Slashdot Mirror


Toyota Describes Combustion Engine That Generates Electricity Directly

cartechboy writes: "While electric cars are now more available than ever, combustion engines will remain for decades to come. Now auto engineers are working to refine combustion power as part of cars that are increasingly electrified, including plug-in hybrids. Toyota's new 'Free Piston Engine Linear Generator' (or FPEG) shows us one potential way. Linear engines eliminate the rotating crankshaft of conventional engines in favor of a single chamber, in which a piston moves forward and backward. A linear engine has no crankshaft, nor connecting rods. In their place is a gas-filled chamber, the compression of which functions like a spring — returning the piston after the expansion / combustion phases of a typical combustion cycle. This back-and-forth motion can be turned into energy, when you haven't got a crankshaft and the mechanically-useful rotation it produces. While linear engines are far from new, and Toyota's test units are only 10 kW (13 horsepower), a pair of them can still produce enough electricity for a Yaris- or Corolla-sized vehicle to cruise on the highway at 75 mph."

37 of 234 comments (clear)

  1. Efficiency? by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The real question is how efficient is it? The article doesn't say. It might be simpler mechanically than using a crankshaft to generate rotational energy, but that doesn't mean it is more efficient than an alternator / generator method of producing electricity.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Efficiency? by Todd+Palin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I was thinking the same thing. Efficiency is the real question. I assume the article would have mentioned this if the efficiency was available to the authors. The fact that efficiency figures weren't available means they were not very impressive at this stage. The devil is in the details.

    2. Re:Efficiency? by grmoc · · Score: 2

      .. and how efficient is at as compared to a turbine?

    3. Re:Efficiency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Turbines are really not efficient at all. Even if you made a perfect turbine, the Brayton cycle is inherently less efficient than the Otto/Atkinson cycle used in internal combustion engines.

      They are used in airplanes because nothing beats their power/weight ratio, and in power plants because of their longer MTBF and ability to burn lower quality fuels.

    4. Re:Efficiency? by cryptizard · · Score: 2

      They will not be powering the acceleration directly though, they will be charging batteries which power an electric drivetrain. That means you get some extra charge while you are sitting at a red light and you use more when accelerating to highway speed.

    5. Re:Efficiency? by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 4, Informative

      The real question is actually, will the car be safe? with 13hp*2, 0-60 will likely be in the high 20s. Not very good for merging, or crossing traffic, or going uphill, or even hauling groceries.

      Of course. The great thing about electric cars is that you have tons of torque instantly available. This is just for charging batteries. As long as you aren't accelerating indefinitely they can make up the high power drain from the acceleration while cruising.

    6. Re:Efficiency? by Dahamma · · Score: 5, Informative

      Efficiency information was there, I guess the dumbed-down article linked from the post didn't feel like including it. This link (that was in TFA) has much more interesting details:

      http://www.greencarcongress.co...

      Summary is, not only does it have 42% efficiency (for reference, efficient DI gas engines are about 35%, and diesel about 40%), it allows for a lighter, simpler engine with reduced cooling and lubrication requirements. Higher efficiency, lower weight, fewer moving parts all just generally contribute to a lower TCO, which would be a great thing, as series hybrids are still not particularly cheap (at least without their current subsidies)...

    7. Re:Efficiency? by beelsebob · · Score: 2

      Acceleration should be just fine. This thing just needs to run constantly producing power to charge the battery. The electric motors will have far more torque and power than this, and be able to (temporarily) discharge the battery, until you lift.

    8. Re:Efficiency? by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 2

      The devil is in the details.

      Crap, I've spent years hunting him in the boardroom!

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    9. Re:Efficiency? by willy_me · · Score: 2

      The real question is how efficient is it?

      It does not have to be any more efficient if they manage to reduct weight and increase reliability. Efficiency has a big part to play but even a less efficient engine would be desirable if they improve greatly on other aspects.

      Remember that this is being targeted for vehicles that will run mostly on electric power. An ICE is a dead weight when not being used. If someone drives using 90% pure electric then the efficiency gains of carrying less weight could easily outweigh the losses of an ICE that was 5% less efficient but only operates for 10% of the time.

    10. Re:Efficiency? by Blaskowicz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Nobody has used them because they need some high tech. From what I've read free-piston engines need to be computer-controlled at a very high rate, else the technology is unworkable. Something like an Intel 8051 wouldn't keep up, so for that reason alone it was not invented 30 years ago.
      Writing the firmware must be hard, as hinted by the wikipedia article's end. Maybe that requires a lot of computer simulations, which is easier to do in the 2000s and 2010s to say the least.

      I do agree a portable generator would nice, or a lightweight vehicle that doubles as a power plant. 10 kilowatts would be pretty good for audio gear, lighting and an ice machine to keep the beer cool.

    11. Re:Efficiency? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Well, according to the only reference I found before I got bored you need recirculation to even reach 30% with a small turbine in the power range we're discussing. That's not really competitive with modern ICEs, let alone this engine.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:Efficiency? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      As for efficency I read a claim they can do 60%, which is crazy high

      No way ... unless you are using liquid nitrogen for your heat sink. Even a perfect Carnot cycle isn't going to give you efficiencies that high. Maybe they mean "60% of perfect CC" rather than "60% = (electrical energy out)/(fuel energy in)".

