http://www.innas.com/Assets/files/Hydrid%20brochure.pdf
I posted this link before, but it's easier to put it here again.
In 1970 when I red about the Opel wagon that got 124 MPG by using pulse and EOC glides the thought that it could increase mileage by almost 400% intrigued me.
You can't increase engine efficiency by 400% so how was it physically possible to increase mileage by 400%.
Part of the answer was they increased the engine efficiency by 100%, by not allowing the engine to run unless it was at its highest BSFC.
Understanding that, how did they get to 400%.
If you take the time to read the INNAS link above, it becomes clear how they managed it 39 years ago.
They used the vehicle as a capacitive energy storage system and covered most of the distance with the engine off.
In the linked INNAS vehicle the engine only needed to run 11.9% of the time the vehicle was being driven.
I wonder how that percentage compared to the on-off cycle of the old Opel which was accelerated to 45 MPH and coasted with engine off down to 15MPH. The average speed was 26 MPH, which is very close to the current EPA city driving cycle average speed.
If your are following my train of thought, you should be at the point where you ask.
That's great but how do we make it a practical vehicle for public use? I pondered that for 30 years. The INNAS design is a practical vehicle, which proves it is possible. The admit their system is not as efficient as a conventional power train as far as energy losses if you limit your comparison to a manual transmission and their hydraulic power train. They also explain that the ability to cycle the engine and regenerate deceleration forces more than compensated for the higher losses in the HH versus conventional power train comparison.
Now that is where my design comes into play. The INNAS design utilizes fixed displacement in wheel pumps and transformers. My design utilizes infinitely variable drives in the wheels and requires no transformers. Their design is always moving fluid through the pumps and transformers which creates losses. My design eliminates displacement altogether., with no fluid movement unless energy is applied or recovered.
My objective was to make the hydraulic drive system as efficient or even more efficient than a conventional manual transmission power train. By eliminating the moving fluid or the interfacing of gears my design basically eliminates the power train altogether when coasting. In a conventional power train the gears are constantly in mesh, with fluid creating resistance between them, even when they are doing no practical work.
Some hydraulic pumps today are approaching 96% efficiency. With accumulators approaching 99% efficiency, you can recover the energy at a rate of 96X99x96. That's 91.2384% efficient. That number will equal or beat any conventional power train that allows gear selections. Compare it to the military HUMMER that loses 17% of the energy in the power train.
The point is when you have the ability to place the energy at the wheels MORE efficiently than a conventional setup, you have the potential to reach that magic 400% of the original Opel, possibly even to surpass that percentage.
Now for the sake of not letting this become a heated debate, lets assume my assumptions are correct based on the evidence provided.
If my design is capable of the efficiency I believe it is, it will require a functional prototype to prove it without any doubt. That's a very expensive proposition. I offer this as proof. After looking at the design for one year the students at tech, with the support of their professor (a MIT Doctor in Engineering) they concluded.
"The hydraulic pump motor has a significant potential for vehicular use"
"The overall concept of the design should provide cheap and economical vehicular transportation which should rival the efficiencies of electric powered vehicles."
Those are quotes from their document.
That does not take into consideration any aerodynamic or low rolling resistance tires. It also does not assume any improvement in engine efficiency.
The recent developments in HCCI engines would be much easier to perfect if the engine ran only at its ideal BSFC. In fact current development may already be there.
Basically that means any improvement outside the drive train would amplify the drive train improvements since the system is automatically compensating for those improvements.
As we progress to the ultimate vehicle every less significant energy loss becomes amplified as you eliminate the much larger percentage losses.
Basjoos demonstrates clearly how aerodynamics is very significant.
The bane of every hybrid design is weight and high speed efficiency. You are sacrificing high speed efficiency for low speed short distance improvements in efficiency. While pure electric cars are interesting, realistically speaking, how many will buy a car that needs recharging every 100 miles and costs $30,000?
Especially if they have to replace the several hundred pound battery every 5 years.
The system we are discussing here has no such limitation. Range and high speed economy are enhanced rather than sacrificed. Maintanance costs are reduced by at least 50% and the components have a 10 year life expectancy regardless of the mileage.
Basjoos can stay in lean burn on his aero civic at speeds as high as any limit presently existing in the US (or awfully close to that). His dedication to getting great mileage at high speeds is something I truly admire, and I share his belief that if you can't get on the highway and go 70 MPH, it just doesn't meet his threshold of acceptability.
The Interstate highway system was designed for speeds of 70 MPH. At that speed travelling 70 miles instead of 55, the traffic density of that same stretch of road drops to 55/70th or a 22 % reduction in traffic density. A national speed limit of 55MPH condemns us to increased traffic density and eventually would require more lanes to handle the traffic, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars.
I have already covered the fact that this design requires fewer parts per vehicle which makes manufacturing small inexpensive cars more economical.
Being an older person who likes to make things more simple. I like my cars simple.
Cars shoud be built as component platforms, so you can add any accessory as a plug in option. Instead we have to choose "packages" that are assembled by the manufacturers.
This is just stupid. I don't want all the stuff that younger people consider an essential part of their vehicle. Plug in options address that issue perfectly. They also allow you to take your car in for a repair of that plug in option and leave the option at the dealership instead of the car. They can provide you with a loaner option and connect it in minutes.
It goes way back to stereos when you had several different components. If one failed you did not have to throw the whole thing away.
I also like the idea of a plug in instrument panel, that is your personal computer. Without it your car would not run, and you are making your computer do double duty.
One more point in this thread. Vehicles have become heavier as more safety features are added. This HH system would allow the vehicle to become lighter without sacrificing safety. The mass of the power train contributes to the inertia that must be absorbed in a collision. Lowering the mass that does not contribute to safety increases mileage while reducing cost. If they can build Indy cars that can survive horrible wrecks I just cant follow the argument that a huge heavy vehicle is safer.
I understand the bigger marble principle, but you also must understand that the most maneuverable cars are relatively light. Sure if you are hit head on by a car weighing twice as much as your own you loose, but if you can maneuver out of harms way you win. That fact has saved my life and my parents lives on at least one occasion for each of us.
Of course we could all drive 10 ton tanks around, but we would not be able to afford the fuel.
The point is safety enhancements are possible if you can dedicate a greater percentage of weight to safety. You can also dedicate more of the initial cost of production to safety, when you have reduced the cost of the power train.
Jammer my hair used to be fairly close to that long but I kept it short enough so it wouldn't get wound up in the wheels of a creeper! I could carry a pen around by sticking it in my beard!
regards
Mech