Slashdot Mirror
How Chrysler's Battery-Less Hybrid Minivan Works
thecarchik writes "Chrysler announced Wednesday that it would partner with the US Environmental Protection Agency to build and test prototypes of a different kind of hybrid vehicle, one that accumulates energy not in a battery pack but by compressing a gas hydraulically. The system in question, originally developed at the EPA labs, uses engine overrun torque to capture otherwise wasted energy, as do conventional hybrid-electric vehicles. The engine is Chrysler's standard 2.4-liter four-cylinder, the base engine in its minivan line. But rather than turning a generator, that torque powers a pump that uses hydraulic fluid to increase the pressure inside a 14.4-gallon tank of nitrogen gas, known as a high-pressure accumulator."
Generators cause drag so you loose some energy but this type of system would add friction into the mix which would waste more energy. Seems more like an energy shell game with looses from friction along the way.
This sounds like an excellent alternative to explore, but I do wonder how that 5000 PSI reacts when crushed in an accident. CNN describes the tank as a "bladder".
FTFA:
That compressed gas, stored at pressure as high as 5,000 pounds per square inch, represents energy waiting to be released.
Not sure I'd want to be an a 1.0 version consumer vehicle with that much pressure without some serious discussion about the safety precautions to prevent or mitigate "unexpected pressure drops".
Can someone who's got more experience with the fluid mechanics add to this?
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Try working on a vehicle with a 5000 psi tank inside.
I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
Boom.
The amount of energy you can store in a 14 gallon hydraulic accumulator is pretty small. Even if they're cranking the pressure up to 6-7,000 psi the energy density is around 50kw-sec/gallon or somewhere around the equivalent of a car battery.
There is a theoretical limit to how efficient a compression/expansion 'battery' can be.
I don't recall the formula, I'm sure some /.er with more recent thermo then I will come up with it.
I do recall that to get decent efficiency the high pressure side needs to be very high pressure.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Boom.
Exactly!
Home of The Suki Series
...spring instead?
Wait a minute... isn't that why people didn't want hydrogen cars in the first place?
What about supercapacitors? Those would be much safer than high-pressed nitrogen. Just because it constitutes 78.08% by volume of Earth's atmosphere doesn't mean we should trap it inside high-pressure cylinders. What will PETG say?
Perhaps not pointless. In the city, it's the start-stop aspect which is the mileage killer. Regenerative systems capture some of the energy used to decelerate, and use it to re-accelerate later. This is responsible for a large part of the efficiency of electric hybrids in city usage. I'm not sure if the hydraulic system described in TFA is linked to braking, or would by nature of its design capture energy during deceleration, but if so it would definitely help in city use. In fact, that may be the only place in which it shows gains, but let's not underestimate that. Most minivan use IS city use.
There is also the advantage that it's not based upon rare earths or lithium, which have their own political "sourcing" issues and their own limitations on how much is available. In short- to medium-term timeframes, that could be more important than ultimate efficiency comparisons with electric hybrids.
The safety concern is a serious one. Unlike present applications mentioned in TFA (garbage trucks, busses), there is much less structure in a minivan-sized platform to protect the pressure vessel. Anyone remember the Pinto problem? This is solvable, though it will require more structure (meaning more weight) to protect it. Overall, the hydraulic subsystem + the weight of the protective structure are probably less than the weight of the electric subsystem including its batteries, so that may be a net gain over electric hybrids, but we won't know til we see specs.
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
Your inflatable beach toys will be ready for fun in no time!
I don't like this one bit.
1) Failure mode. All the energy is stored as mechanical potential energy, and will go right into kinetic energy in an accident. Batteries and liquid fuels have the huge advantage that when they blow up, most of the energy is released as heat. 100 kilojoules of thermal energy delivered to your body might give you a few blisters. 100 kilojoules of mechanical energy will rip you to shreds.
Now, one might be able to hook an emergency dump valve to the airbag electronics, so it rapidly release air from the tank before the crumpling car causes it to burst. But are you gonna bet your life on that?
