Slashdot Mirror
US Army Unveils Hybrid-Electric Propulsion System
Gary writes to mention that the U.S. Army recently unveiled a new hybrid-electric propulsion system for use in a new line of manned ground vehicles (MGVs). The new line will have eight different variants, all using the same chassis. The unique feature of the new MGVs is that the traditional engine has been decoupled from the drive train and is used only to recharge the battery and power other systems within the vehicle.
"The most unique feature of the new MGVs is that the traditional engine has been decoupled from the drive train and is used only to recharge the battery and power other systems within the vehicle."
Gee. Kind of like a Diesel Train.
Being able to roll into your position quietly is a huge advantage. This was learned when Strykers replaced Bradleys when doing insurgent sweeps. The bad guys weren't aware nearly as soon.
Sounds similar to the new hybrid electric car that Dean Kamen & the Norwegian company 'Think' are working on. I put it on my blog not long ago.
Electric drives, particularly when freed from the constraints of having to work alongside IC engines, can have drivetrains optimized for their characteristics.
Have gnu, will travel.
hybrid or not, this thing is going to pull around a gazillion tons of steel. Tanks are heavy, strong, maneuvrable. They are NOT green. I guess the idea has more to do with being able to drive in "stealth mode" for a couple of hundred meters.
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
-b.
The lastest design for naval destroyers from both the USN and RN have also gone all-electric, and have decoupled all fuel-burning engines from the drive train. If it can work for destroyer, I guess it should work for relatively small ground vehicles.
...wait till we invade you for your sweet, sweet corn.
This is great stuff, finally we can kill people and go all out to be very environmental about it.
You can't handle the truth.
The most unique feature of the new MGVs is that the traditional engine has been decoupled from the drive train and is used only to recharge the battery and power other systems within the vehicle.
:)
M1 Abrams tanks have a turbine engine that is hooked directly into a generator which powers a 1500 hp (1119 kW) electric motor.
However, you can hardly call it fuel-efficient
Latewire
and the hummer .... the military is now in the vehicle design business.
on an old reflection, I have plans from the mid 1970's from mother earth news that show how to convert an Opal GT into a hybrid electric. It used a DC jet engine starting motor powered by a 5 HP Briggs and Stratten lawn mower engine. Ojh hell that was 30 years ago....
As gas stays above $3.00 a gallon, people, and businesses and organizations and governments who don't give a rats ass about the environment are going to start looking around at ways to save or make money.
Now, I'm not a complete libertarian on this issue. I think regulation from the feds can really help move things along, provide clarity for the markets, and jump start change. However, more and more, people are waking up to the idea that if the wait for the feds to force them to change, they are going to be behind.
Boeing is a good example here. They are kicking some Airbus ass right now, just by building a plane that uses less fuel. Maybe the boards and stockholders of airlines care about the enviornment, and maybe they don't, but they all care about making money, and the can all see that saving money on fuel is a no-brainer.
San Francisco Photographers
Logistics is a huge, huge part of war. Improving fuel mileage lets them move further and with less support. Also it reduces costs, as gas is expensive when you have to ship it around the world and through combat zones. Of course they still burn a lot and they're not doing this for the sake of emissions, but if they could cut fuel use in, say, half it would be a great advantage in a war.
Does anyone else enjoy the irony of ground-breaking use of "green" engines in vehicles that are likely to be deployed in missions to secure more fossil fuels to burn?
Disclaimer: I'm using the term "hybrid vehicle" loosely.
I certainly look forward to the effects this will have on civilian production vehicles. Hopefully the price and quality of hybrids and the like will get a boost like things usually do when the military adopts technology. Think GPS, night vision, etc.
It would definitely be nice to see a hybrid vehicle that is capable of light/medium truck duty. There's a decent niche market of RVers who jumped on bio diesel for tow vehicles.
I know for a fact that at least one of DARPA Unmanned Ground Vehicles already has a hybrid power system. That beast can sneak up on you. Glad to see that tech also going into the manned vehicles.
My peace of mind does not depend on
The Volkswagon was not initially a military vehicle. It was designed by Ferdinand Porsche (at Hitlers request) as a car even factory workers could afford. This was slightly before WWII. During the war, they produced military variants, but the original design was for what it once again became afterwards: a super-inexpensive civilian car.
As far as your larger point, the military has always been in the vehicle design business. Jeep, Hummer, etc.
