Slashdot Mirror
Inventor Demonstrates Infinitely Variable Transmission
ElectricSteve writes with this excerpt from Gizmag:
"Ready for a bit of a mental mechanical challenge? Try your hand at understanding how the D-Drive works. Steve Durnin's ingenious new gearbox design is infinitely variable — that is, with your motor running at a constant speed, the D-Drive transmission can smoothly transition from top gear all the way through neutral and into reverse. It doesn't need a clutch, it doesn't use any friction drive components, and the power is always transmitted through strong, reliable gear teeth. In fact, it's a potential revolution in transmission technology."
The real icing on the cake is (as mentioned near the end) the secondary drive doesn't require a whole lot of power so it can be run by a flywheel. Infinite torque? Frictionless? This is almost too good to be true, there has to be some catch. Like the primary input drive requires more energy than they expected but I can't see it--although I'm not a mechanical engineer.
... these are the kind of news stories an engineer loves to read about.
This is the kind of thing you like to see -- I hope this man has all the capital he needs and gets that prototype up and running for demonstrations. Plus it's a small time plumber inventor
My work here is dung.
If this gearbox works we could see a massive decrease in fuel consumption and much better power delivery in our cars.
Because right now the gearboxes are rubbish, they haven't evolved much in the last decades.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
...when can I fit this on my bicycle?
(I'm serious. Proceeding to read TFA...)
.: Max Romantschuk
Well, obviously this is not "frictionless" - it just appears not to use friction as the main force of transmission, like friction-cone type CVTs do. There are other types of CVTs that do not use friction - for example chain-driven CVTs or hydraulic-type CVTs. Theoretical infinite torque is also not exactly new - look at hydristors, for example. I'd love to see more technical detail about what the guy actually invented there, TFA is not exactly helpful when it comes to the inner workings of his gearbox.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Several tractors I have owned have hydrostatic transmissions. These are also infinitely variable, but they use a hydraulic pump and motor to achieve it. They provide very high torque and excellent power transmission. I always wondered why they were never used in cars.
I think the weakness in this design is the need to rotate the "bottom" shaft at a speed equal to the input shaft for neutral. While indeed it doesn't need a lot of power, it's a lot of rotation where, in competing designs, a clutch disengages or the drive motor is idling. I could see a lot of things going wrong if the synchronization was imperfect, or if something went wrong.
How do you start this up from a dead stop? Somehow you have to exactly match the shaft rotation speeds to keep it in neutral before you start moving forward, otherwise there will be a lurch.
I look forward to seeing how this is developed further. It has a lot of potential.
Actually electric motors have a pretty good efficiency over a wide range of power levels. It is ICEs that have a small band of optimal efficiency around a certain rotational speed. So, conventional combustion engines do profit most from this. Besides, electric motors have a rather flat torque curve, so you usually do not need a gearbox for them at all.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
While quite elegant, this solution requires power input... So not so great on a bicycle...
And as far as cars go, you have to spin a shaft in order to achieve neutral. Which means that you still need a clutch or something for a car to be safe. (If the engine's running and the electric motor spinning the shaft fails the car will go forward... Not nice.)
(Am I the only one who thought that the TFA's statement that understanding these mechanics is dumbing it down? I think it's simple, honestly. I'm not claiming I would have invented it, but I do understand the principle...)
.: Max Romantschuk
By "frictionless" I assume they're talking about something to do with the clutch, where you have two plates that you can jam against each other to transmit power via friction (and if you take them a little distance apart you they have a little bit of slip to them, so that during a gear change can the engine's speed will be smoothly met by the friction until it matches the drive-shaft's speed without any terrible lurch which would damage everything). This thing still has normal mechanical friction, as any set of gears would, but doesn't have any component explicitly designed for friction.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Reality is exactly opposite. Induction motors are very efficient through most of their operating range, while internal combustion is really only efficient along a narrow band of RPM, which is typically optimized to be highway cruise speed in high gear. With induction motors, they would merely allow for a much simpler controller, one that does not have to provide variable frequency power output.
Well, one potential flaw is the eccentrically mounted components. Unless properly counterweighted, at high speed this will cause a lot of vibration.
BTW, couldn't you do this sort of thing with a differential?