2) Energy density. Every calculation I've seen suggests that even with the best carbon fiber wound super duper air tank, the energy stored per kilogram is much lower than current lithium batteries.
FTFA:
That compressed gas, stored at pressure as high as 5,000 pounds per square inch, represents energy waiting to be released.
Not sure I'd want to be an a 1.0 version consumer vehicle with that much pressure without some serious discussion about the safety precautions to prevent or mitigate "unexpected pressure drops". Can someone who's got more experience with the fluid mechanics add to this?
Scuba divers drive around with aluminum cylinders containing air at 3,000 PSI. Safety "burst" discs are built into the regulator of the cylinders so that if over pressurization occurs they rupture. The results are frightening and embarrassing but its only air and not shrapnel since the cylinder remains intact. I expect there are similar technologies in the pressure vessels in these cars.
I hope there's a turbo button that vents the nitrogen to a rocket nozzle for when you want to pass someone.
So if I can't start my engine and my pressure tank is empty, how do I jump start it? Connect a high-pressure line from another vehicle with the same kind of accumulator? Or do I have to tow-start it?
As far as I have seen there is no future in compressed air vehicles*. Possible efficiency improvements are predictable, and nowhere near the point where anyone should be developing prototypes.
It comes down to this being a morally corrupt waste of money.
*Fixed site to site vehicles (trains and similar) can feasibly use compressed air, however the fuel options for these systems is quite large and can reach much higher efficiency.
I routinely work with compressed gases (~2500psi, medical oxygen on an ambulance). The tanks are tremendously well-built, and if you drop one you're worried about the valve because it protrudes - not the tank itself. And by my envelope calculations, there's something like 603k pounds trying to turn my tanks inside out.
Yes, I'd want to be damn sure I knew what that tank was doing, and how well it was built - but we're pretty good at making pressure vessels that won't rupture on their own, and equally good at making ones that are solid enough to withstand impacts.
Frankly, 15 gallons of gasoline worries me more. The kind of impact that would rupture a tank would aerosolize the gas, and I'd rather be in an explosion than an explosion with fire.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
I don't believe it's quite the same thing, but this group has been working on a similar idea for a few years now. Only problem is I don't think the latter vehicle would be so splendid in the snowy North.
I've seen tires from semi's explode, and take peoples hands, fingers, and critically injure them if the rim shatters along with it. And depending on the type you're only looking at 50-250psi. Voltages we can deal with, car coils kick out 100k-500k volts or more for ignition.
Yeah I seriously don't see this ever getting off the ground unless the container is designed to 'not' ever explode but in the even of a crash will only bleed pressure at a low level.
Om, nomnomnom...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_car
The compressed air car has been under development for a long time. It shows great promise but nobody yet has been able to make a practical vehicle.
The advantage of a hybrid vehicle is that it doesn't have to store enough energy for a complete trip. In particular, it stores energy (thereby heating the engine) and releases energy (thereby cooling the engine) over a short period of time. The pure compressed air vehicle has the problem that the engine is permanently in cooling mode. If the engine is hot, because it has just been compressing gas, it is far more efficient. The longer it operates as an engine, the less efficient it becomes.
The advantage of compressed gas for short time energy storage is that the storage is simple and does not take much sophisticated material as compared with batteries.
People raise the problem of a tank of gas stored at very high pressure. The hybrid vehicle doesn't need as big a tank. Also, they've been working on this for a long time. The problem is basically solved. It isn't nearly as much a problem as a tank of gasoline.
I always thought the flywheel battery (flywheels spinning in a vacuum chamber, suspended in magnetic bearings, arranged in quads to cancel angular momentum) would have very high efficiency. UT Austin demoed one of these things to power a building size UPS and one able to accelerate a train from rest to 30 mph.
What we need is really electricity priced the way cell phone minutes are sold. Peak hour, off peak and night rates. Then there will be an incentive for people to buy these things to store cheap electricity at night and use it in the day and reduce the grid load on hot summer days.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
This was invented about 1970. The inventor was thwarted at developing his invention. He died of an apparent drug/alcohol overdose. How about a program to make arrogant suburbanites aware of how much they are wrecking the US economy with their SUVs and oversize pickups?