The US military has experimented with innovative vehicles and solicited vehicle designs for, oh, about the last century. There were plenty of military vehicles (tanks, Gama Goat trucks, etc) that didn't have civilian counterparts before 2007 :)
-b.
The use of all-electric drive can provide some interesting opportunities for advanced systems such as traction control. By placing multiple, smaller drive motors at each wheel, power can be directed optimally for terrain conditions. No complex mechanical equipment is needed as the algorithms can be implemented completely in software.
The other advantage can be the ability to optimize the IC engine for changes in the fuel available without screwing around with the entire drivetrain. Heck, they can make the IC portion modular and, if the economics of fuel sources change, just pop in the appropriate engine.
Have gnu, will travel.
AFAIK, trains usually have their engines solely driving electric generators, which power the electric motors that drive the wheels. This allows for a huge increase in torque and is far simpler mechanically. Decoupling a fuel-burning engine from the mechanics of the drive system really isn't a new concept, but it is a very applicable one for this situation.
As gas stays above $3.00 a gallon, people, and businesses and organizations and governments who don't give a rats ass about the environment are going to start looking around at ways to save or make money.
/US gallon in my local station. People are still filling up their cars and 4x4 SUVs are still fashionable, it's a disease we've caught from over the pond (I mean, in the mountains and rural areas yes, they might be useful but to go to the supermarket in urban southern England? How many litres of engine do you need to bump up that 4 inch curb on the side of the road?).
Glad you're not a complete libertarian on this, I'm completely with you. Round where I live (in the UK) petrol (gas) is 7.20 dollars
I think you're going to need some government intervention on this. People are very happy to keep driving tanks round small urban roads at 7 dollars a gallon. Other solutions more than welcomed, but just saying, don't believe there's some mythical point at 4 or 5 dollars a gallon when 'the people' will all discard their big autos and jump on public transport and bicycles...
Does anyone here know how this design would hold up against an electromagnetic pulse in the event of nuclear war? It appears to my layman's eyes that decoupling the engine from the drive train could be a very bad idea if nuclear war were to break out...
--RIAmAses! Let my MP3ople go!
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Porsche#Ear ly_years, "System Lohner-Porsche" - dated 1898 (yes, that's eighteen ninety-eight), which was a purely electric vehicle, and its follow-up "Mixte" in the same paragraph. He built that one in 1901 - still more than 100 years ago.
So: !new.
I don't know if there are other commonly used materials for tank shells - steel or something?
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
grandmas and children. well, now at least we can screw up more efficiently
Now THAT'S funny! Fucking agribusiness lobby and their crappy corn-based ethanol. You think it's bad now that our fuel supply is coupled to unstable foreign nations - wait until our fuel AND food supply becomes coupled to unstable foreign nations.
A lot of heavy equipment uses this type of decoupled drive. Like the really big stuff: URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebherr_T_282B
And many of the smaller pieces of equipment like loaders are also run on the same system. I'm surprised it wasn't used already.
Bad comparison, no cookie for you.
/ 1979-07-01/An-Amazing-75-MPG-Hybrid-Electic-Car.as px/ 1993-06-01/1993-Update-Dave-Arthurs-Amazing-Hybrid -Electric-Car.aspx cover what was done to that car.
However http://www.motherearthnews.com/Alternative-Energy
and http://www.motherearthnews.com/Alternative-Energy
I suspect that the armor will act like a faraday cage.
From what I heard nuke ships are a pain in the ass.
nuke plants are expensive, you need a LOT of training (the navy nuke program is essentially a bachelors degree w/o the English and basket weaving courses crammed into a two year school), the navy is perpetually strapped for the personnel and offer insane reenlistment bonuses for those that stay in (I've heard of $100k, but it might have been a rumor).
Also the plants are never really off, so being a nuke in the navy is an awful job in port. Reactor Officer is considered an even worse job than being the lowliest deck seaman.
Gas Turbines (I'm on a Gas Turbine DDG Navy ship, so I know a little more about them), are powerful, cheaper, and easy as hell to maintain. The Gas Turbine Techs on the ship barely even touch the things since they are warrantied by the manufacturer (just a little bit of preventative maintenance).
The great part about them is that they start up in a minute or two, put out a TON of power, and if they do happen to break it's a VERY simple job of having them replaced.
The only reason I can see for running a nuke ship is either a) the ship is so big gas would be $$$$ (you cant make it independent from gas since a carrier always needs fuel for the planes) or b) you want it to be independent from air (Submarine).