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
They are actually comparing it to other times of CVTs, which use friction belts driving a pair of cones. Nothing to do with the clutch. The device from TFA uses only gears, in particular a set of planetary gears, so they say that the advantage would be no danger of slippage compared to friction driven CVTs. From what I know, in the usual designs, the slippage problem is not really limiting anyway, though.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
It works as a demo very well I , as an ME agree.
The big issue in science and engineering is ALWAYS reduction to practice. The inventor acknowledges this and is working with an engineering firm to make a practical pseudo-production testing model. When you have no clutches, the lack of shock loading means the size of gears and the housing can be substantially reduced, since there won't be an engine load shock issue. There can be issues of loads when parked, though, when another car bumps yours. The other issue is how do you tow such a car when the engine fails or you want to tow it behind a motor home? There may still need to be a "cog" connection for towing.
Issues involved in getting it into a small, produceable and cost effective prototype will tax the engineers. If they can do it, there will be applications in many different fields.
Given that the gear ration can be set by controlling the small electric motor speed, it can be integrated with other electronic control systems easily.
I have to hand it to the guy for coming up with a very clever implementation. This is why we need to support the math, science and physics departments everywhere, because in the end, the world is a physical place and the countries who prosper the most will be the ones with the most technologically up-to-date innovators.
'course, that's why any sane vehicle owner drives stick...
At first blush, I'd say that both Toyota and John Deere have already produced something similar. What he appears to have, however, is a system that can smoothly transition (with power) through neutral and reverse. That indeed could be the cool, patented part, as the rest of his transmission is pretty well understood and actually in production already in many of the applications they list for their invention. I don't see any patent application listed, so I can't tell for sure exactly where his breakthrough is.
Here's the fundamental principle by which his transmission works, though: Basically the idea is you supply driving power to a planetary gear system and then use another variable system such as an electronic motor or, in John Deere's case, a hydraulic motor, to take speed (but not power) away from the output shaft by spinning part of the planetary system. If you understand how a planetary gearbox works, this makes sense. So in John Deere's case, the less-efficient hydraulic motor uses a tiny amount of power to control how the actual, geared, power is transmitted to the wheels. Using this system JD has a completely variable system with a particular gear range (this is a tractor after all) that has a powered neutral stop. In the pictures and video you'll note he has two electric motors that control the ratio.
Toyota does something similar with their hybrids, although it's more of a way to efficiently (and brilliantly, I might add) blend the gasoline motor's power with the electric system in an infinitely variable way.
Another way of implementing an IVT, though I don't think it is as efficient, is to use a differential. Power comes in the normal part of the differential (IE spinning the entire gear assembly), and then power comes out one side, and an electric or hydraulic motor attached to the other side (Where the wheels would normally go). You can then use the motor to change the apparent gear ratio, and even reverse it.
Yeah, but that's basically the working principle of any planetary gear system. If you don't hold any of the components locked in a planetary gear, you can configure the output to be proportional to the ration of the inputs. Combine a CVT with a planetary, and you get an infinitely variable transmission. That's used in hybrid vehicles all the time, and doable with gears only, not using friction components. From quickly skimming over the video, I definitely see a planetary gear setup there. As I said above, I'd love to see more technical detail on that one, TFA does not really make clear what is actually new about this.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
It is indeed similar to the planetary gear coupling boxes in parallel hybrids. And yeah, you are basically right - a 6-gear box holds you sufficiently close to the optimum rpm anyway for practical use. CVTs really shine in heavy machinery, but are not that important for personal cars. Still nice technology, though. To hell with practical importance - all hail those engineering efforts done for the heck of it!
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
The Thompson coupling was invented not long ago, and I remember being amazed that there was anything new to be done in the area of mechanical power transmission. And now this. Are we all done now, or is there more still?
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
Hate to reply to my own post, but here is a fairly detailed explanation of John Deere's IVT: http://salesmanual.deere.com/sales/salesmanual/en_NA/tractors/2006/feature/transmissions/8030_option_code_1127_1137_ivt_trans.html . The relevant part is "The John Deere IVT uses a hydromechanical, power-splitting design where a portion of the power is transmitted mechanically and a portion hydrostatically. A hydromechanical transmission is more efficient than a purely hydrostatic transmission because gears carry power more efficiently than a hydraulic pump and motor. By careful selection of the gearing, the John Deere IVT carries a maximum of the power mechanically both at normal field working speeds and at transport speeds, taking maximum advantage of the higher mechanical efficiency while providing the control and versatility of a hydrostatic." And of course this power-splitting is done via a planetary gear system.