KERS
For those who are not into car repair et al, Audi used hydraulic pressure accumulators for power brake assist. It's a great system, particularly for turbocharged cars, which spend a considerable amount of time in normal driving with low or no manifold vacuum (which is created by the pistons trying to draw air past a restriction, aka, the throttle vane. That big round thing your brake master cylinder comes out of? That's the vacuum servo. It uses surface area to multiply force from the vacuum.) Citroen used the same idea to power the extensive hydraulics used in their famous suspension systems. Mercedes did as well for their cars which had hydraulic power windows (!!), door-closers, and suspensions. Nowadays, the idea of hydraulic assist has largely gone by the wayside, with auxiliary electric vacuum pumps used where necessary. It's a shame, because the hydraulic system had a HUGE amount of reserve; you could pump the pedal hard almost thirty times.
The reservoirs are lovingly nicknamed "the bomb" by enthusiasts and owners of mid-80s-to-early-90's Audis, strictly on appearance; they look sort of like a large-ish cartoon bomb. I have NEVER heard of one exploding or failing (in terms of the pressure vessel, say, by cracking) in any way, and they've been in use for almost thirty years.
The way they DO fail, very predictably, is via the internal bladder that separates the nitrogen charge from the hydraulic fluid. Eventually the bladder fails, or the nitrogen simply diffuses through the bladder. Also, hydraulic systems are pretty horribly unreliable; with age, everything rubber fails eventually. Citroen did a pretty good job of proving that too, but on Audis, pretty much all the hydraulic hoses eventually fail. The hazard, in this case, is that when this system fails, it'll dump gallons of very slippery hydraulic fluid all over the road. If you're lucky, it won't also spray it all over, say, your hot exhaust. Atomized oil is pretty damn flammable.
Another danger: with the Audi system, all you had to do was pump the brake pedal until it was hard, and the system was safe to work on. This system would involve higher pressures and larger quantities of fluid...and it would become a real danger for anyone working on the car to do so with the system charged, as fluid over a certain pressure will either break skin or worse. I imagine they'll develop an easy way to discharge it, but people are still idiots.
The thing is also going to be a total bitch in a fire; I'm sure they'll put a pressure relief on the nitrogen side, but even then, you've got 10-15 gallons of flammable oil to deal with.
I really don't see Chrysler having any incentive to make the thing more durable than Audi/VW/Citroen did. It'll be made so it lasts about 60-70K, and then you'll be looking at replacing a huge, high-pressure tank. Expect the hilarity 3-4 years from whenever they go on sale, probably sooner.
Please help metamoderate.
The 1980s called and wants its air-powered toys back.
Safety "burst" discs are built into the regulator of the cylinders so that if over pressurization occurs they rupture. The results are frightening and embarrassing but its only air and not shrapnel since the cylinder remains intact.
Ask a dive instructor who is old enough, and they'll tell you about The Time I Saw a Burst Disc Retention Cage Shoot Through The Side Of Someone's Trunk And Through The Car Next To It.
Basically, the "cage" that "catches" the burst disc often is corroded or otherwise fails from the force of the burst disk hitting it with a couple hundred pounds of force. They break free and usually make it through at least two pieces of sheet metal before coming to a stop.
Also, burst disks are not 100% reliable, nor are the correct disks always installed. And yes, SCUBA tanks DO fail- usually when being filled, and they shatter. That's why scuba shops only re-fill tanks while they sit in containment vessels (the vessels also hold water, which helps with the heat from adiabatic compression.)
Please help metamoderate.
When the head gasket blows? Yeah, Chrysler, HANG YOUR HEAD IN SHAME.
The U.S. Post Office tested that type of drive in route delivery trucks in the late 70s. It worked great. It's the same type of drive used in fork trucks with a hydraulic accumulator added to the pressure side. There's a tank of hydraulic fluid, hydraulic pump, control valves, accumulator, hydraulic motor and return line to the fluid storage tank. They have over pressure bleed circuits. The only thing more realiable is a good dog.