    13. Re:Efficiency? by Crayz9000 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Effectively?
      Mechanical losses are a major issue with cars, particularly when dealing with power losses through differentials. Friction will quickly make you its bitch, which is why everything must be kept well-lubricated, and even then you have to keep the viscosity to an absolute minimum to avoid fluid load.
      A completely electric drivetrain, if done right, can eliminate almost all of the moving parts that contribute to power loss. Electricity, wires, and motors. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

    14. Re:Efficiency? by slinches · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's not true in practice. The efficiency of the Brayton cycle may be lower for the same compression ratio, but higher compression ratios are achievable. This is the same reason Diesel engines are more efficient. Also, turbines tend to have lower thermal and mechanical losses.

      --
      Knowledge Brings Fear
    15. Re:Efficiency? by calidoscope · · Score: 5, Informative

      The transmissions on current GE and EMD diesel electric locomotives are about 94% efficient from the output of the prime mover to the driving wheels. I would expect electric car motors to be on the order of 90 to 95% efficient, so this should compare favorably with a mechanical tranny.

      Speaking of locomotives, the free piston gasifier was being heavily researched in the 1950's as a more efficient realization of a gas turbine and something that could compete with diesel engines as prime movers.

      --
      A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
    16. Re:Efficiency? by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      And solved already, better than gasoline powered direct drive is solved. The big ships now are electrical engines powered by generators. Direct connections are less efficient. In a car, copper losss and eddy currents should be closer to to 0%, with known expected loads, you use enough copper for short runs to cover it.

    17. Re:Efficiency? by swillden · · Score: 2

      The numbers I've read are in the range of 95-98% efficient, but I can't find any links right now. In any case, whether it's 90% or 99%, the net is that a linear generator feeding an electric motor should be at least as efficient as a traditional ICE, as well as being lighter and simpler.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    18. Re:Efficiency? by XNormal · · Score: 4, Informative

      The conventional piston-and-crankshaft engine forces the variation of cylinder volume over time to follow a specific sinusoidal curve. This is not the most efficient way to convert the energy of a hot expanding gas to motion. Look at the third picture in the slideshow to see the power-over-time graph of the free piston engine to get an idea of how differently this engine runs.

      This fundamental difference in thermodynamic cycle performance makes the biggest improvement to the efficiency of this engine. It more than makes up for the inherent inefficiencies in converting the mechanical motion to electricity and back. Using electricity lets you use capacitors and batteries to smooth that spiky but efficient power production to a a smooth supply for the electric motors.

      --
      Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
    19. Re:Efficiency? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      You completely mis-understand how this is intended to work. Well done.

      Even with a long steady incline the amount of energy needed is far lower than when accelerating from a standing start. Looking at an elevation map for the I-84 it shouldn't present any kind of problem to someone looking to average 65-70 MPH, assuming a battery pack similar in size to a plug-in Prius or maybe a bit larger.

      The 75 MPH figure is stating that the car can do that indefinitely, but the actual top speed of the vehicle will be higher. In any case the maximum speed of an existing Nissan Leaf is 93 MPH, and somehow people manage to drive on highways in those so I don't think it is a major problem.

      The battery packs last a long time. There are 15 year old Prius hybrids that have no measurable drop in battery performance despite having over 250k miles on the clock. Tesla has tested their packs up to 750k miles with 85% capacity remaining. The key is that the cells are never fully charged or discharged, extending their lifespans considerably.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    20. Re:Efficiency? by Aaden42 · · Score: 2

      acceleration up an inclined highway on-ramp [ ...] as it will not yet be up to speed when it comes time to merge

      Dear Finagle, I wish drivers around here knew that’s what the on-ramp is FOR. Daily occurrence that someone tries to creep into 65MPH* traffic going maybe 30-something after putting their way downhill on a 1/4 mile long on-ramp.

      Use that long skinny pedal on the right, KTHX?

      * And of course everyone is going precisely 65, no more...

  2. Okay. by sexconker · · Score: 2

    Okay. Is there some sort of plan to use these in future vehicles? How do they compare to traditional engines in terms of efficiency, power, maintenance requirements, etc.? How do they compare to electric vehicles in the same regard? Devoid of any such meaningful substance, this story seems like fluff meant to distract from Tesla, Nissan, Ford, etc. who are aggressively pursuing all-electric vehicles.

  3. Re:In mpg ... by pushing-robot · · Score: 2

    Toyota's test units are only 10 kW (13 horsepower), a pair of them can still produce enough electricity for a Yaris- or Corolla-sized vehicle to cruise on the highway at 75 mph.

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  4. 10 kw by fyngyrz · · Score: 2

    10 kw is an interesting number for another reason, too -- 10 kwh is about the size of the average US home electrical draw. An hour of run time, some storage... assuming 10 kw is the output of these things, and various efficiencies, etc. Still, it's an interesting number. Sure seems like you could make an interesting power source from them.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:10 kw by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Funny

      eh, goddamit.

      10k kiowatt hours.