I say this not to take away from the D-Drive's awesomeness (John Deere doesn't do reverse without shifting a gear), but to help offer explanations of how it actually works.
Yes, the behavior of this "transmission" should look familiar to anyone who has ever played with a differential while experimenting with Lego gears.
With a classic differential (the piece pictured here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_(mechanics) ), there are four different things rotating, and their speeds are related. The equation is something like (A-B) = (C-D). The problem is that one of these rotating things is very hard to access mechanically - the inner bevel gear, whose axis of rotation moves as the casing of the differential rotates.
It seems like this device is equivalent to a single differential, with one small bonus which explains the additional mechanical complexity: all four rotating parts are easily accessible. There is a shaft coming out of each end, and two shafts exposed in the middle, whose axes of rotation are not moving and therefore motors can easily be attached.
This is a clever re-arrangement of a differential, but I don't really think it will lead to a super-efficient transmission because you still need a secondary motor which needs to be variable speed, and which will be subjected to a potentially wide range of torques. So it just introduces a new problem.
I watched with interest through 3/4 of the video as they continuously refused to show the back side of the model, just loosely discussing the "control shafts" and couldn't get it out of my mind
"pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".
Then finally at the end they showed the back and surprise, there's another motor there, but trying to explain it off that this motor requires far less energy than you're going to gain by using the rest of the system. Maybe this is true, but that's a poor way to present the design, by hiding a serious concern until the last second.
As they wrapped up the video they did admit that this little kink is going to be the determining factor in whether or not it's a useful design. "Why can't they just tap some of the power off the input shaft to manage the control rods?" I thought. Then it occurred to me, the speed would need to be continuously variable, and that's the whole problem they're trying to solve. So, what we have here is a continuously variable mechanism, so long as we can already provide a continuously variable mechanism. (all his D-Drive needs to complete it is, another D-Drive, which would of course need another D-Drive....) Sounds terribly recursive to me. But he didn't go into any detail as to the requirements of this control system, but from what I can tell, it needs to be continuously variable also. He dismissed it as being easy to achieve with something such as an electric motor, which one could argue the same is true of his entire invention...
We'll see. I'll remain skeptical until his design is complete, including the nagging little details of running the control shafts. But really it's an excellent idea even with this problem. It's solved the larger portion of the problem. One other thing that also came to mind is balance. The orbital gears could really get whipping around the sun gear, they'll have to be balanced. Using orbital gears itself at high torque will create new problems also. I'm no mechanical engineer but I also see a potential problem there with torque on the position of the planetary gears since the shaft isn't fixed. You don't usually see floating gears in transmissions.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
That's not entirely true. Dr. Porsche a really long time ago more or less solved that problem. By inventing a vehicle that was propelled by an electric engine but powered by a gas one. Meaning that at all times the gas engine was working at it's most efficient gear ratio, but since the electric engine was driving the actual wheels it could be very efficient and give just the power needed at any given time.
The new aspect is that this planetary gearset actually has TWO inputs, and the output is determined by the *difference* in speeds between the two. That's how it can go from reverse to forward seamlessly. V1 > V2 is Forward, V1 V2 is Reverse, V1 = V2 is Neutral. Assuming there are no practical limits on the velocity of either input, the possible difference between them is infinite.
Personally I find this really exciting, because i've always been in love with the idea of a variable transmission. Ignoring electric motors for a minute, there are some absolutely INSANE things you can do to a small motor with cams, turbocharging, etc, to extract absolutely massive amounts of power from teeny engines. Like, 1000+hp from sub 2 litre motors. The problem is they end up being extremely peaky (power is only made at a narrow RPM band, or a terribly high one)... but with a variable transmission you can let the engine hunker down in it's sweet spot and let the tranny worry about all the fiddly bits. Hell, you can even do the same thing with a big engine... I wonder if its possible to make five figures of power from a 7 litre? With this we just might find out.
BTW, couldn't you do this sort of thing with a differential?
Yes. That's basically what the Prius does: it uses a differential (actually an epicyclic, which is a flattened differential) as a mixer, and drives one input with a gas engine and the other with an electric motor, giving not only an infinite number of speeds but also a way to use the engine to charge the motor with excess power, or use the motor for braking. But then you need both an engine and a motor. Managing an infinite drive from a single input is pretty cool.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
I agree.
