferred its meaning (correctly, as it turns out). from context. I'm afraid we didn't have Red Dwarf over here.

In fact, I was interested in finding such a term, to use in this forum, that is a little less offensive than the universal noun, adjective, adverb, verb that begins with f and is used frequently here in the colonies. I'm not so sure smeg is quite what i had in mind though. Now "bloody" might work, which is far more acceptable here than in the UK or Australia, I'd guess.

This is an opportunity for yet another meander in this stream of consciousness: When we say "the F word" or "the N word" everyone knows exactly what is meant. By putting it in code, you draw more attention to it right? So, if others find the word in question offensive, then wouldn't it be more polite to simply say the fuckin' word than to draw attention to it by using code?

I must admit that the use of expletive adjectives has of late become of some concern. There are plenty of colourful adjectives that can be used without resorting to expletives. The use of the word bloody goes back a long way and is sometimes referred to the integrated adjective due to its frequent use. The following poem is by John O'Grady and describes a conversation overheard in an Australian pub.

THE INTEGRATED ADJECTIVE by John O'Grady

I was down on Riverina, knockin' round the towns a bit,
An' occasionally restin', with a schooner in me mitt;
An' on one o' these occasions, when the bar was pretty full
An' the local blokes were arguin' assorted kinds of bull,
I heard a conversation, most peculiar in its way,
Because only in Australia would you hear a joker say,
'Where yer bloody been, yer drongo? 'Aven't seen yer fer a week;
An' yer mate was lookin' for yer when 'e come in from the Creek;
'E was lookin' up at Ryan's, an' around at bloody Joe's,
An' even at the Royal where 'e bloody never goes.'
An' the other bloke said, 'Seen 'im; Owed 'im 'alf a bloody quid.
Forgot ter give ut back to 'im; but now I bloody did.
Coulda used the thing me-bloody-self; been orf the bloody booze,
Up at Tumba-bloody-rumba shootin' kanga-bloody-roos.

Now their voices were a little loud, an' everybody heard
The peculiar integration of this adjectival word.
But no one there was laughin', an' me I wasn't game,
So I stood around an' let 'em think I spoke the bloody same.
An' one of 'em was interested to ask 'im what he'd got –
How many kanga-bloody-roos he bloody went and shot
An' the shootin' bloke said, 'Things are crook; the drought's too bloody tough;
I got forty-bloody-seven, an' that's good e-bloody-nough.'
An' this polite rejoinder seemed to satisfy the mob,
An' everyone stopped listenin' an' got on with the job,
Which was drinkin' beer and arguin' an' talkin' of the heat,
An' boggin' in the bitumen in the middle of the street;
But as for me, I'm here to say the interestin' news
Was 'Tumba-bloody-rumba shootin' kanga-bloody-roos'.

So I bloody-well agree that we should bloody-well keep the colour-bloody-full language free of bloody expletives and bloody-well use inter-bloody-grated adjectives that are less bloody offensive.

Or for Red Dwarf fans

So is smeging-well agree that we should smeging-well keep the smeging colourful language free of smeging expletives and smeging use inter-smeging-grated adjectives that are less smeging offensive.

That is of course except for the use of expletives in well known acronyms like FUBAR and SNAFU which describe situations so exactly that there is no other possible way of conveying your feelings.

You bloody well made by bloody day! Blimey!

So, you really don't know what smeg means! He he. Anybody who really wants to know, send me a message and I'll reply of air, as it were. As to bloody Australians, I have spent time in Sydney, great bloody town mate! As to the word itself, well it's used extensively in a very popular kid's series! Ever heard of Harry Potter? That probably devalues it as profanity; on a scale of 1 to 10 I'd say about -5! Smeg, now, that's got to be up there at about 8+!

Yes -- at least 8! Funny how it makes me squirm. I suppose one could argue "Hey, it's only describing a perfectly natural thing. What could possibly be wrong with that. Get in touch with your body. Love your body." (Excuse me for a sec, my breakfast seems to be coming up.)