When Reagan got in office it was discontinued.
Tata is making subcompacts in India which use this exact method as a propulsion source to get around. However, what works over there might not work over here.
But, if the technology makes it over, just the fact that it can keep a vehicle running with the gasoline or diesel engine off at idle to low speeds in city traffic would save a good amount of fuel.
The point isn't whether this produces a viable propulsion system. The point is what degree of compliance is demonstrated by Chrysler to future EPA mandates. An equally important point is how much EPA money will flow into UAW pockets.
Many crucial points there.
Any fire from the fuel will be put out instantly by the pressure releasing from the tank. It's like a really advanced fire extinguisher.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
UPS and the EPA announced something very similar two years ago.
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-10-28/tech/ups.hybrid.trucks_1_hybrid-trucks-hydraulic-hybrid-hydraulic-fluid?_s=PM:TECH
if crash=1 then dump-pressure
(Yep, I'm no programmer. But I don't think it'd take a rocket surgeon to tell the programmers how to make this work, given the myriad of accelerometers and such in modern vehicles.)
Kid-proof tablet..
(Yep, I'm no programmer. But I don't think it'd take a rocket surgeon to tell the programmers how to make this work, given the myriad of accelerometers and such in modern vehicles.)
Considering how many screw ups there have been over simple things like roll sensors, and ignition modules that are supposed to cut fuel in the event of a crash or roll over? Yeah...I don't know about that.
Om, nomnomnom...
This sounds reminiscent of the starting system used in the good old Yakovlev Yak-52 aircraft. They first started flying them in 1976 according to Wikipedia .... ah well, what is old is new again.
I, for one, will not drive at any speed in a tricycle vehicle with the single wheel in front. They are proven unstable in cornering.
Even bicycle-type tricycles: those that go at any significant speed have a single drive wheel in the back and two wheels up front.
I'm not saying that a "standard" tricycle will tip over at the drop of a hat, but they are less stable when cornering, especially when braking while cornering. The two-wheels-in-front configuration is provably more stable.
I think it'd be OK. Most of the complaints you speak of are of safety systems operating when they shouldn't be, as in the case of the roll bar that deploys when there is no accident imminent.
If the tank ejaculates prematurely*, then all that is lost is a bit of fuel economy. After all, it doesn't cause a new safety hazard when this happens, as do roll sensors that fire pyrotechnic roll bars ($$$+possible injury), fuel pump cutoffs that require one to crawl into the trunk to reset it before proceeding, and the like.
All it means is that, after a hard turn (in a Chrysler minivan? FFS...), you get to complain to your friends about how your car quifes noisily when abused.
After that, the tank repressurizes by normal means, and everything's the fine.
It, therefore, can be tuned to be far more sensitive than the other systems that you mentioned, since nothing of any great value is lost (other than a bit of accumulated pressure).
Compared to existing systems, let's say it behaves as follows: if crash = .5 then [...]
*: I did want to come up with a better word usement, but it's growing late here and...well...I rather like the way that I wrote that.
Kid-proof tablet..
http://www.scuderigroup.com/our-engines/
This engine is a split-cycle four stroke air hybrid that fires After Top Dead Center (ATDC) effeciently. The engine already holds far more pressure than standard combustion engines and reduces NOx by up to 80% and CO2 emissions by ~30% over similar hybrids and standard combustion engines - without the need of an ancillary system for power management (an electrical system for example). The engine presses out nearly 100% of the gas from the exhaust piston which leads to far much better optimization.
Hydraulics just kicked in, yo
Whatever happened to flywheels for energy storage? Popular Science couldn't shut up about them 40 years ago. Example: http://3.ly/Ccxs
If you thought a high-voltage hybrid was dangerous... ...then you're a moron.
Seriously, there's about fifteen billion "dangerous" things in an average car - adding a small battery and a few wires doesn't change that. The total energy stored in the battery of most hybrids is about the same as the energy in a few tablespoons of gasoline. And unlike the parts of the car that carry your fuel, the high-voltage parts are clearly indicated with bright orange coloring. The airbags are probably more dangerous than the electricity. And the voltage isn't even that high - usually a couple hundred volts at most - the same range that is in every home and office.