His next phase prototype should have a 10-20 HP IC engine (lawn tractor motor, etc.) for the prime mover, and the output shaft of his device needs to be connected to a dynamometer/load absorber of some type.
Can he still control it with the small DC permag gearmotor he appears to be using?
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
Actually, the transmission in the Prius is completely different from this. The Prius takes two full power inputs (the engine and the electric motor), and adjusts the power output from the two (balancing them) to achieve the end ratio. This takes a single full power input (and two factional inputs, perhaps a very small fraction if friction losses are small enough), and produces a variable end ratio. Quite a big difference between them. For the Prius transmission to work, both engines need to be of comparable power (A 100 hp gas engine would need somewhere near a 100hp electric motor). This would likely work with a 100hp engine and a pair of 1/2 hp (or less, depending on precision and friction) electric motors.
And FYI, an OTTO cycle engine is not most efficient at 2000 rpm. It's most efficient at its horse power peak RPM, and at full throttle. Anything less than that (RPM or throttle), and you lose volumetric efficiency. And when I say efficient, I'm saying the power/fuel use is the maximum. It's all about the intake and exhaust design (you can tune them for maximum efficiency at a particular RPM for a particular engine design). That's why hybrids typically use smaller engines. So that you can run it closer to its peak power for longer (40hp at full throttle would be plenty to cruise on the highway and still be able to charge the batteries without needing to be throttled back).
If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
The new aspect is that this planetary gearset actually has TWO inputs, and the output is determined by the *difference* in speeds between the two.
You just stated the definition of a differential gear. It is not new in any way, and describes exactly how a planetary gear works and is normally used. For a real world example take a look at the Hybrid Synergy Drive used in Toyota Prius. It has precisely that: A planetary gear with two inputs summing up to one output, allowing the engine to operate at optimal rpm regardless of wheel speed.
Not to worry about 'infinite' or 'frictionless' - these characterizations are not the intent of the device so we can just evaluate it as a normal continuous transmission being controlled by the ratio of speeds between a control shaft and the drive shaft. Efficiency for low-torque cases can be quite decent as eccentric bearings, gear-qualities and diameters can be controlled well with current techniques.
So... with a real torque, there will definitely be significant forces between the two shafts. Clearly, the full torque will be on the central, driving shaft, while some smaller fraction will be on the upper shaft. As we bring the distance between them down, then the torque between them can decrease, but then there will be more stress on the smaller pinions' teeth. Planetary gears are great for this class of problem and he's throwing decent diameter eccentric bearings in where he can too. The bloke seems honest, and has clearly thrown a fair amount of time and energy into the problem.
There are other approaches to controlling gear ratio via the speed differences between two shafts - he's not trying to do something impossible, he's just trying to do something difficult, successfully. Whether the cost of the bearings and gearing will be favourable when compared to the other approaches is the question. I think his system will work - and decent sealed bearings, high strength pinions, planetary systems - these already exist and are stable tech in current transmissions, even in relatively dirty industrial environments where the transmissions aren't as protected as in cars. In particular, the cost of electronic control for motors has fallen massively over the last years, so if nothing else, the general class of solutions using differential speeds of low-torque motors to control a high-torque transmission is more appealing now.
So, 'genius', no. Hard-working, self-taught engineer? Yes.
The way I understood it (could be wrong), the Prius drive is only one half of what this guy came up with. The clever bit is the other half. The Prius transmission would not work well without significant torque input/output(electric breaking) on the electric side. The way this works, there is almost no load on the ratio selection element, the only input it needs is enough to create a difference in speed.
Mind the frickin' laser...
I tried it for a few minutes, and the Prius never suddenly accelerated. Clearly the simulation is flawed.
The real icing on the cake is (as mentioned near the end) the secondary drive doesn't require a whole lot of power so it can be run by a flywheel
This is something that bothers me as I look at this demo. The secondary drive doesn't require a whole lot of power, because there is literally nothing attached to the output to counteract the little motor's selected ratio.
To simulate the forces of what it'd be to have a car attached on the output, you can just use your hand and try to hold the output from moving, while the ratio is not in neutral. If there is a weaker motor and a stronger motor, what do you think will happen? The stronger motor may feel a pinch, and the small motor will be completely unable to stop the output from distorting the ratios, making the entire setup unusable.
Now, I hope I'm wrong, but there better be something hidden from view That Changes Everything.
