Hello to all - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 04-10-2008, 06:49 AM   #1
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,258
Country: United States
Location: wiliamsburg virigina
Hello to all

Been reading threads here for some time, great information.

Worked on cars starting in 1969, retired in 99 due to back issues. Specialized in Datsun Z cars for the last 14 years.

Worst mileage car I owned was a 67 383 Formula S Barracuda coupe, 10 MPG no matter what you did.

Started driving in 1966 and did body work for 6 years, then sold Benz parts. Finally did mechanical work for the last 16 years of working on cars, then retired from car repair industry and built two houses to take advantage of tax free income.

In the late sixties I got 32 Mpg in a Bug eyed Sprite and 28.5 in a 63 Valiant with the small slant six.

I retired from auto repairs when my multitasking abilities began to suffer the inevitable effects of age, born in 1950.

I have two patents pending, one on an engine design, the second on an in wheel infinitely variable hydraulic drive system, that can use any engine or motor design, with any fuel source, and provides 4 wheel regeneration. The design replaces the brakes on a conventional vehicle on a same weight basis, and allows the elimination of conventional powertrain components, resulting in an approximately 25% reduction in per vehicle component count.

Virginia Tech has agreed to assign a group of senior engineering students to desing CAD and build a prototype of my in wheel IVT design.

This should be completed by Christmas this year and will answer the core question about the efficiency of my design, which I am hoping will approach 90% or better.

I just purchased a 94 Civic VX, to replace my 94 Del Sol. First tank in the VX was 50 MPG, driving a 32 mile round trip route, that includes 56 traffic lights (Tidewater Virginia area). The VX was totalled in 95 and used for insurance adjuster training. I started rebuilding totals in 1973 and have done almost 200 over the years. The VX was hit in the rear, with no running problems other than muffler misalignment, no broken glass. We straightened everything but the rear tailgate. The car has the original tires that have just started to show signs of dry rot, the paint is not faded and the interior is just about perfect. I plan on driving it for the next 8 years.

regards
Gary
__________________

__________________
R.I.D.E. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2008, 09:17 AM   #2
Registered Member
 
GasSavers_SD26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 529
Country: United States
Welcome, Gary!

I've heard things about even Ford looking at some kind of hydraulic hybrid. I can appreciate your thinking out of the box.

Looking forward to listening to you on the forum!
__________________

__________________
Dave
GasSavers_SD26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2008, 09:50 AM   #3
VX trainee
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 125
Country: United States
I had a 63 or 64 Valiant, one of the best cars I've owned. That slant six could take a lot of abuse....I was 16 at the time and put it through hell.

Your IVT design sounds intriguing...hope it turns out well for you.

Tons of VX info here, if you need it.
4bfox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2008, 04:06 PM   #4
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 96
Country: United States
Hi and welcome! -- love the VX. Also, very interested in applied physics and how it relates to the automobile.
soletek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2008, 06:18 PM   #5
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,258
Country: United States
Location: wiliamsburg virigina
Soletek, I was reading up on your VX to HF swap, most impressive, and that is from a guy who put a 49 Plymouth Businessmans coupe body (sectioned and channeled) on a 1983 Nissan pickup frame with a240 Z engine and tranny.

The R.I.D.E engine design utilizes the basic design of the original rotary aircraft engine, which is not a reciprocating design. You can see an animation of the original rotary (not wankel) aircraft engine by googling "animated engines gnome".

In the original rotaries the airplane propeller was bolted to the engine block which spun around a fixed (bolted to the airframe) crankshaft. Few realize the significant differences between this configuration and conventional reciprocating engines. Combustion pressure pushed the cylinder head away from the con rod. The con rods rotated around the fixed crank, unlike reciprocating engines where the rods never rotate around the crank unless you are about to throw a rod.

My basic modifications are to eliminate the connecting rods, reverse the pistons and cylinders, and provide a means of adjusting the stroke position from a positive or negative amount to a neutral position where the pistons do not move vertically in their respective cylinders. This happens in tenths of a second and when the stroke position is zero the mass of the engine becomes a flywheel capable of storing it's own energy in it's rotating mass. The concept is to use the engines own weight to accomplish short term high capacity storage. The energy stored in the flywheel mode would be suffecient to accelerate to 60 MPH in about 5 seconds. It would only take about twenty revolutions of the cars wheels to reach this speed. Originally the transmission was intended to be a CVT design, this was in 2003-4 when the original patent was filed in September.