Funny how this stuff changes with setting. I've worked in a lot of heavy industrial plants, where a certain word of Germanic origin is used all the time, and in numerous ways. Personally, I use this particular word occasionally intimately in its literal sense, and only very rarely when at wits end, as an expletive. One of our more infamous presidents, Nixon, used it so often that you could hardly read the transcripts of what he said when with his inner circle: "I'd like to take these [expletive deleted] commie-loving eastern intellectual [expletive deleted] ..." Here's the guy with his finger on the button to launch the nukes, and he can't come up with anything more articulate (and this guy was brilliant in comparision to the current white house inhabitant.)

Could a kid caught swearing in school be faulted for simply following a role model. "Gosh golly -- President Nixon is a really swell guy... I was trying to follow his shining example."

Basically it is because the rheostat and starter motor does not work. Grid resistors were used in old fashioned trams and trolley busses as rheostats and were so inefficient that modern drive systems had to be developed. If you want to look at something different, Google "Hydristor" I will be very interested in comments on the extravagant claims made from Mechanical / Hydraulic experts. My own experience with hydrostatic drives makes me skeptical, but my background is electrical.

Many (30+) years ago, a friend of mine in engineering school put together a VW powered dragster, which used a 40 hp vw motor driving a hydraulic pump routed into a huge accumulator (at least 50 gallons, if I think). It had four hydraulic motors, one at each wheel. Prior to the drag race, the engine would run, pumping up the accumulator. Open the valve to the motors, and all four tires would smoke for a while and the quarter mile was over in maybe 10 seconds.

In practical terms, (ignoring the leaks) the whole hydraulic system from engine through pump to motors is less cost efficient than doing the same thing electrically, I believe. I'm working on a vehicle in which I am considering hydraulics, electrics and pneumatics for hybrid power, and so far, electrics seem to be the best value. For hydraulics, a 50 gallon accumulator (which is huge and heavy) at 5000 psi would supply a (declining) average of 72 hp for one minute, or 7.2 hp for 10 minutes (assuming 100% efficiency). That's not a lot more than the energy supplied by a single largish 12 volt car battery, which will produce about 6 hp for 10 minutes. In pneumatics the tank has to be even bigger, and the losses in pumping the tank up are high. So right now, at least, electrics seems like the way to go.

Tom Kasmer, inventor of the Hydristor here. My background is mostly electrical as in switching power supplies with training in physics. Hydraulics is a second love of labour. If anyone has questions, my phone number (USA,GMT-5) is 607-2068960 and my e-mail is tkasmer@yahoo.com.

You feel that the claims are extravagent. Consider the following:

(1) The auto industry has been slowing IC engines for the last 30 years and a full size, large frontal area vehicle like a 1990 Caprice with 350 will ideally attain 25 Mpg at 65 Mph.

(2) In 1971, I modified a Z-28 350 V-8 Camaro (quite by chance) and slowed the Rpm at 60 from 3,800 to 1,950. The mileage pre-change was 14 and 35 after.

(3) Ideally, slowing the engine to idle creates a condition similar to a much smaller engine (see Kent's Engineering Handbook, 1938 edition regarding specific fuel consumption of an IC engine).

(4) Ever have to get to a gas station when you are almost out of fuel? My method is to get some speed up and shut the engine off and coast; restarting the engine at the slowest possible coast speed.

(5) Horsepower is the mathematical product of force and speed. At the instant of starting acceleration in a car, the 'horsepower' is the same for the car, a bicycle, and a locomotive::: ZERO! Because the speed is zero. That is why infinitely variable transmissions (IVTs) are so good at accelerating a vehicle with small engines.

(6) In regard to acceleration, the engine has a total overall internal flywheel inertia. During acceleration in first gear, a substantial part of the 'developed' horsepower goes into accelerating that internal inertia and there is a 'law' I'm sure you are familiar with; the 'law of maximum power transfer' normally associated with electricity. An example is an amplifier and speakers. If the amplifier has an internal impedance of 8 ohms and 100 watts rating, installing 8 ohm speakers will produce 100 watts out with an additional amount of 100 watts lost in the internal amflifier impedance, or 50 % ! This same law of physics applies to flywheel inertias and gear ratio reflections similar to transformer ratio reflections; turns squared is like gear ratio squared. To summarize, in low gear in a car; the effective 'flywheel inertia' created by the 'mass' of the car 'gyrating' at the rolling radius squared (typically 1 foot or 12 inches) and reflected by the combination of the rear end ratio and the transmission ratio is reduced by the overall ratio (squared) just like the conversion of electrical impedance through a transformer turns ratio squared. When the 'apparent' flywheel inertia reflected through the overall gear train squared is 'equal' to the overall engine inertia, 50 % of the 'developed' horsepower accelerates the car and the remaining 50 % accelerates the engine. In IVTs, that is not true since the vehicle accelerates initially from a very high ratio and picks up speed by continually reducing ratio. An IVT allows for starting at zero which initially (theoretically) no load.