The con is the statement that the control shaft will require very little power to operate. If you stop the input shaft, you can see that the control shaft works the same as the planetary gear system on many commercial devices, like a cordless drill. I don't know about you, but the planetary drive on my cordless drill doesn't prevent me from going through batteries when I'm doing something heavy like using a hole saw. Given that, at times, the control shaft will require no less power than the input shaft, you would need a way to provide high power at variable speed. Therefore, you would need a CVT to operate your CVT.
My other concern is the gear tooth size. A traditional transmission uses gears that are quite large and have few teeth. The D-Drive has gear teeth with at least two orders of magnitude smaller teeth in critical places, and they are at a smaller radius. I think this thing will need to be huge to transmit enough power to move a vehicle. Large radius gears are necessary to transmit a lot of power. The planetary design of the D-Drive does not permit large radius gears.
Good point. Well, your numbers are a little off.
My car as 110,000 miles on it. I've raced my car a good bit (legal track racing, of course).
The first clutch (stock) I destroyed was by adding a 150hp NOS system on.
The second clutch (performance) was destroyed by my ex-wife driving it uphill and she slipped the clutch the whole way (like 5 miles). She obviously wasn't very good with a stick.
The third clutch (performance) was actually from old age.
My friend has a comparable car. It's the same engine, transmission, body style and weight. She drives more normally than I do (no racing, just city/highway driving). She had her clutch changed at 100k miles. Labor to replace the clutch is about $350 to $500. Parts are about $150. This car happens to be a bastard to work on, which is why the labor is high. So, $500 to $650 for the job.
This is about the age that an automatic transmission would need to be rebuilt. For this car equipped with an automatic, removal, rebuild, and replace costs about $3,500.
So, with my car, I've improved the efficiency by helping the airflow out (one minor exhaust fix, and a some intake fixing). I enjoy cruising at highway speeds with low RPM's (6 speed). The same car with an automatic would be cruising at a much higher RPM (4 speed), and suffering from losses related to the automatic transmission.
I rarely need to check my transmission fluid (i.e., gear oil). If my gear oil runs low, it could increase wear. A car with an automatic has to have their transmission filter and fluid changed. If their fluid runs low, it can be catastrophic.
There's about a 300 pound difference between the manual 6 speed and the automatic 4 speed.
So, lighter, better fuel economy, and less repair costs. I really don't see why people wouldn't want to drive a stick. The excuse "I don't know how" isn't a valid excuse, except they're too lazy to learn.
I can drive pretty much anything with wheels, and I've proven it. I'm licensed for motorcycles and cars. I've also driven everything including a big truck with a 10 speed air shifter. a neighbor bought a motorcycle, but didn't really know how to drive it. They told me it wasn't driving right, so I grabbed my helmet from the garage (I don't have a bike right now, but I still have the helmet), and took it for a spin. It worked fine. It was operator failure.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
I just sketched a venn diagram of that. You didn't show any relationship between the two circles.
Most of the people I've met who have mental illnesses either don't drive, or they drive automatics.
I hope this clarifies things.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
I agree, the motors are not torquing against each other, that would be very inefficient.
But the control motor will be be subjected to torques related to propelling the vehicle. It doesn't just "turn the gear".
Example: Let's say the control shaft is rotating at a rate r. When the control shaft rotates faster, at rate 2r, that would be a higher gear (in other words, the output shaft would have higher speed and lower torque than the input shaft). If it's rotating at rate r/2, that would be an easier gear.
Now, with the control shaft rotating at r, let's say the vehicle experiences a reaction force (e.g. friction, or going up a hill). This torque against the output shaft will be transmitted back to the engine, obviously trying to make it go slower. But the control shaft is equally linked to the drive train. The reactive torque at the output shaft will try to slow down the control shaft (because slower rates, like r/2, are easier gears, and the system is continuous - there's nothing locking it into a gear). So in the same way an outside reactive torque places a load on the main engine, it will also place a load on the control motor.
No, the most efficient point is at peak torque. That's where the engine is able to produce the most energy for a given amount of gas. The horsepower peak is where the engine is producing the most power (energy/time). It is not necessarily it's most efficient point unless they coincide which is rare.
The largest value of this device is in its "wow, how does that thing work?" design. By baffling the onlooker and also describing the widget very carefully the illusion of a wonderfully useful device can be created.
