|
Thanks Tom.
I don't really feel like there is any "genius" involved. It's more a lifetime interest in vehicles of all types and how mankind developed efficient methods of extracting power from energy sources.
I appreciate the compliment but I truly feel like there is that spark of inspiration in every one of us.
To answer your question the motors could be mounted inboard like the disc brakes of the Jag XKE. They could also be incorporated into a transmission unit for front wheel drive or rear wheel drive.
The basic principle behind the positioning of them individually at each wheel is the elimination of as many conventional power train components as possible, even the axles that would transfer energy to the wheels if the motors were not in the wheels themselves. It could be that if the wheel vehicle was light enough inboard drive pump-motors might be the best method, but if the vehicle as a whole became lighter the pump-motors would follow suit.
I decided against using the outer portion of the engine for hydraulic pressure generation for two reasons. First would be balance of the assembly. Second would be pumping the mass of the fluid itself against the centrifugal forces of the spinning body of the machine.
Considering the motors themselves would weigh about the same as the brake components they replace, and would be constructed of very few parts that were simple to manufacture, as well as utilizing the existing axle bearings and axles that are an essential part of any wheeled vehicle, the only additional parts are the journaled shaft and the cylinders and pistons. The outer location of the pistons would also be the mounting points of the rims and tires.
This was a progression of thinking based on the simplistic approach or rationale. Try to make every component perform the maximum number of practical functions while eliminating the large number of individually manufactured components through which power must be transferred from the engine (or motor) to the wheels themselves.
Adding components adds complexity and some additional losses in power transfer. The losses may be small but the cost of unnecessary components adds to the cost of production.
That philosophy applies to every component of a complete vehicular system. If you used the original flywheel-rotary engine, you have to consider a catastrophic failure of the spinning mass of the engine itself. Most people would say it has to have a containment vessel. My experience with cars pointed me to using the front sub frame as a containment vessel. Place the engine withing the sub frame, and make it so you could remove it from the bottom of the cross member. Engine on the ground in 10 minutes.
Each wheel,s pump-motor would require less than 1 hours labor to completely overhaul, if it was ever necessary.
As far as the accumulator. It could be incorporated into the rear suspension cross member, or as an additional function of a tubular frame. This would make the weight of an accumulator perform double duty as a structural component of the vehicle itself.
When emissions regulations first became required in the US (the first was positive crankcase ventilation in 1963) I always disliked the way they were added on to existing engines in an attempt to make do with what you had in the parts bin. The early emission controlled cars were atrocious abortions of engineering.
When Nissan went to fuel injection in 1975, their engines did not even need EGR or a catalytic converter to pass federal emissions.
The modern equivalent is the pursuit of Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition, which has the potential to eliminate after treatment of combustion byproducts.
While you all may laugh at me a consider me somewhat of a lunatic for even mentioning it. I consider a steam engine as a possible pathway. Not known for efficiency by most modern day engineers, there are two major benefits possible with steam power. First is external combustion produces no emissions requiring treatment. Our vent free natural gas fireplace exhaust it combustion byproducts into our house. We are breathing the exhaust without harm.
Another potential advantage of steam power is the advancements in insulation, combined with using fluids other than water for the "steam" lower boiling points, more effective heat transfer to modern multi tube boilers to me make the potential something that should be explored.
Its funny how the most efficient method of moving gross tonnage of freight is barely better today than the old steam locomotive. Many naval vessels are still using steam.
Steam could be used to directly create hydraulic pressure, with a system of stepped pistons resembling the old triple and quadruple expansion engines of long ago.
There is also a design for a free piston to direct hydraulic pressure generation engine that was in the EPA hydraulic hybrid documents almost 10 years ago. Ingo Valentin (google Valentin Technologies) has been pursuing this for decades, long enough for most of his patents to expire.
I especially liked the use of the suspension components for fluid transfer in Valentin's designs. They follow the principle of multiple utilization of components.
Steam also is multi fuel capable.
I like the free piston engine design because it uses the mass of the piston to compress the mixture for the next combustion event. I think the theoretical efficiency was quoted at 58% in the EPA documents. Combine that with Co generation of residual heat for driving the accessories and you might reach 70%.
I don't think many people understand (could easily be wrong) the compounding effect of individual efficiency improvements. As the gross efficiency issues are resolved, the losses attributed to smaller inefficiencies are compounded.
Also the system has to be able to self compensate for improvements outside the system itself. Currently if you reduce your rolling resistance and aero drag to the point where it takes 50% less energy to move your vehicle at a certain speed, the lower power requirements placed on the engine itself make it less efficient due to lower manifold vacuum and lower effective compression. Imagine what a 1st generation manual Honda Insight would do for mileage if the aero drag was reduced from .25 to .017 like Basjoos aerocivic. Heck you could even add another taller gear for even more improvement, increasing the load on the engine for better cruising efficiency.
Valentin thought his car would be capable of 130 MPG. I think his estimate was correct, and with further refinement it may be possible to reach 200 MPG.
It sure would be nice to see govt actually dedicate some of the money they are throwing away at really addressing the problem. The EPA test mule was 3800 pounds and they calculated the average MPG at 80.
regards
Mech
|