(7) During the acceleration of a conventional drive, the engine is heavily loaded and therefore is producing less that rated horsepower and half of that is lost provided there is an inertia match between engine and reflected car inertia load.

The Hydristor is a variation of the 1925 invention of Harry F. Vickers named the 'dual pressure balanced vane pump'. I removed the fixed displacement 'cam ring' and replaced it with a concentric nesting of endless metal belts surrounding the vane tips and rotating with the rotor and vanes driven by the historical friction od the vane tips. I installed 4 cupped shaping control pistons engaging the outer surface of the rotating belt and located at the 4 points of a compass or the face of a clock at 90 degree intervals. The rotation drags a continuous oil film into the interface of the piston/belt region and creates a 'hydrodynamic bearing' preventing direct contact and resulting in very high efficiency. The very thin oil film also acts as a self replenishing oil seal. First efficiency measurements were 94.7 % overall including fluid bypass and present designs covered by many issued and soon to issue patents, are in the range of 98+ % overall efficiency per stage so that two Hydristors forming a torque converter will reach 97+ % combined. The Hydristor as a retrofit into any road vehicle will easily and efficiently recycle forward momentum into storage tank pressure for re-use. The Hydristor also allows for efficient cycling of the engine on and off thus creating a true hybrid. So the engine can be turned on, charge the tanks and then be shut off. The energy in the tanks can literally smoke the tires for takeoff with the engine not running while the engine is started and 'spools up' to make more power.

Since the engine is usually idling or turned off, CO2 greenhouse gases are typically quartered. Also, the engine will wear 2-3 times longer, say a half million miles. The transmission is emptied of parts and just holds the engine up, saving typically 200 pounds.

If all the vehicles on the road were converted to this system. it could be done in 5-6 years and global warming would begin a rollback.

Oh yes, then there is the Hydristor Freon heat pump generator making self sustaining electricity from the solar heat in the air and ocean/lake for free with true zero emissions. The hydrogen economy will not solve the energy crises but the Hydristor will.

Any questions, call me. regards Tom Kasmer 607-2068960

Tom:

Great to hear from you! I appreciate your thorough and clear description.

As I mentioned above, a friend had a VW powered hybrid that was great fun at the drag strip (and as I remember promptly disqualified - although I don't know that there was really any rule prohibiting stored energy at that time). As you say, you can smoke the tires!

As a transmission, if you can get 95% efficiency for a ratio spread of 5:1 or so (e.g., from 10:1 to 2:1 or 5:1 to 1:1) that would be very impressive and extremely marketable, provided you can get the cost down to a figure that will compete with existing CVTs.

In using hydraulics for a hybrid, however, I'd be concerned over either tank size or required pressures. In the quick calculation I did above, I picked 5000 psi, but even that is pretty high for typical mobile hydraulic equipment. Large accumulators can get very heavy, and also take up a lot of space. Valving and tubing losses will reduce system efficiency: but on the other hand, you could clearly argue that regen braking would nevertheless be far more efficient than the current electrical hybrid situation.

3800 rpm for a Z-28 Camaro at 60 is sky high. Most of these ran into valve float at 6000 rpm, meaning your top speed would be 94 mph -- rather slow for a Z-28. Further, in 1971 many other V8s ran very low (numerically) rear end ratios, yielding well over 20mph per 1000 rpm (and generally 30), but none got 35 mph in any realistic sense. Back then, 1800 at 60 was not at all unusual, both in the non-Z-28 Camaros, and in virtually all V8 sedans.

