|
Keep making statements you can not back up with any factual evidence.
Accusation by you. I know IC engines will never reach 60% so my statement of my belief that it will happen is disingenuous.
When given factual evidence to support my belief you choose to attack the Hydrogen fuel portion of the evidence and also choose to disregard the credibility of a nationally recognized institution that is pursuing such an engine.
Accusation by you. Hydraulic pumps are inefficient.
When presented factual evidence you choose to ignore that same evidence. Moving the drive directly to the wheel and reducing the RPM from and inefficient 3000 to a much more efficient 800 is the solution to that issue. You choose to ignore or refute such factual evidence without any factual support of your position.
In fact hydraulic drives produce maximum torque at .1 RPM wheel speed, within 5%. That's about the same as electric motors, and the life expectancy of hydraulic pumps rivals or exceeds electric motors. The Va Tech calculations were 35 horsepower and 395 foot pounds of torque at the first revolution of each wheel, using a piston of 1 inch diameter. If you want more just increase the diameter.
You state that any knowledgeable driver knows how to keep their engine in the range of 37% efficiency, but again the facts do not support your position. The average driver knows little to nothing about how to drive their car efficiently. By placing the priority on the vehicle being efficient without any specific driver input you have eliminated the driver as the weak link in efficiency.
Pray tell what percentage of drivers in your direct observations are knowledgeable. Do you honestly think we will ever reeducate the worlds population of drivers?
Dream on.
Make the car idiot proof and even the idiots will get good mileage.
The Innas document also demonstrates a significant improvement in highway mileage, something you also choose to ignore, because the vehicle's power train is not connected to the engine. I guess you think every driver in the US should P&G their way to great mileage. Good luck waiting for that to happen. My belief is that the Innas system which is almost identical to my design allows automated constant speed P&G, something that is simply not possible in a gas electric hybrid because the multiple energy conversions necessary and the cumulative effects in total losses of multiple conversions negate any increase in average engine efficiency. Combine that with the low percentage of wheel to wheel energy recovery in regenerative braking using electric systems and you have some improvement in a Prius type vehicle but it does not compare to the Innas improvement of 100% overall and an significant improvement even in highway driving.
Almost a decade ago Charles Gray one of the EPA heads of the hydraulic hybrid development project, stated that they were looking for designs for drives to break the 80% barrier in regeneration. 5 years ago they were at 78%. The program included major well know US corporations who were also involved in the development of hydraulic power trains. The projected an 80% improvement through better power train design and configurations, and the Innas document shows 100%. That makes perfect sense to me when you consider the Innas fixed displacement in wheel drive was not a part of the original EPA calculation.
As far as your statement about the flywheel and losses involved, I don't think you are considering the capacitive effect of flywheel energy storage on acceleration, or that you have looked at the Innas document and their explanation of the real reason for the improvements in mileage which is the capacitive storage and application of energy independent of the engines input alone.
A very small engine can spin a flywheel up to store a lot of energy and provide a dramatic rate of acceleration to a vehicle that would never perform decently with that same size engine alone. I guess that is something else you will arbitrarily choose to ignore, but most of the rest who read this have no trouble understanding.
Inevitably your concerns present the opinions of a percentage of people who, for what ever reason, choose to not accept a different option which will at some point in the future be the core of a vehicle that is inexpensive, more reliable than anything else on the road, and does not have the issues that keep the aftermarket repair industry busy repairing vehicles.
regards
Mech
|