It became apparent that no manufacturer was interested in the original design, but the purpose of the first filing was to claim the adjustable stroke feature, which was the critical difference compared to the original rotary.

Subsequent development focused on the powertrain design, particularly after reading the EPA's papers on hydraulic hybrids, and the UPS delivery trucks that are using a hydraulic hybrid configuration. I built a simple model using a 73 Z car fan clutch hub assembly and some tubing and dowells. It was intended to demonstrate the non reciprocating principles of the original aircraft engine. By pure accident the pistons and cylinders were reversible, and I realized that with the cylinders rotating around the center hub, and the pistons connected to the periphery of the rotating engine block, you could use the design as a hydraulic pump without the inherent imbalance problems if the fluid displacement was at the perimeter of the hub instead of over the middle. The center hub can now be ported to allow hydraulic fluid to enter and exit as the cylinders rotate around the hub.

Now you have the simplest imaginable powertrain. Charge a hydraulic accumulator and lauch your car to 80 MPH with no engine whatsoever. When you would normally brake just reverse the stroke and recapture the vehicles inertia as hydraulic pressure, again with no powerplant whatsoever. The EPA estimates an 80% inprovement in mileage with no changes in the engine. The estimate jumps to 120% with predicted engine improvements.

Consider this, use any engine or motor, any fuel source, to recharge the accumulator as the pressure levels are depleted. Now you have truly disconnected the engine (motor) from the wheels.

Pulse and glide is now possible without changing the vehicles speed, instead you change the infinite ratios of the drive system as pressure reserves decline, and change them again as the engine regenerates the pressure reserve. The load on the engine is completely independent of the power required to drive the vehicle and can be kept within the range of greatest efficiency regardless of vehicle demands. The engine only runs to replenish losses from a minimum pressure to a maximum pressure, when it cuts off until pressure reserves are depleted. Engine run time would range from 15 seconds per minute (higher speeds) to just a few seconds every two minutes (stuck in traffic). Engine power generation speeds would be low with storage speeds in the range of 5000 RPM when regeneration occurs at maximum reserve charge level. Normal engine speed would be in the range of current 3 liter diesels.

The EPA has a mule vehicle in operation today, it weighs 3800 pounds and gets 80 MPG. They state that the system is bulky and would not be practical on a small car. My design would work on a bicycle, certainly on cars weighing less than 1000 pounds, and anything larger you could imagine, including power units to haul nuke submarines to their covered work buildings.

Will post photos of the model, the concept is not easy to explain, but I thought the members of this forum would have the advantage of understanding the operational principles.

regards
Gary
__________________
R.I.D.E. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2008, 11:56 PM   #6
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 96
Country: United States
Wow! I like the design, and thanks for the kudos for my thread. Can't wait to see your photos.

As for the accumulator, what type have you designed? A basic steel or carbonfiber container would do for the psi requirements, but would not yield the required long-term returns that a spring loaded reservoir might with the engine off. A problem that may arise with that type is an undesirable dampening effect, not to forget the inherent limitations of the pressure returns due to capacitive spring rates. Depending on the displacement of one full revolution of each motor, how much volume under a calculated minimum pressure would be required to achieve the twenty revolutions? Would you use a non-compressible liquid, or a gas that would have some spring to it, or both?

Since you mentioned the bicycle, I think it would be fun to build a human powered version to assist in uphill climbs, etc. It might be a good test bed.

It's great to see there is someone else as afflicted as I am.
soletek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2008, 06:09 AM   #7
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,258
Country: United States
Location: wiliamsburg virigina
soletek, I sent you a PM with my email addy my photos are too large a file to send to this forum. Shoot me an email and I will send the photos to you directly.

The design of the drive pump allows for variable displacement which basically means with a given amount of pressure and volume you can create a huge range of drive speed (less disp higher speed-more disp lower speed).

Accumulator design is not something I have focused on specifically. A good answer to your questions is contained in the EPA documents which can be located by googling epa hydraulic hybrids.

Accumulators on America's Cup racers operate at pressures of 12,000 PSI. I think the accumulator technology is very mature and due to that I have focused on the pump design.

The EPA design uses a bent axis pump, similar to the swash plate compressors used in air conditioning, but they are reciprocating pumps and their efficiency falls off dramatically at higher speeds, from above 90% to less than 75%.

By moving the drive pumps to all of the vehicles wheels you have 4 wheel regeneration as well as 4 wheel drive, which can be switched to 2 wheel drive almost instantly by adjusting the stroke position to neutral which disengages two of the 4 drive wheels. Two wheel regeneration is a limiting factor in regeneration potential, much the same as trying to drive your car using only the emergency brake.