Seaplaneguy provides a link above to a BSFC chart, which is very typical for engines in general: if you simply bumped the numbers upward by 20 percent, they could apply to a gas engine. As you can see, at 50 hp, the range of fuel consumption is only from .42 lb/hp/hr at 1500 and 1800 rpm to .51 lb/hp/hr at 2600 rpm. Therefore, halving rpm in this engine does not result in anything remotely close to the near 250% difference you seem to be suggesting. If you look at the chart again, you can see that, when producing 40 hp, the engine consumes much more, not less when running at 1200 rpm vs 1500 or 1800. The engine is at its most efficient at 2200 rpm at about 65% power, just as you'd expect of an aircraft engine.

The same sorts of curves are typical with virtually all engines, with BSFC being lowest at the engine's torque peak. (In fact, a good rule of thumb is that you can think of the bsfc curves as looking like the torque curve flipped over.) I think you might not have sufficiently controlled your experiment with your Camaro. The Camaro had a very broad torque curve, and, if anything, would be less subject to large variations in BSFC than the smaller engines of today. If you are talking with manufacturers, and there are combustion engineers present, I'd avoid the Camaro story.

Also, you might want to leave out the flywheel inertia part. Most engines will accelerate to their max rpm in less than a second when disengaged from the vehicle. Most cars take many many seconds to accelerate to their top speeds. The combined weight of the rotating parts is a very small fraction of total vehicle weight. Existing CVTs keep the engine at its torque peak as the car accelerates, and this is the optimum condition. But the difference in performance (acceleration, or fuel efficiency) between a six speed transmission and a CVT is very small.

I used to live in Ithaca, so we were almost neighbors. If I get back up there, I'll try to stop in. I'd love to see the Hydristor.

Thanks again for the post.

Hi Ken, Thank you for the response. Look up the Hydristor on Google and be sure to get all the results. The Hydristor is completely symmetrical and fits in the bellhousing in place of the OEM converter/clutch. The range is fully infinite from zero to +- infinity. The storage pressure is 5,000 (good guess). A Ford Expedition weighing 7,000 pounds has a 10 gallon storage capacity in the Eaton HLA system. The estimated cost saving to OEM is $1,000 factory cost and the transmission goes away. The efficiency is definitely in the 97% range for the present design. With such a high efficiency, no radiator cooler is needed so that is a hidden cost saving.

Since the Hydristor is really a double pump with 2 sets of chambers, two separate hydrostatic circuits can be established with a differential drive capability. See the IFPE video on my www.hydristor.com website. The steering wheel input specifically slows the inside wheel on a turn while equally speeding up the outside wheel, as if you had a correct size smaller tire on the inside with a correct size larger outer wheel and a solid axle; ie: the world's first differential hydrostatic transaxle.

As far as the Camaro, I meant to say 65 Mph and that engine would easily rev to 7,500. The 1990 Caprice engine Rpm at 65 is 2350 locked up for that same engine.

I think the premium way to do this is to retrofit a vehicle and establish a hybrid kind of drive where the engine is cycled on and off as needed to keep the pressure tanks in a certain range of potential energy. This will result in a car which can do near '1g' starts to 60 in about 3-3.5 seconds and mileage in the range of 40-80 Mpg depending on the vehicle. I am designing a 'standard Hydristor' in 3-5 size ranges to accomodate various vehicle weight and power with a myriad of adapters such that the same exact Hydristor fits ? 35 different vehicles made by a number of manufacturers. Thus, you mass produce Hydristors for lowest cost and treat the adapter business as a separate issue. With enough of these on the road, the domestic carmakers will have to pay attention in spite of the billions they have invested in 6 and 8 speed automatics.

Tom

Part of the reason is marketing. Moving an old Opal GT down the road at 55 mph would require about 10 hp, I'd estimate. Therefore 5 hp would be pretty good around town, but not so great on the highway, where you'd quickly use up any energy stored. A 15 hp engine would be better, but then the cost would be higher, and you'd still occasionally run out of energy, if you wanted to drive at highway speeds. (If 10 hp is required for 55, then about 25 hp is required for 75.) So Toyota says: "What will people live with?" and it turns out they want a lot. Add AC, room for 5 in comfort, the ability to cruise all day at 75, really smooth control, etc, etc. and before you know it you have a Prius.

