Trip to Va Tech #2

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by jeep45238

Cow, the idea is to keep his original drive wheels and use the rears as a proof of concept.

I understand the concepts and ideas; my point was that he's talking about asking the rear tires for a lot of braking traction that I'm not sure they'll have. If that's true, then it would make sense to use an originally-RWD vehicle and put the proof-of-concept system in front wheels.

[Jay2TheRescue]

I agree. Its something like 70% of the braking is done by the front wheels. The rears don't do much. I like the idea of using a 4wd vehicle and disconnecting the front axle. You can buy an old 4wd pickup, or an old AWD Astro relatively cheap and have a cheap, simple vehicle to prove the concept, then once that is done you can work on refining it and engineering it into a newer vehicle. Personally I like the idea of using an old AWD Chevy Astro (or maybe an AWD Subaru Outback wagon?). Lots of room in the back for the extra equipment while experimenting. Once its tuned and refined the equipment can be located underneath the vehicle.

-Jay

[jeep45238]

Originally Posted by theholycow

I understand the concepts and ideas; my point was that he's talking about asking the rear tires for a lot of braking traction that I'm not sure they'll have. If that's true, then it would make sense to use an originally-RWD vehicle and put the proof-of-concept system in front wheels.

It has more to do with weight transfer in braking than which wheels are driven. As long as the wheel doesn't skid, then it won't matter where the wheel is located. Rotation is rotation.

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by jeep45238

It has more to do with weight transfer in braking than which wheels are driven. As long as the wheel doesn't skid, then it won't matter where the wheel is located. Rotation is rotation.

Yes, that's entirely my point. When braking, the weight transfers forward. If one is to use the new system to gather energy from wheels by using it to brake those wheels, it's going to be tough to get much energy from the rear wheels, which don't have a lot of braking traction due to weight transfer.

Therefore, I suggest attaching the proof of concept system to the front wheels.

Perhaps there's something fundamental I'm missing here, possibly I failed to pay attention while reading an earlier post.

[Jay2TheRescue]

Not only does weight transfer forward, but in most vehicles the weight of the engine is directly on top of the front wheels helping them keep traction. The rears will skid easily because there's no weight there holding those wheels on the ground. This could be dangerous driving in rain/snow/ice/wet leaves. it would be the equivalent of pulling the handbrake while trying to stop or slow down in low traction situations. There is more energy available from the front axle without breaking traction, or creating an unsafe condition.

-Jay

[jeep45238]

Originally Posted by theholycow

Yes, that's entirely my point. When braking, the weight transfers forward. If one is to use the new system to gather energy from wheels by using it to brake those wheels, it's going to be tough to get much energy from the rear wheels, which don't have a lot of braking traction due to weight transfer.

Therefore, I suggest attaching the proof of concept system to the front wheels.

Perhaps there's something fundamental I'm missing here, possibly I failed to pay attention while reading an earlier post.

You are - the weight over the wheels, and how much of the braking they do proportionally does not matter. This is taking rotational motion and turning a pump. The wheel powering the motor could be on the front bumper, the rear wheels, dead middle, and it would still make the same amount of pressure and flow rate over the same period of time given the same deceleration rate assuming the wheel doesn't skid.

The energy doesn't move away from the rear wheels - they're attached to the chassis, which is moving, so all 4 wheels are spinning.

Remember this isn't anywhere close to threshold braking at all - 8% regeneration capacity judging by his charts, which won't be anywhere close to locking up the wheels.

[R.I.D.E.]

The key component is the variable displacement feature of the in wheel drive motor-pumps. They can be changed from 0 stroke to any stroke position within their design range. They can also be reversed to regenerate and provide a reverse "gear". This displacement change can occur as fast as you can apply your brakes in your car.

The diameter of the cylinders and their maximum stroke are sized to allow the pump function to capture the regenerative energy up to the limit of the tires traction with the road. Regeneration would continue until the wheels stopped completely, then the stroke position would go neutral until you accelerated again. This is at all 4 wheels, both acceleration and regeneration. With the best available tires this car could out accelerate any 2 wheel drive car on the planet!

Think of it like being able to downshift you car into first gear at 100 MPH and spin a flywheel with that energy or store it in a 5000 PSI accumulator.

This means you have the ability to stop at your maximum rate, and also accelerate at the same rate.

Imagine your car could accelerate at the same rate of acceleration as its best braking distance. You are talking 0-60 in about 130 feet!

Thats possible with the engine turned off! However it is only available once.

