New Invention. Electric assist. Comments?
 

What do you guys/gals think about the invention shown in the link below?

Fuelpup Table of Contents Page

Sounds Good
 

It sounds like a good idea to me, but there sure isn't a lot of detail offered on the site. That part scares me. I also question the belt drive bing enough to motivate my 4000 lb. sled reliably.

I'm no EV expert by far, but it looks like those motors are way too small to handle the necessary current to move even a smaller vehicle let alone a Jeep. Several members have considered similar devices mounted various ways. The idea is sound, but that product doesn't look good IMO.

I don't think this system is intended to push a vehicle on its own, simply to provide assistance to the gas motor while in motion. I see no reason why this wouldn't work in fact, since I do not see any kind of controller included it is probably regulated to provide X number of rpm's giving a small boost in any gear, for us possibly a better boost when EOCing or neutral coasting.

Wish I had $1500 of disposable income to give it a try, if for nothing else to improve on it if it falls short.

Bad News; It seems to be a solution for RWD vehicles only as it is part of the drive shaft assembly.

LOL
2 starter motors with a belt around the drive shaft. I could whip up a setup like that for $100 including the machine work. It doesn't mean you're going to save any gas.

I like the Setup, I'm thinking that those are beefed up starter motrs, or Wheelchar motors . . . .

I'm a little ticked it's patented . . .

Reading the patent <http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7271555/fulltext.html>

There is a reference to 1.5hp motors that *can* be found for e-bikes (and have been used with higher voltage supplies).

Interestingly (numbers referencing a schematic drawing):

"Electric motor 44 is supplied with operating current by one or more batteries. A first battery 52 may be the usual lead-acid storage battery that provides power for a starting motor (not shown) for internal combustion engine 12, which is conventionally located in the engine compartment of vehicle 10. A second battery may be an auxiliary gel battery 54 located in the vehicle 10 at a place other than the engine compartment, as for example in the trunk of the vehicle. However, it is preferable that the existing battery be upgraded to a high output gel cell. In some circumstances, especially for heavier vehicles, the second gel cell placed in the trunk of the vehicle should be a high output gel cell. Preferably, the alternator used in the vehicle should have an output of 100 amperes or more, achieved by replacement of the alternator, if necessary."

Could one patent the plug-in option for this? (sorry, I don't have the $10k+ for a patent application... and Toyota probably has it already)

This has to be crap. Why would you use alternator power to assist the gas engine. You are taking energy through 4 transitions with all the losses involved to throw it back inas an electric assist. If you power it from a second battery you charge... it MIGHT work for acceleration but it will never work for steady state highway driving. You car will still burn the same amount of fuel no matter what speed you are going if you have the transmission engaged to the wheels and engine.

Arminius -

Good find. It will be interesting to see if it pans out. I am a huge believer in RETROFIT solutions because we can't change the makeup of the existing American automobile fleet overnight. Ecomodder is all about retrofitting.

bikin' Ed -

Yeah, I agree. It sounds like a smaller version of this :

Electrocharger / Retrofit Hybrid :: Sigma Automotive
The above version looked like a "truck only" solution because of it's size. And, it never seemed to get out of the R&D stage. It's been "in development" since 2004!!!!! :

What I like about the fuel pup is that it *looks* like it would fit in my car. The $1500 price is a bit less than what I expected the Electrocharger to cost.

CarloSW2

I agree, but what IF you used a turbo alternator. This has yet to hit mainstream but it would work. However, i'd lose the belts and go with direct drive, which means more expensive motors etc. but it's a step in the right direction. I like it.
In order to reach a solution that works, we'll have to endure lots that won't.

ollie

I agree, hafta go through many designs to get to a solution. But from the automotive supplier world the reason the Hybrids right now do not do this is because it won't help your fuel economy. If you could update any car with this simple hybrid system and get a gas mileage increase so "cheap" we would throw them on every car right now.