It has a problem in the real world, though. The reaction torque is equal to the working torque - and the reaction torque path runs through that "secondary control shaft." This will become obvious as soon as he tries to transmit some significant power through his device. What he's showing isn't a new invention at all, it's just a mechanical "summer" that adds the inputs from two input shafts. All that's new here is some fancy handwaving and creative description.
It might be good enough to fool some people but Mother Nature and those who paid attention in school aren't fooled. Maybe if / when he actually tries to transmit some power through his "invention" and the control motor just spins backwards he'll "discover" a source of electrical energy?
hunker down in its sweet spot and let the tranny worry about all the fiddly bits
I've spent too long on the Internets, apparently.
~ C.
Not true. Volumetric efficiency is measured as the the volume of air taken in on each stroke vs the displacement of the cylinder. So if 1 liter of STP (Standard Temperature and Pressure) gets drawn into the cylinder, and the dispacement of that cylinder is 1.2 liters, the total efficiency is 1/1.2 (or about 83%). At 0 RPM and 100% throttle (well, any throttle position that isn't completely closed), volumetric efficiency is always 100%. But as the engine starts turning (at full throttle, otherwise the vacuum drawn by the throttle restriction will reduce efficiency), the actual efficiency will depend on intake design. Considering that OTTO cycle engines use valves, air is only drawn in 25% (about) of the time. So the vacuum drawn trying to draw that air in will cause the efficiency to drop. However, intake runners are designed for this. So basically, when the valve closes, the momentum of the air causes a pressure build up behind the valve. That pressure will cause the air to reverse direction. This leads to a harmonic wave in the intake runner. The frequency of the wave is dependent on the design of the intake runner (cross-sectional area, cylinder volume and length mainly, but curves and other obstructions do play a part). If the valve opening is timed properly with this frequency, the incoming pressure wave from the harmonic will actually force air into the cylinder. That's how some racing engines can actually achieve a higher than unity volumetric efficiency at a specific RPM. It's all relative to the design of the engine. Some engines may be designed for 2000 rpm. And increasing the RPM over that WILL decrease VE. But you cannot say as a general rule that VE is inversely proportional to RPM, because it isn't. And pumping losses are directly proportional to VE (in fact, the pumping losses are DUE to VE below 100%).
You do have a point that thermal and mechanical losses do increase with RPM (Mechanical due to friction, thermal due to the increased movement of air around the parts). However, your reasoning behind diesels being more previlent is flawed. It's not because they operate at a lower RPM. It's because of a few reasons. First off, diesel is denser (energy/volume) than Gasoline while still having a similar stoichiometric ratio with air. Secondly, diesels are typically built without a throttle blade. That means that even at idle or lower power settings, there is no restrictive plate to draw a vacuum (and hence harm VE). Since diesel doesn't behave as bad as gasoline when run lean, they typically control power output by controlling the fuel flow. Third, diesel engines tend to burn much hotter than gas engines (the flame front is significantly hotter), so there is a more complete burn. You combine these effects, and you can see why they are more efficient (and it's not because they run slower). The reason that diesel engines typically run "slower" is two fold. First, since diesel engines don't use spark plugs, timing is controlled by the mechanical fuel injectors (direct injection). They were simply not fast and accurate enough to time at high rpm. The second reason, is that diesel is slower burning than gasoline. So at higher RPMs, there's a large chance that combustion won't be complete when the exhaust stroke starts (resulting is a large drop in efficiency and a large increase in mechanical stress).
If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
It's quite different from the HSD in that it has three inputs, contrary to what GP said - one power input, and two control inputs, both of which ought to require just a fraction of the input power to control the input/output gear ratio.
Real engineers disagree on the "inventor's" website:
http://infinitelyvariabletransmission.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/dDrive-Transmission-Report.pdf
"The torque provided by the Control shaft will typically be of the same magnitude as the torque provided by the Input shaft."
"The Control shaft (and associated mechanical elements) should be sized to this torque requirement
accordingly – the Input and Control should be considered as parallel power paths rather than as ‘power’
and a ‘control’ elements respectively."
So this whole thing isn't very useful. To add this as a transmission to a power motor, you need
one ore two additional motors of same power with variable speed and enough torque at any speed.
Yeah but eliminating clutches removes a common point of failure. So even if the performance benefits aren't that great it may increase the life of the car/machine.