Personally, I think there is a market for a simple, cheap hybrid, that would get two people from point a to b, very economically, with fuel efficiency over 100 mph. I'm working on a prototype. But the nagging thought that's in the back of my mind is this: a VW diesel Jetta is a really nice little car that gets 50 mpg in the real world. (Actually that's the old version -- the new one is much less efficient.) BUT -- they hardly sell any of them! People are hooked on large, high horsepower cars. Sure, Priuses have been selling well for their niche, (although sales are levelling off) but Ford F150's outsell them by 15:1.

But I agree -- things don't have to be so complex. Now if gasoline gets to $10/gallon, then my little vehicle might take off.

The reason they are complicated is because they have not figured out how to do it without the complexity, constrained by driver expectations. Ask the question: how and why does a hybrid get better economy. It uses an IC engine, yet gets typically 20-40% better fuel economy (or at least it should), and it goes through all the conversion losses inherent with energy conversion to the electrical domain.

Fuel (chemical) is converted to mechanical, then converted to electrical. From there it either goes to a battery and is stored as battery energy, or is sent over a cable to an electrical motor which then converts it back to mechanical energy. Each process looses some amount of energy.

If you think about it, you realize that if the electric hybrid can get 40% better economy, what could an IC engine do if it did not have all the losses? Logically it would be better, but how much? Back feed the known losses and one can figure out clearly that an IC engine could get around 2 times the current economy, at least, if it were designed correctly.

When you look at a BSFC curve (example: http://www.deltahawkengines.com/perfor01.shtml I have not connection, just a good graph), you see a shape. Why is that shape the way it is? When you answer those questions, figure out a devise to correct the curve, you will have at least 2 times the economy. If you look close and consider what and why a hybrid does get the 40% better, you will also see in the BSFC curve around 2.5 to 3.8 times the economy due to duty cycle and pure thermodynamics.

How 3.8? Model the cycles. Consider the efficiency at part throttle (conventional Otto) or part heat addition (Diesel), and plot energy in versus work out. You will see the basic shape of the BSFC curve. When you consider duty cycle versus the best possible, you get around 3.8 without any post combustion processing of the heat and pressure (Tds and Pv). When you add in the post piston combustion process (BMW used a steam engine and got 15% better?) you can get another 25% over a base engine. When back fed into the base duty cycle, you can get well over 4 times (perhaps 6 times) the economy.

A typical 3500 lb (1600 kg) car should get at least 4 times or 25 x 4 or 100 miles per gallon (2.3 L/100 km). When you factor in brake recovery at around 40% of average losses, you should get around 250 mpg provided you get 95+% recovery. At high recovery the weight of the car is not very important.

Then if you can reduce the aerodynamic loads by 50-70% on a car you could get well over 500 mpg. In fact, a "car" has gotten 12,666 mpg at 20 mph (see back page of ASME Jan 2006). Somewhere between 25 mpg and 12666 is doable. At 250 mpg, we all could have the same living standard as people in the USA. So, there is no crisis, just poor engineering and the lack of people willing to take a "risk" and solve the problem.

Large companies are like governments. If you make a mistake your career is over. The only place this can be done is privately. One cannot design by committee. This cannot be done "by evolution" as it were. It would take at least 100 years. The jet engine was a clean and completely new engine. The same applies here. Turbines will not work. Piston crank systems also do not work. No large company or government has the guts to get out of the box and solve the problem because the system reward feedbacks. If you go to DARPA, which I have talked to, they want to own you and you work for a wage. Forget it.

The next step in hybrid engines is a new engine, without the electrical motors.

Seaplaneguy you stated

"Then if you can reduce the aerodynamic loads by 50-70% on a car you could get well over 500 mpg. In fact, a "car" has gotten 12,666 mpg at 20 mph (see back page of ASME Jan 2006). Somewhere between 25 mpg and 12666 is doable"

You have answered you own question. The reason a normal direct drive internal combustion engine can never produce the economy of a hybrid is that in normal operation we don't travel at a constant speed for lengthy periods of time.