Just my $.02
Remember folks, slashdot doesn't have a -1 "disagree" moderation!
Thank you!!!!
Interestingly enough, and without knowing about what he has done sine I bouth the original plans in I guess 1979, I recently commented on slashdot about this on another story and refered to the wankel engine and veggi oil (read aug issue of playboy...
And lo and behold he was inbvestigating it many years ago...
And again Thanks , links are book marked. And now I know I'm one of about 60,000 who bought the original plans.
Maybe it's because I didn't read TFA, but isn't this idea old, and not new and unique as the article implies?
Diesel electric trains have used traction motors for years, only using their huge diesels as generators.
Ha! I remember this issue well (A jet starter motor? Sounded sexy at the time!). Thanks for the link!
Why don't we just invade some place with a lot of oil, then?
Oh, wait...
Decouple the power generation from the propulsion system, and you introduce flexibility and adaptability, two things you really need to survive a "harsh" situation.
:P
I was talking to my bro-in-law about this just today. Hydrogen cars will never work 'cause H2 is difficult to handle in a form-factor that is compatable with a role in transportation. Hybrids driven by flex-fuel generators are the logical best system, able to use whatever fuel is most affordable/available, including solar/wind generated electricity. I don't think I'll be seeing any tanks powered by a little windmill on top anytime soon, though.
When you want something built, come see me. If you want correct grammar and spelling, get a F*ing liberal arts student.
If these insurgents would lay down their arms and take part in the peacefull democratic process then we wouldn't have to BE there. These "resistance" fighters have no cause other than that their own ethno-religious bigotry and their fragile bruised egos over US troops physically being there. They are also killing a hell of a lot more other Iraqis than they are US troops in cowardly carbombs and that's hardly a just cause, no matter how much you hate the Bush agenda.
"what the Army does differently in this case"
They don't pay for their fuel, you do. Therefore they can afford to use any damn silly system they want.
a similar technology to what has been used in diesel-electric trains for about 100 years.
It makes sense. Gasoline, and even more diesel, engines run best at a fixed rpm, while electric motors are basically good at anything from 0 to redline.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Given how bad people are on the environment, an effect killing machine could actually good for the environment.
Ick, just saying that makes me feel kind of creepy.
Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
Well, the idea of a decoupled powertrain where the conventional Diesel engine will only be used to drive electric traction motors is not new. It is already in use in this huge mining loader from Liebherr.
Skip the ad-trolling blogodreck, and go to the U.S. Army Future Combat Systems page, which has better info. Video, even. Very dramatic.
every couple weeks with the same reflection, eh?
8 9&cid=20055139
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2578
This will not only power the drive train, but with a quick change out of the batteries to capacitors, can be used to power tank mounted lasers. Within another 10 years (or sooner), we will see lasers on all of our systems. These draw LOTS of power. So in this case, the engine/generator will be used to power capacitors of which some will drive the trains and most will go to the lasers. This will make a big difference to where we will be fighting next (and sadly yes, we will be doing it again within 20 years).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
It's their war - we can't tell them how to fight it - we can only capture, injure or kill them to make them stop.
Please explain how a lawn mower engine is going to produce less pollution than the engine it's replacing.
I agree with you that things are MUCH worse now than with Sadaam. In addition, I also agree that what W. and his henchman have done is nothing less than barbaric and horrific. But the simple fact is, that if we leave now, things can AND will get worse. In particular, Iran will back the shia's in a bigger way (perhaps invade as well). Then you have the regular Iraqi sunnis who are trying hard to survive, but have AQ in one corner, US in the other, and baathists in another. Finally the kurds who are up north are truely between a rock and a hard place with Turkey to the North (who want to wipe them out), and AQ sunnis/ Iranian shias to the south. Finally, AQ has shown that they move into anyplace where there is a vacuum. Iraq MUST be united or it will endure a civil ware that will make this current stuff seem like child's play.
The truly sad part of this, is that W. and his ilk have made history as being the most incompetent admin esp concerning Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a bunch of chicken hawks who have hired incompitent staff based on their friendship and religiousness attitude. At this point, I am not certain America has any more wind in her military sails except by using a draft.
BTW, the CIA has done a number of interesting scenarios and exactly where they said would be branches, there have been. The amazing thing is that they said that just about every branch that we have come to, the W. admin has always picked the branch that is the absolute worst. It is almost as though these idiots are not capable of reading and think that the red arrows are good.