Excuse me? There plenty criticisms you can make of electric motors and the exotic materials needed for supermagnets, but radioactive is not one of them.
it may increase the life of the car/machine.
Sadly, this may kill the project.
It seems that manufacturers don't want to build things that last forever. Planned obsolescence is the current fashion.
It also removes a redundant control method.
Throttle stuck ? - stamp on the clutch (and the brake) no problem.
This device has a "powered neutral" determined by getting two input shafts spinning at precisely the same speed - otherwise you are moving. You aren't going to manage that manually so you are likely looking at some form of electronic (+ software) implemented "neutral" switch. You'd better be worrying about how long before _that_ goes wrong - because it's going to be fun controlling the car when it does (without a clutch, remember).
Not really new. Model T's had differentials. And why are differentials called that? Because they "difference", as in subtraction, rather like Babbage's difference engine. All this thing is doing is distributing the speeds of 3 shafts so any 2 add up to the speed of the other. The wonder is that apparently no one has applied this idea in a transmission. Maybe that's because there's some fundamental problem, like, oh, how to drive 2 shafts so that the 3rd one can be precisely controlled? I suspect the electric motor used to drive the 2nd shaft may need to be so powerful that this idea may prove impractical. The inventor tries to get around that problem by having that electric motor act more as a brake, always running at negative rpm, so to speak. Notice that "top gear" is the 2nd shaft being locked to a speed of 0 rpm. The 2nd shaft could be run forward for an even taller top, but that would take real power, so this invention doesn't do that. We can hope that it works.
Perhaps most people on Slashdot have never played around with a differential? Jack up the rear wheels of a manual transmission, rear wheel drive car, and see what happens when you spin one wheel by hand. If the transmission is in gear (engine off, of course), the other rear wheel will spin the opposite direction, at the same speed. If the transmission is in neutral, the opposite wheel and the drive shaft will spin at some rate that together adds up to the speed you're spinning. Usually, the drive shaft will spin and the opposite wheel won't, because the wheel has the greater mass and inertia.
Also perhaps most people here have never had the experience of getting one rear wheel of such a car on extremely slippery ice? I'm talking ice right at 0 C, with water on top. (Well, if that's what road conditions are like, just stay home that day.) You might think you're okay if at least one wheel can get traction. Nope! If your vehicle doesn't have differential lock, you're stuck. The one wheel on a dry surface won't move, while the one on ice spins twice as fast.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
manuals [...] are a small percentage of cars
Nitpicking: that applies in the US. In a great part of the world it is the contrary. As an example, in France, driving school and driving tests are by default on manuals. If you take the test on an automatic, you get a license saying it is limited to automatics. The times I've bought cars, the dealers never even asked if I'd prefer automatics.
In other news, automatics have reputation of being less fuel-efficient and slow to kick in when you quick acceleration. Maybe that is no longer true, but the reputation sticks.
it may increase the life of the car/machine.
Sadly, this may kill the project.
It seems that manufacturers don't want to build things that last forever. Planned obsolescence is the current fashion.
Planned obsolescence because of new safety measures, new gadgets on-board and new designs yes. Because of breakdowns, no. Perception in the eyes of buyers about how reliable your brand of cars is, can kill the sales of any car if people think your car breaks down faster than other cars. Toyota sells so many cars precisely because they don't break down (or are perceived as more robust) as US cars. In fact, it's incredibly difficult to sell US made cars in Europe because of exactly this problem. So any car manufacturer who can make his cars more reliable, in whatever way, *while not heavily impacting the manufacturing cost*, will do so.
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
Not for windmills, generators and the like, keeping those at a constant RPM can be more useful independant of input power. It may also prove useful in electric cars, as if you can keep everything always working at it's peak efficiency you can go further on less power. There are many situations where it would be better to have a constant RPM in and a variable out (or vice versa), the question then becomes are these as easy to work with and reliable as existing gearboxes. Planetary gears, work at approximately the maximum efficiency most of the time, these theoretically can work at maximum efficiency ALL of the time.
If they can be a drop in replacement for existing tech, then I can see this taking off, if not or they require complex setups/electronics it might be a more niche product. Also how efficient this tech is, in comparison with existing systems, as if the gearbox itself is only 75% efficient, this would rule out the benefit of having an infinietly variable ratio. Pulling some numbers out of my ass I believe gearboxes are some where in the 95-99% efficient