The amount of energy wasted in a 60-0 stop is the same as the energy required to maintain 60 MPH for .7 mile.

The ability to run the engine only in its best BSFC range means you can double the mileage with that single fact in mind. Energy provided by the engine can be applied to directly driving the vehicle as well as storage simultaneously. Eliminating idling saves 13% of total fuel consumption. You dont need a conventional starter motor, the hydraulic accumulator starts the engine. You only need to generate electrical power to run your accessories. You dont need a large battery to start your engine. The battery could be 1/4 the size.

Regardless of the storage level percentage you can always apply the power necessary to the wheels to maintain any speed, because you can constantly fadjust the stroke of the wheel motors to extract the same amount of power regardless of the level of available energy stroage.

Think of it as a bank in which you store 100s of horsepower seconds of energy. Your maximum is 1000, minimum is 300. If your energy requirement is 10 HP you could maintain that level for 70 seconds without any fuel consumed during that period. Then the engine replenishes the 700 Horsepower seconds by producing 100 HP for 7 seconds.

The size and maximum power of your engine can be varied greatly, with the only result being the time required to restore the 700 HP seconds of energy would be less with a more powerful engine. You need 100 HP from the engine at a RPM range from 1200 to 2500 RPM, but you do not need to design the engine to run at any higher speed than 2500 RPM. A single port and injector supplies all the air and fuel to the engine, while a single exhaust port allows you to keep catalist temps high as well as transfer exhaust heat to preheat the induction charge.

The engine would be fairly large displacement, probably 200 cubic inches, but would never run above 2500 RPM regardless of the circumstances.

No idling, no part throttle constant speeds, and no necessity for the components you normally have on your car to control the engine power production.

This same vehicle would be capable of accelerating to say 80 MPH, then stop, reaccelerate to 70 MPH, stop, reaccelerate to 63 MPH, stop, reaccelerate to 55 MPH, stop, and on and on>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
WITHOUT THE ENGINE RUNNING AT ALL> as long as your storgae was at maximum when you began the series of stops and starts.

I am hoping to achieve 85% regeneration efficiency, but 80% would be fine. 90 % would be even better but you have to have two transformations of energy and storage so the overall efficiency is the multiple of three separate component efficiencies. Each component would have to have efficiencies of over 96% individually. Very tough to do but not impossible.

If I wanted to spend the many minutes it would take I could pump an accumulator up with my legs and accelerate your car to 80 MPH with this system. Could be used to limp to the gasstation if you ran out of fuel. It would be a whole lot more efficient than pushing your car.

You could also start the engine with a totally dead battery.

regards
gary

[GasSavers_BEEF]

in a way, it works like an air compressor.

I am just trying to make sure I understand it. the accumulator is set at a given pressure and if it falls below that pressure the motor (car engine) kicks in to get back up to that pressure but the goal of the motor is to keep that said pressure. the wheels are actually ran off of the pressure that has been accumulated.

I know that I have "dumbed it up" but after reading your posts, my head was kind of hurting a little so I tried to relate it to something much simpler just to make sure I understand it.

obviously there is a lot more going on there than just what I have said. I like how you use the value hp/sec. that is pretty cool. I wonder, with your design, can you release all of it at one time? or at least at very high quantities? if you have 1000 horsepower seconds to play with, can you release 400 hp for 3 seconds or even 1000 hp for 1 second or maybe even 2000 hp for 1/2 a second. I realize that traction would be a big issue with that type of power at the rear wheels, I was just curious.

[R.I.D.E.]

The regenerative braking efficiency is listed on the chart at 80-85%.

Gas electric hybrids get about 30% back, just a little more than 1/3 of the hydraulic system.

The new component is the in wheel IVT (infinitely variable) pump-motor. Its cost when in mass production will be almost identical to the brake components you no longer need, and you will never wear out your brakes again.

Moving the drive directly to each wheel (the second stage of development) means you can now design the system to apply the exact amount of power to each wheel that is necessary to reach the limit of the tires traction with the ground.

Remember I said 0-60 in 130 feet. How many cars do you know of that can do that? And that is on accumulated storage alone. You can do that rate of acceleration ONCE without the engine even running, not even idling (which it will never do anyway). You don't need it more than once, so why add weight and cost to do it more than once.

Try this, drive your car using only the emergency brake for stopping. We drive conservatively as hypermilers anyway. I guarantee you I can drive my daily trip using only the emergency brake on my Honda. Tiny little drums are all I need because I try not to use my brakes at all. My design eliminates brakes altogether (in the conventional sense), with the exception of an emergency brake in case of a catastrophic system failure.