I have no doubt that engineers can make a high-pressure tank quite safe. In fact, they've already done it. The Civic GX (a CNG-fueled passenger car) holds natural gas at up to 3600 psi. As do many other CNG-fueled vehicles, though it's much more commonly seen on buses. Just replace the rather flammable gas with a rather non-flammable one, and you're there. Seems easy enough to me...
Adiabatic heating on compression would be pretty serious. A diesel engine only has 15:1 to 20:1 compression ratio, and develops enough heat thereby to ignite diesel fuel. In this system we are looking at upwards of 300:1. The temperature would be absolutely fierce.
If on the other hand you design the system to dissipate the adiabatic heat, you are rejecting a good proportion of the compression energy, which then you will not get back on expansion. So either you must withstand incredible heat in the system, or you sacrifice efficiency.
The mirror image is adiabatic cooling on expansion. If you do reject the adiabatic compression heat, then on expansion you will have problems with supercooling and moisture freezing.
Our tanks are filled to 4200psi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-contained_breathing_apparatus
Also: http://www.deir.qld.gov.au/workplace/publications/alerts/alloy_cylinders/index.htm And if you walk into any dive store, you'll find the filling station includes a large tub. That tub is reinforced and designed to take some of the force of a tank exploding.
Please help metamoderate.
It's a good concept as an alternative to using generators to store the energy as electricity in batteries. The safety issue that people keep bringing up about the tanks exploding is pretty far fetched. When I was a mechanic Nitrogen pressure cylinders were used extensively back in the 70s on diesel engine equipped vehicles to create "hydro-boost", a device that did not require vacuum like a conventional power brake system. I never heard of any mechanics being hurt with these nor did I hear of one exploding. As a technology high pressure cylinders have been mastered. For example, I have used Oxygen tanks for oxyacetylene torch, brazing etc that were manufactured by the Third Reich in Germany. These tanks are still used and are recognized by the swastica near the top of the tank. The real hazard with tanks of this type is -- as someone else mentioned -- that the valve might be broken off, creating a rocket projectile of enormous power. No such hazard exists with the Chrysler project. Also the proposed compressed Nitrogen method of regenerative power saving is more reliable and does not require expensive replacement of all those batteries every 5 years, which is the real killer of all electric cars and is why they will never live up to expectation. Chrysler is on a good track with this and I commend them for their engineering and research and development.
http://www.autoblog.com/2006/06/26/epa-unveils-hydraulic-hybrid-ups-delivery-truck/
epa's been shopping this around for a long damn time
seems like a good excuse to give Chrysler some limelight since they're still so... ...
"The word "unblowupable" is tossed around a lot these days..." - Homer Simpson
But then with a flammable gas, used as a fuel. Those systems hardly ever fail, even in a crash. Yes, even on the German Autobahn, where there is no speed limit, they drive around with these cylinders in their cars.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
I hadn't heard of this before but I like it. I still have a gasoline engine for range, the hybrid side technology is good old fashioned boiler plate, no rare earths, no Lithium batteries that need replacing at a cost greater than that of the car. If properly maintained the hybrid side would probably last longer than the engine itself. Now, Nitrogen is plentiful and natural so we just need to know that he oil isn't some new fangled compound that will turn out to be environmentally dangerous and we're good to go. If anyone's really concerned about saving gas, you could probably set up an in garage compressor to pre-charge the nitrogen tank.
Always like to see good old fashioned boiler plate technology applied in new ways.
Aside: The garage next door to us burned with two cars in it and the only things that exploded were the tires. The firemen weren't even concerned about the idea of the gas tanks suddenly going up in an explosion. In the right container, the dang stuff seems to be more stable than many people fear.
low energy, high power, this sort of thing is ideally suited to regenerative braking.
DOT requires high pressure cylinders used in vehicles to be tested at intervals based on bottle type and service.
We have a producer in France (MDI), which build "CAT" engines and cars.