You know I disagree with that statement. It is used alot and lately. Many innovations that we see today were developed long ago, long before they were introduced to the mainstream. No machine will ever be built or designed that will benefit the consumer more than the business that built it. That's bad business. The automotive industry survives off repair and service. If it is indeed possible to build a part that does not break or wear, do you think it would ever be used in any mass produced machine? NO, because there is no money to be made from it.

So any device that can help a consumer would simply take money from another business, in this case OIL, ergo it would not be adopted to all cars. This is the logic of the corporate machine not my endorsement in this device BTW.

The world may one day be free of fossil fuel vehciles, but until that day we are going to go down kicking and screaming, debunking all new technology until there is absolutely no other alternative.

This is one thing I can speak of first hand. If for $200 worth of production parts you can increase 5 mpg, OEMS would be all over it right now making all their vehicles heads better than the competition. The auto industry is in a war to sell the most cars. It is no longer just about repairs and fixes. With sales so low anything that makes them more competitive will push theem over the competition in this crappy market.

This system will not work based on the physics alone. electric motors are so in-efficient at steady state that you'll engine will work overtime to just power the thing all the time.

I work in HEV systems, and the benchmark commonly used is $100 / % increase FE on the EPA test cycles. OEM HEV's dont meet that. but we can make a (small) profit on them, so well sell them.

With such an emphasis on quality, the repair isn't nearly as profitable as it one was.

ON electric motors/generators: Even the crappy 1950 alternator design (common today under the hood) is 60% efficient, which 2x better than most Spark Ignited engines today. The synchronous motors we use in our HEVs are over 80% efficent, and peak at 96%.


BTW, a XXX mpg improvement are different % improvement depending on where you start. Going from 5 MPG to 10 MPG in a heavy truck is a groundbreaking 100%, but going from 45 mpg to 50 is 10%, but is all a 5 mpg improvment

What charges the battery that drives this electric motor? If it is your engine driven alternator then this thing has a net loss of MPG, not a gain! If you instead charge its battery at home (plug-in) then its battery is going to have to be very large to have any merit. It would have to be on the order of 10 times as large as your normal car battery to have much of any worthwhile energy to add to wheel rotation, and where are you going to put it?

This has to be a spoof. ;-)

I could see this highly useful with Engine off, just use it to inch forwarward, avoiding lots of idling.

It may or may not be a useful invention. I came across the patent, so that's how I found the site. The actual patent was professionally done, so it cost the owner too much money to be done just for the fun spoofing.

Personally I use the KISS principle, interesting setup! did note the rusted drive shaft you have to wonder about all of the snow mud and dirt and salt that this would be exposed to. As far as i am concerned I have enough belts and pulleys. I find it unlikely that it is a new invention, apply the golden rule and that is what was old is now new such as the alternator starter, 1938 citroen .... correct me of i am wrong

Here is the main problem:

You are using an inefficient gas/diesel engines to:

1) Produce mechanical motion
2) that then gets converted to electricity
3) to then convert back to mechanical motion via a motor

You are just adding loses to the system to the system. The current hybrid systems do not get an increase in fuel efficiency because it can use the electric motor to propel itself (it helps but it isn't the big gain). The big gain is the driving technics most of us emplor ans get hybrid like gas mileage.

This system COULD produce a gain in fuel efficiency it pared with a regen system and home charging system. Basically all it is providing is the cheap portion of a OEM hybrid system and leaving the energy storage system up to the the buyer, which is the expensive part.

This design is no more than half the system needed to net a gain in fuel efficiency. Without the rest of the system you cannot get a net gain. You will lose MPG with this system unless you actually somehow impliment an on/off switch that turns the system on while you are accelerating(lots of gain to be made) and off when at cruising speed(no gain to be made). Then you need to have a large battery system that is charged after use so that you can suppliment the gas energy supply with an electrical energy supply. But the system would have to be seperate from the alternator so that the alternator is not trying to charge the systems battery.