Remember the key to this stage of evolution. By retrofitting this system to a car like my VX, you are only progressing to stage 1, which is Launch assist. Focus on the assist definition. The system will be engineered to only provide and recover the power to the rear wheels that they can handle as far as traction is concerned. If you want to accelerate faster than that lmit you use the engine and the front wheels to accelerate faster, but in doing so you waste a lot more fuel.

When cruising at a constant speed the rear wheels (in the VX example) would be more than adequate to maintain any reasonable speed. If you need to accelerate uphill on an interstate on ramp with a full load of passengers, in heavy traffic, you would have to add engine power to do so safely.

Sure the system could be retrofitted to almost any vehicle, but if you try to do so through the existing powertrain you must run the drive pump-motors at much higher RPMs which is where the current designs loose a significant amount of efficiency, from 94 down to 75 %. That eliminates that configuration as a reasonable solution. In wheel motor speeds of 1000 RPM would mean vehicle speeds in excess of 80 MPH. Splitting the power requirements to all 4 wheels individually makes a lot more sense when you consider that each wheel only has to provide 1/4 of the acceleration forces.
You have also eliminated the necessity of a power teansmission components to carry all of the engines power to the wheels. Thats hundreds of parts no longer needed.

In our cars we reduce the propshaft RPM through the differential. By moving the transmissions work to the wheels themselves you have low RPMs (much more efficient) as well as 4 wheel regeneration. This is in the 2nd evolution, when the engines connection to the wheels is completely eliminated.

The difference between stage 1 and stage 2 is 40% stage one mileage improvement, and 80% stage 2 improvement.

Launch assist could be available by the end of 2009 (stage 1) with stage 2 within 18 months after that.

The whole concept is based on the potential for low risk implementation and positive cash flow from sales, to finance stage 2 and 3. This makes the system especially attractive to manufacturers, which is crucial to them accepting the design and producing it in huge quantities.

Stage two is 4 wheel drive, as well as regeneration, something few if any hybrids offer. Regeneration can continue to 0 vehicle speed at all 4 wheels, once you have progressed to stage two. In stage two you are still using a conventional engine for power, but like the Prius, you are running the engine only in its sweet spot (best BSFC range), because it no longer has anything to do with the power applied to the wheels.

The engine replaces lost pressure in the accumulator, if you are using accumulator storage, or spins up the flywheel, if you are using flywheel storage. The choice depends on cost comparisons of flywheels or accumulators. I believe accumulators would be more efficient, but flywheels would have less of a weight penalty. Each choice has advantages and disadvantages, but the principle deciding factor is cost.

The whole concept is based on the belief that if you can accomplish this with a 20% reduction in parts PER VEHICLE, you can produce a basic very inexpensive vehicle (say 10K new) that gets ungodly gas mileage, with may fewer parts that wear out and require reapir. Its win win from every perspective. Even the manufacturers can make money on cheap cars. Of course they will want to use the same system on more expensive cars but the object is to make the car inexpensive and so simple it would amaze you.

__________________________________________________ _______________

Now lets talk stage 3. This is where you go after the greatest loss in energy, which is engine efficiency.

Gas engines currently peak at 35%
Diesels currently peak at 41%
Electric motors are approaching 90%

The largest diesels on the planet are about 50%

Free piston engines that convert combustion pressure directly into hydraulic fluid pressure have reached theoretical efficiencies of 58%.

My enigne design has the potential to surpass 58%, because even a free piston engine is a reciprocating engine. My design is not a reciprocating engine.

New engine designs are Billion dollar commitments. No manufacturer will touch that kind of development cost without proving the concept with many prototypes and destructive testing.

My design uses the mass of the engine itself to create flywheel storage of rotational energy. The engine transforms itself into a flywheel. 250 pounds of rotating engine mass only needs to be accleerated from 1000 to 2600 RPM to store the enegy necessary to accelerate a 2000 pound vehicle from 0-60 MPH on that 1600 RPm increase in RPM. We are not talking about high speed flywheels with the potential for catastrophic disintegration.

Maximum flywheel speeds would be 3500 RPM in generated speed with max speeds approaching 8000 RPM if regeneration was necessary at the instant when the 3500 RPM point had been reached.

In other words you are travelling down thee road and your flywheel has just been accelerated to 3500 RPM and some moron pulls out in front of you and you have to make a panic stop. The regeneration energy would increase the flywheel speed to 8000 RPM.

The engine also eliminates the need for any accumulator or separate flywheel for storage.