There are a couple of thing to consider. Firstly there is no way to engineer an internal combustion engine to produce maximum economy at all the speed it would need to operate at. That's why there is a gearbox. With a hybrid you operate the internal combustion engine at the point of maximum efficiency all the time and use electronics to regulate the output to the propulsion motors. When you are not using all the power form the motor the surplus is stored in batteries. A direct drive internal combustion system can never do this as your speed is continually changing and when you are stationary the energy is all wasted.

Secondly when you slow down and stop all the energy on a direct drive system is lost as heat. You use friction to convert your motion into heat in the breaks. With a hybrid you use regenerative breaking where you use the propulsion motors as generators and get back a useable portion of the energy. A direct drive system can never get this energy back.

You could and people have build internal combustion direct drive system that achieve phenomenal economy but as you stated they can only run at 20mph (32Km/h) which is hardly realistic. In fact the difference in economy between the two technologies increases with your speed fluctuations. That means as the roads become more congested the advantages hybrid technology over direct drive systems can only increase.

Masu

You answer is as expected. Thanks. I can't say I agree with much of what you say. Where should I start?

No, constant speed has little to do with it. Why is this true? Momentum is conserved and as long as you stay off the brakes (energy dump), then it does not play a factor. I drove my car at 75-85 mph (tested over 300 miles) with ¾ throttle during accelerations, just below where it kicks out of overdrive, and back off and coast (slow down…speed change) and got 34 mpg versus 28 mpg, or 21% better, which is about what a typical "hybrid" electric gets on the highway over a non hybrid. Try it with a manual transmission or Overdrive system. You must not let it shift into the torque converter because the TC eats a lot of power (6 hp?)

Why the better economy? Look at the BSFC curve. It is right there. When I get on the gas I am at the best BSFC for that RPM, and when I come back I am on the bad part of the curve where the BSFC goes way up. A hybrid electric keeps the throttle to the best BSFC (usually around 65%-75% of power) as much as possible and tracks it through the power range. When the power is less than 1/2 throttle at minimum RPM it quickly becomes better to use electric.

So, design the engine to not have this problem! It is NOT impossible. Most engines idle as a function of the number of pistons. Why? Can you make an engine work at 50-1000 RPM? Oil rigs do (I am not advocating their systems). If so, then you don't need to stop using the engine at low power setting.

For example, my car goes 10 mph at 1000 rpm and 20 mph at 2000 rpm, etc, in first gear. At 100 RPM it will go 1 mph. If you can make a "constant torque" engine go to 50 RPM and do so at 75% of peak torque where it is at minimum BSFC at that RPM, there you have it. You don't need an electrical system. From 0-1 mph you use some other motor or slip mechanism and get the car moving. Use gears or better yet continuous gear, like on a snowmobile and some cars, and change power by changing gears.

There is a lot more to it, but you get the idea. Air hybrids store brake energy as compressed air. They can recover 1/3 of the energy, which is better than hybrid electrics can do. But then again, the air hybrids have serious limitations also.

The 20 mph was the race speed minimum, which is the minimum drag, and hence maximum economy. When a car is built "correctly" the economy will increase the slower it goes due to drag v^2 effect. Speed costs. Speed fluctuation is only related to the BSFC curve mismatch, since momentum is conserved. The winning cars matched the minimum BSFC to the power required. In the case of the 12,666 mpg "car," they used two motors, one for cruise (min BSFC) and another for accelerations.

Putting two engines in a car has other "issues" of drivability, in part because of the "idle" thing that amounts to a non continuous power and time delay, plus the "cold" engine syndrome, which is another issue.

So, a direct drive IS the best way when you correct all the problems in an IC engine, and there are lots of problems to be fixed. The question is how to put it all in one package that is cost effective, reliable, and driver friendly. Hmmm. Not easy… I have been working on it for over 3 years. When you are done there is no radiator and the air goes in and come out just a little hotter, no Nox, CO, or HCLs. A pure CO2 generator to feed our crops.