With all wheel drive the individual drive pumps do not have to handle all the power generated. Charles Gray of the EPA made two statements that I thought were very significant.

"The hydraulic hybrid will revolutionize the auto industry to a greater extent than the assembly line"

"I can hold a 500 HP hydraulic pump in my hand"

Statements like these are almost unbelievable if I had made them. Mr. Gray was directly involved in the hydraulic hybrid research and development.

Calculations of pressure required as well as volume begin with the amount of power that can be applied to each wheel of the vehicle without wheelspin. This varies greatly with vehicle weight and tire traction. Basically you use a combination of stroke length and accumulator pressure and reserves that can provide the maximum torque at the wheels without spinning the tires.

The pressures are not as great as you might think, larger diameter drive pump assemblies allow greater stroke lengths and greater wheel torque. The end result is a vehicle that can accelerate at the limit of all 4 wheels ability to maintain traction with the road surface. This design could out accelerate and F40 Ferrari if it was designed to do so, acceleration distances would be the same as minimum stopping distances.

As vehicle speed increases you have more opportunities to apply pressure to the pistons, so the stroke length would be reduced to keep the volume of moving fluid relatively equal, with that changing somewhat with the pressure reserve variations.

The original engine flywheel configuration could eliminate the need for any accumulator, as long as the efficiency was high enough. That may not be possible with accumulator efficiencies in the 97% range.

The simplest design is called a launch assist axle. Take a Corolla and replace the rear axle with one that stores and releases energy using my pump and a small accumulator, independent of the conventional powertrain. This could be an option on new vehicles or a retrofit on older vehicles.

It's time for the US to treat vehicle efficiency in the same way they treated the development of the atomic bomb in WW2. We need a new Manhattan Project that focuses our resources on making the most efficent vehicles possible, in the shortest period of time. Parallel development of all configurations and combinations of same, instead of the current "my design configuration is best" attitude. The automotive X prize is a step in the right direction, but the best way would be for the Feds to do the same thing they did when they bailed out Chrysler. It may not be my design that is the ultimate successor the the present state of the art, but that is not important. What is important is the fact that Wayne Gerdes can get double the EPA mileage in a Prius, and the future designs will shift that operational tactic from the driver to the vehicle itself.

That is the most basic premise of my design, I know it is possible. The worst problem is most people do not even believe that is possible.


regards
gary
__________________
R.I.D.E. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2008, 09:22 AM   #8
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 96
Country: United States
It is indeed possible. The main holdup, as I see it is greed. There is the infernal need to make a killing from whatever is accomplished, not to do a design for the sake of the people or the planet. The limitation of the Xprize is who is allowed to compete and the broad distribution of the money. No one can recoup their expenses at the award level provided so most can't try, only giant corporations could and there we are back to the bottom line -- the need to pay a profit to the investors. Plus, they state in their rules it must be a 'production ready' design. With all the red tape that would involve, only giant manufacturers can compete. They didn't want a repeat of the first Xprize where the winner came out of nowhere and blew NASA out of the water. That stifled the Xprize goal of creating a production ready spaceship for the masses.

I believe those with the intent to make a difference will because it's always easier to do what you believe in. The controling money at the top is very invested in the status quo and is not really accepting of change, in fact their direction is to stifle anything that might compete. That said, those that want to make change must knowingly sacrifice. Few are willing.
soletek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2008, 09:52 AM   #9
Registered Member
 
GasSavers_SD26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 529
Country: United States
Greed would be the reason it could exist though.

If you could be the first company to produce, you'd have a market primed to reduce their costs immediately with such technology. That would lead to licensing of the technology to other manufacturers, etc. And they would have to get on the wagon in a changing market.

Certainly, there are numbers of wealthy investors with political beliefs on many levels that would be interested in getting it off the ground.
__________________
Dave
GasSavers_SD26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2008, 10:07 PM   #10
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 174
Country: United States
Great post, i too was an owner of a 1960 bugeye sprite. Had to replace the entire electrical harness. Had a hard time with the su carbs, but it was fun to drive. Worse mileage car i had was a 69 383 superbee magnum, 4 to 6 mpg. 70 in first gear. Now i also own a 3000gt vr4 twin turbo. 13 to 18 mpg. It would be great if the ideas you have are brought to market. Only thing is that the states would tax us on the miles driven and eliminate the per gallon tax. We would all have gps to track the vehicles.
__________________

1cheap1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.