See http://www.mdi.lu/
-- Laurent Pointal
*On the Star Trek set...Scotty yelling into intercom...
Scotty: "I canna hold her together any longer! She's braking apart!"
Director: "CUT!" *sighs* James, baby, it's breaking apart, not braking apart.
Scotty: "?!?!? *mutters* Where's the Romulan Ale? This insanity needs a wee bit more than the 200 year old scotch, I think."
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
I was about to mention MDI. But there are two main differences:
- their cars are only concepts, and this for 10 years or more now. I live very close to their french factory, which has been operating, as far as I understand it, only from regional subsidies without selling a single car. They do have a demo model, which they show everywhere around, but definitely, I asked them many times how/where to buy: no way. So, I suspect there must be some flaw somewhere. Mind you, I was candidate to buy, and ready to pay. I understand what they say is, we only sell car factories themselves, not individual cars. I doubt this is the good strategy.
- their cars are air-powered only. This means you must get somehow a compressor at home, that will reload air in the car's tank at night. This is very different from Chrysler's hybrid concept, where a presumably smaller tank is filled by the (gasoline) motor either from gasoline energy or from braking. While I'm not sure Chrysler's device will be as efficient as its electric counterpart, it will work somehow for sure, and probably will lower the gasoline consumption in a measurable way. In comparison, from my experience with MDI, full air-powered vehicles just don't work. Apparently the end-to-end efficiency chain turns them into ultra-light, low-powered vehicles whose autonomy is just too low.
Herve S.
I don't know where you got you 50% number from, but i am pretty sure that on Prius hybrid cars the efficiency is quite high to reach a high fuel efficiency.
The whole problem with electric hybrid cars is the price. Here the pressured air solution can help. If the price of a hydraulic system is low, and it can be used to add power to the mix at the short moment maximum power (and maximum inefficienty) is required, it might be a good solution to get better fuel efficienty
What matters here is the total price of the car. If a small pressured air system adds a small price to the car, but the fuel efficienty is increased more than the added price this a good thing.
Maybe pressured air is less efficient than a electric hybrid, but still much more efficient relative to a non-hybrid car.
We might smell really bad after a wreck but we won't be burnt to a crisp.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
> Chrysler's standard 2.4-liter four-cylinder, the base engine in its minivan line
---
You know, there may be another way to save some gas here..... (tip to Americans, in Europe and elsewhere, 2.4 liters is not a "base" engine)
> no, yes, maybe (tagging beta)
At least later classic 900s with abs. And some Buicks. Did Teves make the system?
Why not get rid of a lot of stop signs? Are stop signs that require a complete stop really safer than a yield? I see so many that seem unnecessary. Could low volume intersections be made smart so that stopping (or even slowing) is only required if there is oncoming traffic?
Honestly? why try grand experiments like this?
the 4 cyl engine already in these vans can gain a LOT of efficiency by simply adding in a transmission that is properly designed. a 7 speed transmission that adapts to the driving conditions, would boost fuel economy numbers drastically.
have a "city mode" that runs through the first 4 gears skipping 1st to take advantage of gearing at lower speeds, 1st is only used when the vehicle is loaded down with your 7 family members that all weigh over 250-350 pounds. the top 3 gears are used for highway cruise. Or let's use a CVT transmission to even further boost economy? (Note I know how notorious Dodge transmissions are for failing)
Couple that with a smart torque converter with lockup to eliminate losses after it is up to speed as well as decent aerodynamics and you can easily make a Dodge caravan get 40mpg on the highway and 20+ in the city. Will it accelerate to 60mph in 1.2 seconds and do the 1/4 mile in 9.2? nope, IF you need that buy something else. 95% of all minivans are used to carry the 3.275 kids and all their crap around town or drag the family across the state on a weekend trip to grandma's. They can boost the fuel economy numbers drastically with current technology. They just find that it get's more press and attention from the tree huggers if they can slap the word "hybrid" on the thing.