Also, Saab did a variable volume engine where they pivoted the engine head and changed the compression ratio...and they got 40% better economy...no hybrid needed...hmmm. Maybe you need to rethink it. If Saab were to add in the post exhaust power system they could get around 1.75 times. Air hybrids are being worked on that store air...hmmm and they seem to get (theoretically) much better than electric hybrids. I can see in the next few years (5?) that electric hybrids will be on their way out because they won't be able to compete. Just a thought.

If you managed to build an infinitely variable no loss transmission that would allow a reciprocating engine run at the most efficient speed you in theory would be able to achieve the same or slightly better cruising efficiency of a hybrid. But you would never be able to recover the energy lost in breaking without adding additional equipment. It all comes down to the most economic way to get the power to the road and recover a much as possible. The losses in the infinitely variable transmission and differential would more than likely be greater than the loss in the motor generator set. Plus with a hybrid vehicle you already have all the equipment you need for regenerative breaking.

My personal belief is that we should have ditched the reciprocating engine in the 1950s. Gas turbines are more efficient at converting fuel to mechanical energy. There has been a lot of development recently with people building gas turbines as small as coins. Ultimately the way to go is to use a fuel cell to generate electricity directly and do away with the internal combustion engine and generator completely.

It all depends. Do you want to try and tinker with a reciprocating internal combustion engine that is probably close to reaching the limit of its evolution, or work on something new that holds greater potential? Sticking with reciprocating internal combustions engines would be like the electronics industry insisting on tinkering with valves instead of adopting transistors. We have tinkered with the reciprocating internal combustion engine long enough, its time to ditch it, move on and start developing something new that has more potential for development.

Masu,

I would agree with ditching it for something better, of course. I don't see an electric hybrid as better, but actually a wrong "evolution" of an IC engine. What I am talking about IS the "endgame" of an IC engine. Turbines are NOT the most efficient and cannot do what is most needed in a power source: low and high power.

Central to ditching is being able to take the energy of a carbon bond and using it. We are carbon creatures for a reason, and that is the carbon bond stores a lot of energy per unit weight. Our body steps that energy down. Creating a way to step it down would be great, but if you go to the electrical domain you are still left with a heavy electric motor.

The duty cycle for a car, Sport Airplane, or house is high power for a short duration and efficient power in the 1-20% of peak most of the time. Fuel cells do not do any better than diesels and when you consider the well to wheel efficiency and complexity of fuel cells, and the low durability they have not shown to be better. FCs are best at the 20% range however, which is a big plus, but do poor in the 1-5%. In an airplane, the electric motors are usually MORE than a gas motor and one ends up with twice the weight once the electrical generation/battery is added, if not more.

Besides, one cannot use a turbine or turbo in a Sport Airplane. Getting that regulation changed is, well, near impossible.

Hybrid electrics are only 20-40% better, if that. A diesel is better; in fact the world's best is 58%. No fuel cell comes close well to wheel. Most all FCs are worse than gasoline in practice at min BSFC of the IC engine when you make a fair assessment. I find it funny that a Fuel Cell still needs a pump, yet somehow people don't like IC engines.

There are some guys that are using turbines in a closed loop and external heat transfer. They have a very flat efficiency curves at about 40% down to 8% of power using a variable speed generator. Again, they suffer from the electrical conversion loss issues, and an electric motor is a heavy thing. Really, they are not close to what I want.

I am talking about the "endgame" of an IC engine, looking at the fundamentals. A piston crank classical design has issues that cannot be solved and "tinkering" is a waste of time, as you say. From my research, I believe there is a solution that will yield a 65% efficient engine at 1-20% of power, allowing constant torque, 0-max rpm from a dead torque (no energy loss at stop), and extreme short duration power. A fuel cell in practice "well to wheel" will be about ½ or worse, and when duty cycle is considered for low and peak power you can factor in 3-4 times.

The duty cycle of a great roadable airplane that can be made under the Sport Airplane class (no certification issues per se) is massive full power (500 Hp…FAA said it is ok) for near vertical takeoff (2Gs) followed by 80-100 hp "constant." An air hybrid concept is what is needed. I cannot get even close to this in any fuel cell machine. Air motors are 1/5 to 1/3 the weight that of electric motors when made at the same quality level. Transit of the future is in the air, not on the ground.

