Meeting with Congressman Rob Whitman-hydraulic hybrids
 

Met with him yesterday, took my father along. Nothing like the credibility of an 87 year old decorated B17 pilot from WW2.

He was running late but still had time to spend 1/2 hour with us.

Very distinguished looking gentleman, very good listener. He even knew about Carnot's Law and the beauty of a single conversion of energy into an accumulator with peak efficiency of 99% (doesnt get any better than that).

I asked him to support the efforts of Va. Tech in their research and prototyping of my in-wheel Infinitely Variable Transmission-regenerative braking-direct drive.

Pop told me when we left that my presentation was flawless, "You hit a home run there son" were his exact words.

I emphasized the fact that the EPA predictions were for a class 2 truck with mileage improvements from 10 to 66 MPG city and 18 to 50 Highway, and told him I thought my design was the key component to achieving those mileage figures.

He told me he believed every word I said was truthful. he also told me there was a 25 Billion appropriation already passed to provide funding for research and he would do his best to see a portion of those monies were provided to Tech. he also told me he personally knew the Professor who was instrumental in arranging the class project.

Its hard to read a politician sometimes, but my impression was he was sincere. I offered to provide myself for any further questions or discussions in the future without any necessity for compensation, stating that if my design was that significant it would provide compensation for my efforts.

We talked briefly about the Big 3, I tried to be very considerate of his time and to stay on the subject that was relevant to our meeting. He kept several documents consisting of over 40 pages of information for copying, and promised to make it available for pickup at his office when that was done.

He asked me how the patents were progressing and I told him it was very difficult, but I thought it would be OK. If I had any problem I would contact him in the future. I also made my desire to see the US auto manufacturers be in a position to build a $10k simple hybrid vehicle that could be built with a profit margin of $2.5k and reach mileages of 80 plus MPG combined in a 5 passenger vehicle. A Model T of the 21st century.

Give them a fish and they live for a day. Teach them to fish and they live for a lifetime.

He asked me what I thought was possible for such a vehicle? I told him I thought it was entirely possible to exceed 100 MPG overall, and to imagine the effects on the environment, balance of trade, employment, and breaking the OPEC monopoly and forcing them to compete independently for lower worldwide demand for crude oil.

Wish me luck, and maybe a prayer for success.

regards
badger

good post! it's funny how luck often finds the diligent.

Excellent job. More of this is the type of lobbying effort is needed.

Wow....the best of luck with that.

Excellent. Shouldn't be that difficult once you've got some funding to get that ball rolling!

It's good to hear about some progress and maybe some good support for your project. I hope your poject gets the funding.

I like this one better:
Give a man fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life! :D

Sounds great!

Always better to have a solution than to simply whine.

Best of luck to your obviously hard work.

(Good luck is mostly the residue of proper planning and execution.)

Sweet!:thumbup:

If this were to succeed we'd be off foreign oil permanently. It's just a matter of time until it becomes a reality. We can all say, "I knew him back when..."

I fervently hope this is the case. To lose dependence on foreign oil, to be able to cut back on the actual amount of oil used worldwide - this would make a significant dent in things.

Am I understanding this correctly? You have developed a variable ratio hydralic drive system with regen that is up to 99% efficient?

JanGeo, I did not word that statement very well.

The accumulator itself can have a 99% efficiency.

The total efficiency is through the in wheel motor-regenerator to the accumulator then back through the in wheel motor.

If we can get the in wheel drives to 95% (very possible) then you have
.95X.99X.95=.893475 or very close to 90% efficiency.

Thats about as good as a conventional drivetrain which only directs power to the wheels with no regeneration.

It will also allow the engine to cycle on and off the maintain the accumulator's level of reserve energy, which allows the engine to only run at its peak efficiency.

Basically this means the very essence of hypermiling can now be incorporated into the vehicle itself, without any special imput from the driver.

You have two pedals, one accelerates and the other decelerates. If you push neither pedal you are coasting. No gear shifter, or clutch, just go coast and slow. You dont even need a shift indicator. No maunals or automatics.

And 25% fewer parts per vehicle.

The only friction brakes you need would be a cable operated emergency brake, in case of a total system failure, which would require the 4 individual wheel circuits to all fail simultaneously. The probablity of that happening would be greater than getting hit by a meteriorite.

regards
gary

Absolutely outstanding in every respect. I'd buy stock in that technology in a heartbeat. :)

, Bill

Good luck on getting your drive system in production. I hope I will have the opportunity to own a vehicle like this.:thumbup:

ride,

at one time, you were talking about a take off assist that would use regenerative breaking to charge an accumulator that would be released when the break is released. I mean the add on version that could be retro-fitted onto an existing auto. is that going to be developed as well? If I remember correctly, didn't you say that it would yield around 30 percent better FE?

