http://www.moteurnature.com/actu/uneact ... s_id=24107
I just found that
It looks promising for a prototype, do not you think?
Especially at the level of fuel consumption, considering the weight wins.
New type of hybrid engine turbine
In my opinion, turbines are luxury technologies that have no place in an automobile.
They generally turn too fast and are too powerful, even for an electric generator, require bearings and blades very resistant to thermomechanical stresses.
Otherwise, putting the turbines on cars is a very old idea.
Nothing beats a good diesel downsized hybrid series
They generally turn too fast and are too powerful, even for an electric generator, require bearings and blades very resistant to thermomechanical stresses.
Otherwise, putting the turbines on cars is a very old idea.
Nothing beats a good diesel downsized hybrid series
0 x
There is a third possible. It's an internal combustion engine, but of a type like no mass-produced car ever had one, a turbine. The turbine car! We dreamed about it in the 1960 years. Chrysler had made some prototypes, but it still has not materialized.
Turbine Capstone
There is the problem of an extremely high operating speed, and huge variations in speed. It is relatively easy to fit a turbine in a car, but you have to find a suitable gearbox, and that's difficult. This problem is ruled out in a hybrid series configuration, where the turbine rotates at a constant speed, only to drive a generator. The turbine is here supplied by Capstone, and the prototype construction was done by Langford Performance Engineering. English people. After 2 years of development, the S-Max hybrid turbine would be more than 2 times more sober than the diesel model, and the turbine is not difficult, it feeds on super like diesel.
It's called not being afraid to announce anything! I think you have to read: 'the S-Max hybrid turbine will consume about 2 times more than the diesel model,
The best turbines consume about 30% more than a current Diesel at equal power and in the niche favorable to "large" power turbines (> 500HP). For the low powers required by a hybrid vehicle, the efficiency collapses and that consumes much much more ...
A+
0 x
Reason is the madness of the strongest. The reason for the less strong it is madness.
[Eugène Ionesco]
http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index. ... te&no=4132
[Eugène Ionesco]
http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index. ... te&no=4132
-
- Moderator
- posts: 79332
- Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
- Location: Greenhouse planet
- x 11046
+1
And I would like to recall this diagram which should be much more "known" in schools:
The turbine did not replace the piston engine for performance or consumption but for issues of altitude performance and power.
It's a safe bet that piston engines will return within a few years in commercial aviation for fuel economy purposes ...
And I would like to recall this diagram which should be much more "known" in schools:
The turbine did not replace the piston engine for performance or consumption but for issues of altitude performance and power.
It's a safe bet that piston engines will return within a few years in commercial aviation for fuel economy purposes ...
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum
Hi everybody
If you look closely at the video presentation of the engine, it recovers its heat exchanger, which is not the case of conventional turbine.
The evacuation is cooled by this recovery, which was not the case of the Chrysler engine.
I am led to believe that in this configuration, it is possible that it consumes less than a diesel, but its high quality is that it burns almost anything.
If you look closely at the video presentation of the engine, it recovers its heat exchanger, which is not the case of conventional turbine.
The evacuation is cooled by this recovery, which was not the case of the Chrysler engine.
I am led to believe that in this configuration, it is possible that it consumes less than a diesel, but its high quality is that it burns almost anything.
0 x
- Woodcutter
- Econologue expert
- posts: 4731
- Registration: 07/11/05, 10:45
- Location: Mountain ... (Trièves)
- x 2
Your review is based, I suppose, on "known" turbine models ...Flytox wrote:There is a third possible. It's an internal combustion engine, but of a type like no mass-produced car ever had one, a turbine. The turbine car! We dreamed about it in the 1960 years. Chrysler had made some prototypes, but it still has not materialized.
Turbine Capstone
There is the problem of an extremely high operating speed, and huge variations in speed. It is relatively easy to fit a turbine in a car, but you have to find a suitable gearbox, and that's difficult. This problem is ruled out in a hybrid series configuration, where the turbine rotates at a constant speed, only to drive a generator. The turbine is here supplied by Capstone, and the prototype construction was done by Langford Performance Engineering. English people. After 2 years of development, the S-Max hybrid turbine would be more than 2 times more sober than the diesel model, and the turbine is not difficult, it feeds on super like diesel.
It's called not being afraid to announce anything! I think you have to read: 'the S-Max hybrid turbine will consume about 2 times more than the diesel model,
The best turbines consume about 30% more than a current Diesel at equal power and in the niche favorable to "large" power turbines (> 500HP). For the low powers required by a hybrid vehicle, the efficiency collapses and that consumes much much more ...
A+
Why would there not be a way, so far unexplored, for low power turbines?
I find it hard to believe that any structure, even to ride a "green wave", initiates studies for a hybrid vehicle that would consume more than a commercial thermal animal?
So for me: - 1 ...
0 x
"I am a big brute, but I rarely mistaken ..."