If you are over there and are a civilian, I truly am sorry. I am sorry for the pain and suffering. But I also feel that to pull out now would make things far worse.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
That's all nice and everything, but will these new vehicles survive IED explosions and will they be better than a Bradley in actual combat?
The trains from American and Europe were experimenting with them in early 1920's, and were in full manufacturing swing post WWII. It is 90 y.o. tech.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
OK...why not ditch the diesel and create a mini nuclear generator and reduce all the noise. Sure nuclear scares a lot of people but in this case there are two ways to look at it: either encase it in an impenetrable shell or wait for an enemy to shoot it and BANG!! The explosion should be big enough to clear the area. The first option would work well in consumer autos. Now you can be "green" and go hug some trees.
The first gas electric rail vehicles were made shortly after 1900, but it wasn't until Hermann Lemp of GE developed an improved generator control system in 1923 that gas-electrics and diesel electrics became practical. Incidentally, one of the big users of the Lemp system was EMC, which became EMD when bought by GM ca 1933.
And this Diesel/Electric concept is pretty much what every locomotive uses, as well as all them container ships...
I think it's the future. Eventually, your car will have an optimized diesel engine, used just for running up the batteries.
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
Not per wheel. The diesel electric train still has a normal transmission and the wheels are not rotated separately. You simply do not need that on rails.
Compared to that the 75 ton version of BELAZ is probably the first mass produced 4x4 vehicle with independent per-wheel electric motor and a generator power plant (not sure if the 30 ton version had it). As a result it has no transmission to speak of. Differential, accelerator, etc are all drive-by-wire. This is what makes the great difference as far as maintainability and maneuvrability. In fact it is surprising that it is not used so far on military vehicles both US and Russian. It has been the mainstay of hydroelectric and minining projects around the globe for nearly 30 years now (probably the only export item Belarus got nowdays).
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
"For the first time the Army will be integrating a functional hybrid-electric drive system into a combat vehicle. The Army has long been at the forefront of developing hybrid-electric vehicles."
Yeah, the rumors that Toyota, Honda and others have had hybrid vehicles in production for years is just plain FUD.
"In fact, the Army's hybrid-electric vehicles are significantly more robust and more powerful than commercial hybrid vehicles."
Really? Military vehicles even more powerful than a Prius?!? That's just MIND BLOWING.
Great article, though. Just suu-peer.
SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
Not per wheel. The diesel electric train still has a normal transmission and the wheels are not rotated separately. You simply do not need that on rails.
Not a transmission really, just a reduction gearing. Also, typically a traction motor drives only one axle. With electronic per-axle slip control. So in spirit it has more in common with the electronically controlled per-wheel motor system you describe than with a traditional car/truck system with one engine, transmission, differential(s) etc., the only difference being that each motor controls two wheels on a stiff axle as railroad curves are not steep enough to warrant a differential.
Like a... tank?
Time to go to work. Let me hop in my manned ground vehicle (ford taurus in my case).
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
Because they are not stupid, they know they are being ripped off. They know they could have built their own refineries long ago, financed easily by their huge exports of oil. They know who prevented and is still preventing them from doing it.
I remember ads for plans for that in the back of Popular Science back in the day, next to all the plans for home built helicopters and hovercraft and so forth. Back then it seemed so cool... although now, I don't see how a 5hp lawnmower motor could power a car at highway speed. A normal car needs around 15kW to cruise at highway speeds. An efficient alternator will run at 75% efficiency or so, good engine controls are, say, 85% efficient, and a DC motor is again around 80%. All up, you would need around 40 BHP to cruise at highway speed in a series hybrid powered solely by the fuel engine.
Of course, series hybrids excel at stop-go traffic, and the 5hp generator is probably perfect for rush hour driving. But still, it wouldn't do much at all to extend the battery range when cruising. In terms of efficiency, you're much better having the engine directly connected to the wheels, for example see the Insight (an efficient ICE with electric boost). The Prius's swanky Synergy drive system allows direct drive by the ICE via a CVT, too. You can even do away with the hybrid aspect altogether and just use a small, efficient ICE, as the Lupo, which uses around 3 liters per 100km. Obviously, though, it's unsuitable for US consumption because it's not big, loud, or fast enough.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
If they're right, maybe it can be used in the Army's application to avoid gearboxes?
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)