I think it is awesome that the ball is rolling on this project. with the reduced gas prices, I was worried that many projects (like yours) would fall along the wayside. I am glad that they aren't. I personally would be interested in the retro-fit if it was actually produced. I think it would be an awesome idea.

IMO the problem with most new technology is that you have to purchase a new car to get it. hybrids? electric? hydrogen fuel cell?....no retro-fit, you have to buy new. I think the retro-fit that you described would make the most difference. it yields less of a gain but it would make the biggest difference now. eventually, the in-wheel trans with accumulator will make a bigger difference but I can't afford a new car (even if it is very reasonably priced) I may be able to afford an add-on piece (depending on price) and with that, you can have the brand car you want and not have to buy the brand that decides to use this new technology.

I hope that 2009 and 2010 will bring even more good news with new technology that will yield better gas mileage and efficiency. I am expecting a daughter before the end of this month and am scared to death of the world that she is coming into. there seems to be some hope that is shining through the madness that we call our lives. that hope is what keeps me going in these difficult times.

keep us posted, we can all use good news.

There are 3 stages of evolution of the design. These are outlined in the EPA documents.

The Launch assist would be the first configuration available. It would be best on a FWD small sedan, using the rear wheels for the launch assist. The system would recapture braking energy as long as you brake no harder than you would if you used the emergency brake in your car. Hard stops would waste energy beyond the capacity of the rear axle to stop the car with no help form the front wheels. I can drive my car with only the emergency brake, unless some other driver or a yellow light forces me to stop more agressively.

Even the launch assist configuration would be capable of maintiaining speeds by cycling the engine on and off for much better mileage, but it would still retain the conventional powertrain with it's weight penalty and higher parts count per vehicle.

The second stage would be when the powertrain relies on the accumulator for all drive functions. This is when the conventional powertrain is no longer needed, and all breaking forces are recovered at all 4 wheels, hopefully at over 85% efficiency, from wheel to accumulator, back to wheel.

The third stage is a transformation of the engine and powertrain once again. Most people I have talked to think it is too radical at this time, but the success of the first two stages will provide the funding for the third stage.

In the third stage there will be no accumulator. The Engine itself will burn fuel to accelerate its own mass to 4000 RPM, then it will destroke itself and transform into a free spinning flywheel and store energy with its own mass. Regenerative braking will increase the flywheel speed to as high as 10,000 RPM. The engine will need no cooling system other than its own lubricant with a thermostatically operated bypass when oil tempertature exceeds 300 degrees. It will also require no throttle control system since it will either run at max efficiency or not run at all as a flywheel. It will require only one fuel injector, have only one intake and one exhaust port, and warm up within 30 seconds of initial starting.

The engine will be buried in the front crossmember which will do double duty as a scattershield in case of a catastrophic engine failure. It will start in flywheel mode and even have a manual start where the driver can spin the flywheel with his own energy and then switch it to stroked combustion. In other words even if your battery was stone cold dead you could still start the car using you own body strength, like the old days when engines were "cranked up".

The third stage may use a engine-flywheel and a smaller accumulator for greater versatility, or a battery of sufficient capacity to give you a 5 mile range if you run out of fuel.

First stage 30-50% for practically no increase in vehicle cost.

Second stage 100% with vehicle being less expensive to produce

Third stage 150% possibly over 200% with even lower vehicle cost

Of course the vehicle cost is based on mass production afer initial tooling and startup costs .

The final version would probably have 40% fewer manufactured parts per vehicle, with a life expectancy of 500k miles.

Obviously all the mentioned systems that would be eliminated would not exist to break down. It woul take some time to list all the components, but thing of it as systems.

Brake system
Cooling system
Transmission
Flywheel-clutch-torque converter
prop shaft
differential
all induction parts related to throttle control
Catalytic Converter light off would be significantly faster since all exhaust gasses would pass through the same port, as well as engine warm up.

Remember the old flywheel toy cars?

Engine size would not really change the systems efficiency so you can have a powerful enigne that just runs a lower percentage of the time.

All vehicles would have 4 wheel drive, that switched to two wheel drive under light acceleration. Suspensions would be hydraulically adjustable, so in deep snow you just increase your ground clearance to 18 inches, then drop it down for better aero when conditions permit.

Acceleration would be at the limit of all 4 wheels traction with the pavement, with ABS and traction control individually applied at each wheel without any connection between wheels being necessary. Each wheel would be its own independent drive system, which gives you quadruple redundancy.

regards
gary

Would the engine/flywheel be similar to the Tesla turbine?

Here are pictures of the small demo model.

Its based on the WW1 rotary aircraft engine.

Google "Animated Engines Gnome" for a moving illustration of a WW1 engine configuration.

My design has the pistons and cylinders reversed and uses ports to supply pressure and return fluid.

The model is shown in three positions, forward, neutral, and reverse.

regards
gary