- Woodcutter
- Econologue expert
- posts: 4731
- Registration: 07/11/05, 10:45
- Location: Mountain ... (Trièves)
- x 2
Following the comment of Alain, I was digging in the links and the turbine builder announces a conso of 80 mpg. If I convert well (1 gallon = 3.8 l), that makes 4.75 l / 100 ...
It's not phenomenal, but for a large minivan, it's still quite interesting.
So in my opinion Flytox, your comment was much too fast ...
It's not phenomenal, but for a large minivan, it's still quite interesting.
So in my opinion Flytox, your comment was much too fast ...
0 x
"I am a big brute, but I rarely mistaken ..."
Christophe, on your diagram it's not obvious that the piston engines are more sober than the reactors (it's rather the opposite)
Okay it's not the same time, but if a liner had to take a diesel, it would not be TDI high pressure injection and all the stuff ... It would be simple and reliable, necessarily.
Me the return of the piston engine in the long-haul I do not believe at all, for the reasons that you give precisely.
Already the mass is consumption (it would not be a replacement engine equal power: equal payload, heavier engine needs to be more powerful, so even heavier, etc. From there that it is necessary to modify the plane (increase the bearing surface), it is still weight or drag and more, need a larger engine, it is a hell of a vicious circle).
And then a diesel does not go up to 12000 meters. And the higher you are, the less you consume ...
Except with turbo
(the "except" applies for the 2 previous sentences, so no economic advantage)
The most economical transport aircraft engines at the moment are turboprops: a propeller driven by, like you, a turbine
Okay it's not the same time, but if a liner had to take a diesel, it would not be TDI high pressure injection and all the stuff ... It would be simple and reliable, necessarily.
Me the return of the piston engine in the long-haul I do not believe at all, for the reasons that you give precisely.
Already the mass is consumption (it would not be a replacement engine equal power: equal payload, heavier engine needs to be more powerful, so even heavier, etc. From there that it is necessary to modify the plane (increase the bearing surface), it is still weight or drag and more, need a larger engine, it is a hell of a vicious circle).
And then a diesel does not go up to 12000 meters. And the higher you are, the less you consume ...
Except with turbo
(the "except" applies for the 2 previous sentences, so no economic advantage)
The most economical transport aircraft engines at the moment are turboprops: a propeller driven by, like you, a turbine
0 x
Hi Alain and Bûcheron,
I'm not convinced ...
Turbines have only one big advantage: mass and volume power. Which makes us like to use them for turboprop engines. And their modification leads them to expel gas with high momentum: turbojet ... To satisfy the race for the performance of aircraft.
That's why we make so many sacrifices on the cost (materials ...). The hybrid series architecture does not eliminate the use of gear reducers because electric motors generally run at less than 4000 rpm, a mini gas turbine 10000 rpm.
Another problem, a gas turbine does not like to start / stop. It finds its optimum only on a very limited torque / speed range. Gold in hybrid-series, the engine is likely to have repetitive starts.
The compression rates in the turbines rarely exceed 12 and the Brayton / Joule cycle is thermodynamically lower than the Diesel cycle which goes much further in the compression ratio (15 and more ...)
So I agree with the analyzes of Flytox and Christophe.
Turbines are technically and economically inferior to Diesel even on high powers (> 500 CV).
In small powers, it's the cat.
4,75 L / 100 for a hybrid series is a bad performance, and it is only announced.
I remember that many Diesel, even on big car, are around 5L / 100 I think Nissan Qashkai. They would make easy 4L in hybrid series.
I'm not convinced ...
Turbines have only one big advantage: mass and volume power. Which makes us like to use them for turboprop engines. And their modification leads them to expel gas with high momentum: turbojet ... To satisfy the race for the performance of aircraft.
That's why we make so many sacrifices on the cost (materials ...). The hybrid series architecture does not eliminate the use of gear reducers because electric motors generally run at less than 4000 rpm, a mini gas turbine 10000 rpm.
Another problem, a gas turbine does not like to start / stop. It finds its optimum only on a very limited torque / speed range. Gold in hybrid-series, the engine is likely to have repetitive starts.
The compression rates in the turbines rarely exceed 12 and the Brayton / Joule cycle is thermodynamically lower than the Diesel cycle which goes much further in the compression ratio (15 and more ...)
So I agree with the analyzes of Flytox and Christophe.
Turbines are technically and economically inferior to Diesel even on high powers (> 500 CV).
In small powers, it's the cat.
4,75 L / 100 for a hybrid series is a bad performance, and it is only announced.
I remember that many Diesel, even on big car, are around 5L / 100 I think Nissan Qashkai. They would make easy 4L in hybrid series.
0 x
-
- Similar topics
- Replies
- views
- Last message
-
- 21 Replies
- 23881 views
-
Last message by falcon1208
View the latest post
27/11/17, 15:14A subject posted in the forum : special motors, patents, fuel consumption reduction
-
- 36 Replies
- 48426 views
-
Last message by crispus
View the latest post
01/12/09, 16:27A subject posted in the forum : special motors, patents, fuel consumption reduction
Back to "Special motors, patents, fuel consumption reduction"
Who is online ?
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 88 guests