Then there is the little talked about issue of electric motors themselves. They like to run at one speed and can be as low as 10% efficient at low power settings, even with very sophisticated electronics.

Last but not least, the future is for variable fuels, not high purity fuels. Much of the world lives without sanitation let alone pure hydrogen fuels and massive electronics. We need many fuel sources. We need common tool repairs, not PhDs to fix a car. Once you solve the combustion issues of NOx, CO and HCL and get near pure CO2 and H2O products, the IC engine will be around for another 100 years. CO2 is a good thing. The global warming hoax will pass. Anybody can see that CO2 is way into the saturation point and cannot have any real effect on warming. We can double CO2 and have nearly no effect on temperature.

The real issue is Iranian induced Nuclear winter… Pull the plug on Oil NOW by getting 100-250 mpg and things may progress, but wait for fuel cells and a hydrogen economy that will consume MORE oil for years…humm…Not so much…

Re infinitely variable transmissions: although they can help an engine run at the best speed, they do not help it run at the best speed and load. Hybrids have a real advantage in this respect, because there are many times when an IC engine is too lightly loaded for best efficiency. Using some of the excess capacity to charge the batteries helps to keep the IC engine highly loaded.

Ultimately, I think all cars will be electrically powered. I'm not convinced that fuel cells are necessarily going to reach fruition (on a wide scale) before batteries improve enough to render fuel cells obsolete before they get their day in court. If you ignore the price of a Tesla, there is not much there to complain about: good range, great performance. Getting the price down will come naturally, and range will double in a few years.

I doubt that we will ever fuel cars with hydrogen -- certainly not for simply burning it in an IC engine, and not for use in fuel cells because the technological hurdles are much greater than they are for simply plugging your car in at night. Fuel cells show potential eventually for use in power plants, but I doubt that we will see them in cars, other than on a very limited basis in the next decade.

When I was a kid, the idea of making a model airplane that would fly on battery power was ludicrous. It's routine today.

A friend of mine spent $10 million Us dollars on a electric car R&D only to find out that the thermal loads were a large portion of the loads in hot and cold weather. He invented the seat heaters/coolers now found in luxury cars. Those thermal loads cut into the range by 50%

What did he learn after spending all that money? He should have taken the time to do the thermal loads calculations before concluding that electric cars are the end game.

A power plant is 33% efficient. If you store that in a battery, and then use it in a car, the well to wheel efficiency is nearly always lower than a current car. People like to stay warm or cool in a car.

This tells you that the power should be generated in the car, and not in a power plant. The waste heat can be used to perform valuable heating or cooling when done correctly. A correctly designed engine and car would likely get 3-5 times the range of an electric car per unit energy. There are many other issues that also lead me to not put my money on an electric cars long term.

Your figures for improvement seem wildly optimistic. 40% efficiency is about the best you can hope for in any heat engine, and diesels are already around 30%. Your chart shows that bfsc only ranges from .4 to .55 for the speeds such an engine would routinely see in car usage (other than idling). In aircraft usage, it would rarely be outside the range .40 to .42. Given a heat engine, I think the best we can hope for is a 25-30% improvement in bsfc, i.e consumption down to perhaps .30 lb/hp/hr.

A new engine that can get down to .30 lb/hp/hr is a long way off, I'd bet. There are loads of rotaries in prototype, but while some offer promise of light weight or simplicity, most do not offer dramatic changes in fuel efficiency. According to Carnot, they can't.

Electricity, on the other hand, can be generated with high efficiency (although it is not now, with turbines running at about 33%, and not projected to get to 36% for a couple decades) But solar, wind, nuclear, hydro are all comparatively efficient, in terms of environmental impact and fuel usage.

Also, your chart provides a convincing argument in favor of hybrids. The lightly loaded Deltahawk, at 10 hp and 1200 rpm consumes 50% more fuel per horsepower than it does when running at it's most efficient (85 hp. 2200 rpm). Clearly, running the engine under its optimum load saves fuel, and that is something a hybrid can do better than any number of transmission speeds can do.

I appreciate the answers, they gave me alot of 'food for thought'. I have a better understanding of why things don't change in big biz and why things are sometimes needlessly complicated.