      WTF is my coffee?? Good grief.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    2. Re:10 kw by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      10 kw is an interesting number for another reason, too -- 10 kwh is about the size of the average US home electrical draw.

      For stationary residential use, you could run the thing on cheap natural gas (rather than expensive gasoline) and use the waste heat to warm your house. It would be personalized cogeneration.

      Disclaimer: Yes, I realize that outside North America, natural gas isn't cheap.

    3. Re:10 kw by supercrisp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And it won't be cheap for long in the US. The natty gas industry is lobbying for it to become a "foreign policy tool." They want to ship it across the sea, somehow making it cheaper on the European market than Russian gas. I wonder who'll end up subsidizing that? The struggling US economy, or the almost bankrupt European economies, or Germany?

    4. Re:10 kw by stoatwblr · · Score: 2

      There's more to it than that. Even without exports, the fracking bubble is declining rapidly and too many wells have depressed the price beyond economic sustainability (ie, much gas is being sold at a net loss). I'm surprised that producers haven't switched off their taps in the hope that prices would go up.

  5. Re:so how is it different from diesel electric loc by viperidaenz · · Score: 3, Informative

    RTFS.
    A diesel locomotive as a traditional diesel engine with a crankshaft that turns a generator. The rotational energy is converted in to electricity by moving coils past alternating magnetic fields.

    If move a single magnet back and forth through a coil it will also produce electricity.
    If you attach the magnet to the piston and the coil around the cylinder walls you don't need a crankshaft anymore. I guess in theory, less friction = less loss = more efficient. Without a crankshaft there isn't any side load put on the cylinder either, so that experiences less friction too.
    You still need mechanical movement to run values though, or you've just an inefficient 2-stroke cycle.
    Perhaps they need to develop decent electronic valves before they go telling everyone how efficient it is.

  6. Re:Not an engineer'car guy, but... by gman003 · · Score: 2

    Rather than the cylinder driving a crankshaft, they're driving a linear alternator directly (basically an inverse solenoid - turning linear back-and-forth motion into electric current). That ought to lead to less losses from inertia and friction, as well as being more compact.

  7. Why use the gas chamber? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The description talks about using a gas chamber as a spring to push the piston back to starting position. Why? There is no crank shaft on the other side? We could imagine a dual acting piston with a combustion chamber on both sides. In a regular IC engine there is a flywheel to do the intake, compression and exhaust strokes soaking up the energy from the power stroke. Even with a dual acting piston, there is an issue there.

    The linear generator is also a motor. We should be able to use the magnetic fields to move the piston back and forth. Mechanical complexity of cams, crankshafts and flywheels and clutches replaced by the electrical complexity. Easier to handle and more reliable too. But still don't see any reason to believe it is going to be more efficient.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  8. Re:Transduction mechanism? by VortexCortex · · Score: 5, Funny

    You don't need rotational movement to drive an alternator. A magnet can move back and forth inside a coil and generate AC.

    Wait, what? That's all it takes to create the AC? The last time I checked the accepted theory involved a stork.
    What's motivating all those cowards to turn the car wheels? I feel like I'm missing something...
    Perhaps a Unix analogy?

  9. engineering heaven by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    Felix Wankel is somewhere laughing his ass off.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  10. Re:The vibration must suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Free piston engines have a distinct difference with respect to vibration. They can potentially couple a lot less vibration to the chassis than traditional designs because the vibration is only in one plane and there is no need to couple the engine to the chassis to provide torsional reaction force for the drive train.

    The vibration of any individual component doesn't matter, only the vibration that is coupled to the chassis of the vehicle. With a free piston design, there is no need to couple the engine directly to anything because you have no output shafts to couple to the drive train, and no mechanical reaction forces to contain. That means that the body of the engine can be decoupled from the chassis of the vehicle in the axis of vibration, and *allowed* to vibrate back and forth as much as it needs to. That provides the reaction force to the piston, and the forces coupled to the chassis are only the frictional loss in your mounting system.

  11. Most? Hardly by the_humeister · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I bought a ScanGauge II back in 2008 and use it to this day. Plug it into the OBD II port to read data. One of the data points is engine torque, which can be converted to power. My previous car, a 2008 VW Jetta with the 2.5 L engine needed 35 hp to maintain 75 mph on a flat road. 26 hp is about right for my wife's 2011 Prius at 75 mph.

  12. Re:The vibration must suck by Required+Snark · · Score: 2
    Why was this modded down? If I had mod points I would mod it up.

    All I can assume is that some anti-green ideological idiot wants to shoot down any thing that makes good sense and saves energy.

    I assume that they are political conservatives, since it fits their typical behavior. I wonder if the Koch (pronounced COCK) brothers are somehow involved.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
  13. Re:so how is it different from diesel electric loc by wagnerrp · · Score: 3, Informative

    2-stroke engines are "unfriendly" because they use positive pressure from the piston to pump the charge into the cylinder. That means you have charge in your crank case, which in turn means you need oil mixed in with your charge, and that oil gets exhausted as unburned soot. Add a blower to pump the charge into the cylinder, independent of the motion of the piston, and your emissions issues vanish.