Now your system consists of the engine-flywheel (one component) a master IVT pump motor, integral with the engine, and 4 in wheel drive regenerating motors in each wheel.

You no longer need any throttle control, cooling system, transmission, prop shaft, axles, differentials. Only a single fuel injector is necessary becasue all air comes in through a single port. No valve train, because the rotating cylinders pass over ports that allow air in and exahust out (2 ports).

Now you have reached stage 3 where the potential for fuel economy should actually exceed the figures in the tables provided.

You also have a vehicle that, by design, hypermiles itself to perfection. As you improve the aerodynamics the mileage grows proportionately. This does not happen in conventional drivetrains, because as you improve aero, the engine eifficincy actually drops becasue you have lowered the sustained demand.

There are two pedals, the right one is the go pedal, while the left is the slow pedal. Both feet are on the pedals all the time. Push the right foot to go faster, left foot to slow down. The pedals are gimballed so when you push one down the other rises, like the rudder controls on older aircraft.

This is real stuff, and its getting damn close to implementation.

regards
gary

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by R.I.D.E.

Try this, drive your car using only the emergency brake for stopping. We drive conservatively as hypermilers anyway. I guarantee you I can drive my daily trip using only the emergency brake on my Honda. Tiny little drums are all I need because I try not to use my brakes at all. My design eliminates brakes altogether (in the conventional sense), with the exception of an emergency brake in case of a catastrophic system failure.

I could drive with just rear brakes, but I'd be a lot closer to losing my braking traction, and it would be worthless in low-traction conditions -- rain, snow, ice, sand, etc.

If you want to accelerate faster than that lmit you use the engine and the front wheels to accelerate faster, but in doing so you waste a lot more fuel.

...and if you want to decelerate faster, you brake with the front wheels, wasting recoverable energy. Ok, I guess the point is that you just accept that.

The rear wheels are fine for accelerating and maintaining speed. That's well proven. I don't think you have to worry about how much acceleration power they can handle. What's the F/R weight distribution on a Civic VX? It can't be any more front-heavy than a pickup truck.

When cruising at a constant speed the rear wheels (in the VX example) would be more than adequate to maintain any reasonable speed. If you need to accelerate uphill on an interstate on ramp with a full load of passengers, in heavy traffic, you would have to add engine power to do so safely.

I seriously doubt you'd need the front wheels for acceleration traction in that situation. The center of gravity with a full load of passengers is moved rearward compared to the center of gravity with no back-seat passengers.

Sure the system could be retrofitted to almost any vehicle, but if you try to do so through the existing powertrain you must run the drive pump-motors at much higher RPMs which is where the current designs loose a significant amount of efficiency, from 94 down to 75 %. That eliminates that configuration as a reasonable solution.

The only reason I suggested using the existing axle and CV joints is because it sounds like you expect to have difficulty fitting the proof-of-concept hub devices into front wheels. Even so, you don't need to use high RPM; just gear your device 1:1 with the axle.

Launch assist could be available by the end of 2009 (stage 1) with stage 2 within 18 months after that.

If you're actually planning to bring stage 1 to market, it will definitely need to be in the front wheels. Hypermilers can recover lots of energy through the rear wheels, but the general public does a lot more hard braking. Just look at how the Prius is driven; it is often driven by jerks who have no interest in driving smoothly, and aren't even getting the EPA numbers from it.

Now lets talk stage 3.

My design uses the mass of the engine itself to create flywheel storage of rotational energy. The engine transforms itself into a flywheel. 250 pounds of rotating engine mass only needs to be accleerated from 1000 to 2600 RPM

Any worry about a gyroscopic effect? It could be bad for driveability and handling.

make a panic stop. The regeneration energy would increase the flywheel speed to 8000 RPM.

There has got to be a huge gyroscopic effect at that point.

There are two pedals, the right one is the go pedal, while the left is the slow pedal. Both feet are on the pedals all the time. Push the right foot to go faster, left foot to slow down. The pedals are gimballed so when you push one down the other rises, like the rudder controls on older aircraft.

If you're going to start messing with the standard interface, you can really change it to anything you want. How about a single pedal, hinged in the center, press the top/front to accelerate the the bottom/rear to brake (essentially your idea but with the axis rotated 90 degrees). Or, hand controls...I've always wanted hand controls.

I think changing the interface will hinder sales. People want the interface they're used to, and need it, and will call your system dangerous if you insist on changing the interface (and, at least while it's new, it WILL be dangerous -- people will not adapt their reflexes).