Why is detroit stuck on trying to entice car buyers into being beta testers?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Just ask people in europe how stable a 3 wheeled car (1 wheel in front setup) is...
the reliant robin is insanely stable and can take high speed turns easily.... F1 levels of stability!
http://www.flixxy.com/top-gear-car-review-reliant-robin.htm
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Should be possible. Cars already have a "crash sensor" that triggers the airbags, self-tightening seatbelts, on some cars a fuel cut, etc. Just wire that up to a release valve on the tank. As soon as the car hits something the pressure could be vented.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Oh noes scary hybrid with high-voltage wires! Not like regular cars that have no high-voltage ignition system at all!
And don't forget you have to call the hazmat team if a CFL bulb breaks!
Also ORGANIC FOOD IS PEOPLE!
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I seem to think that if this works, some of this tech could be retro fitted on older models and even other models altogether, and allow for some people to enjoy even more mileage to the gallon, no? I am no engineer, but could someone tell me if this can only work on those vehicles, or could be used on other older vehicles too.
One of my best friends is among the EPA engineers developing this technology. They've been working on it for years. He describes the difference between hydraulic accumulators and batteries with a water analogy like this: the batteries can hold a lot of water (energy), but you have to take it out with a straw. The accumulators hold less, but you get to extract it with a firehose. That's why the tech is so good for large, start-and-stop vehicles.
He also mentions that, when some fitting comes loose or a hose breaks, the invariable result is hydraulic fluid sprayed all over the floor or road.
Or bad-air-boom-crash?
Typical of one of the big three.
First, GM has redefined what an electric car is.
as gasoline powered car with a gas engine, that powers an electric drive train
Now. Chrysler is redefining what a Hybrid is.
a gasoline powered car that uses hydraulic oil to store wasted energy. only taking in part of the equation on what makes a hybrid.
Nope, no catering to big oil here.
Cornering tests have unequivocally demonstrated the relative instability of the "classic" tricycle configuration. Your example might be stable, but two wheels in front is more stable. There simply isn't any doubt about it.
Actually the head gasket/intake gasket/valve problems Chrysler was having was mostly limited to their Mitsubishi-sourced engines--the 3.0L V6 in particular. Chrysler's home-grown V6 engines based on the 3.3 did not have these same problems.
"Frequently wrong, never in doubt."
Lets say, in the event of an accident, can the tank of compressed nitrogen help with anything? ie: deploying the side curtain air bags? Or in the event of a fire in the engine bay, can it be used to attempt to displace the oxygen to quench the fire? I'm probably full of shit...
I like this more so than the electric systems. It has promise of being a more simple and reliable system that's more cost effective. Seals wear out, hydraulic motors need rebuilding. The upside is hydraulics are generally pretty cheap and easy to repair. Time will tell the service life on these systems and the cost and complexity of repair. I'm glad to see some new technology being developed though.
Last time I did the math on an electric hybrid none of the available options would cost less to own over the life of the vehicle than a regular car. By the time you start to save money, batteries need replacing. It's far more cost effective to drive an older cheaper and reasonably efficient vehicle. If you want a status symbol, go ahead and get your hybrid of choice, or heaven forbid a "smart car" that gets no better MPG than a '60s compact car.
At the end of the day a well designed and built diesel takes the cake on fuel efficiency and money savings. Unfortunately thanks to the EPA and NHTSA, fuel efficient vehicles are pretty much illegal in the States as a result of safety and emissions requirements.
I want the MythBusters to get a hold of this one. I want to see how well the hydraulic fluid can cut off limbs when the hoses start to flap around under pressure.
UPS has had a similar system in its trucks for years.... http://www.hydraulicspneumatics.com/200/Issue/Article/False/38545/Issue
Of course my ideas about auto safety include 5 point safety belts, real tubular roll cages, a fire extinguisher system that can be manually or thermally activated in the engine compartment and puncture proof fuel tank bladders.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Electric hybrids that move with the engine off also have electric pumps in the power steering and brakes, rather than belt-driven ones, so they can continue to work.
How does a minivan, rolling with the engine off and an "axle motor" propelling the car, retain working power brakes and steering? Don't try to tell me that any minivan customer would accept unpowered versions of these...