|
In 2006 when I was in Detroit meeting with Next Energy and Ricardo, the representative from Next Energy was Ryan Waddington. He went with us to Ricardo where I presented my design that had not been Patented at that time but was covered by the provisional application.
Ryan confided with me that the concept and proposal was the best he had ever seen. I needed no notes or cue cards. it was straight from memory which had been honed and polished for years.
Every vehicle in motion contains a certain amount of energy in it's own inertia. Hypermilers hybridize their vehicles with pulse and glide by increasing the inertial state then extracting that energy in the glide. My two guiding principles were effectiveness and cost. It became apparent that another two principles became relevant as the system evolved. Those were simplicity and emissions. When the EPA published their Hydraulic Hybrid research documents in 2006, one of their conclusions was that a new design was necessary for the system to reach the levels of efficiency that were necessary to allow Pulse and glide power application to be separated from vehicle motion.
In an electric powered vehicle the principles are the same. While peak demands for energy in acceleration are very high above the 0 line, the other side of the equation is where peak deceleration demands are even lower on the negative side of the equation.
This demands a capacitive method of storing energy. The INNAS HYDRID link shows this clearly in a graph of instantaneous versus average demands.
Capacitive storage of potential regeneration scenarios will improve overall energy consumption, but even more significant is the ability to cover the highest and lowest demands, both positive and negative, with short term high capacity energy storage.
With the EPA documents that clearly showed accumulator efficiencies at as high as 99%storage potential for an accumulator is unsurpassed. The missing link in 2006 was the drive. They used a bent axis hydraulic pump in their 80MPG 3800 pound prototype. The worst part of their design was they ran the pump at prop shaft speed, over 3 times wheel speed. At that RPM the pump efficiencies plummeted to 75% from their 95% range at 750 RPM. The whole design was screaming for a drive that ran at wheel speed instead of prop shaft speed.
No one here will argue that electrical regeneration is efficient. It's better than nothing but not much better. Few would also argue that pulse and glide does not provide much of an improvement with electric drives, and it also is not a great idea to vary vehicle speed in traffic on highways, much easier on roads where you do not have to deal with a lot of other traffic and people who do not understand what you are doing, or appreciate their perceived inconvenience due to your activities and speed variations.
All of this was well known and has been for quite a few decades. Hypermiling dates back to before WW2 but gas rationing brought it into a focus when the fuel allotment was 2 gallons a week. In 1955 a Chrysler could get 45 MPG using pulse and glide, when it normally got maybe 15 MPG. The potential for improvement was huge.
Even an electric motor has an ideal state of power conversion as Neil claims at 94% for his examples he presents. If that efficiency could be maintained over all states of vehicle operation it would be more efficient, but how do you do that?
Capacitive storage and release at very high efficiencies is the answer. Not long term storage, but a capacitive "shock absorber" for the huge variances in demand. A load leveler that provides acceptable acceleration, lower energy cost constant speeds, and high efficiency recovery of energy when deceleration can not be avoided.
After a year of investigation, the conclusion of the students and Professor at Va Tech was that my design provided that. It did this regardless of the vehicles energy reservoir or the means of converting that energy into motion, by applying the exact amount of energy necessary while separating the application of power from the motor or engine whether it was powered by electricity or liquid fuel.
The EPA claimed 80% improvement for vehicles with IC engines, without any engine or aero improvement. Even if the improvement was only 30% for electric drive vehicles the range increase would be substantial. Since most of the new BEVs on the road today are used in urban areas, where the stop and go traffic is predominant, the improvement would be more significant. At higher speeds with improved aerodynamics the system would compensate for the lower overall energy drain and higher range would be the result of that automatic compensation.
As Frank pointed out why not just go further with less. It means lower emissions, less energy consumed, and longer vehicle life, with lower maintenance.
regards
Mech
|