I knew the Chinese were mandating birth control for a reason...if they produce fewer feet than we do, then our feet are worth less and less and we need more of them just to do the same tasks we had done a few years ago.
I think NASA should take this into consideration the next time they launch something...
So do you recommend applying over the website or sending a resume to you so you can get credit for the referral?
Unfortunately, my background does not match up with the position open in your team, but maybe there's another position in the company where I might be of use. As I'm graduating in December, I like to hear about good companies--most of the ones that come to career fairs and such are so large and impersonal that I don't enjoy the prospect of working for them...you can almost tell which ones to look out for simply by how they handle the recruiting process. If I feel like I'm already "just a number" when I'm talking to the recruiter, I have almost no reason to suspect that their internal business practices will be any better.
Most all the rules are there to ensure safety and/or fairness. If there are any rules that are a problem, it would be the fairness ones, but in the context of a race, they are required. If you are designing your own solar vehicle, you would neither need nor want ballast bags to bring up the driver weight to minimum value. Also, awhile back, a team did quite well with an aerodynamic solar car that basically didn't have any solar cells except in the trunk. When they wanted to charge, they stopped, unfolded the array, and got a quick charge. This seemed to work well for them, and if I recall correctly, it was a bout of bad weather that ended up costing them the race. However, the idea was quite novel and fell within the rules of the race. But the next racing season, the rules had been adapted so that the array cannot be reconfigured during the race. In the name of fairness, that innovation fell by the wayside.
However, rules aside, there are more dynamics involved in why teams design the way that they do. Students are oftentimes busy people, trying to both do their schoolwork and build a solar car within a limited timeframe, and particularly with limited funds. If something worked on a previous car, and the winners of the last race had something similar, then it's usually not something that will change. The lack of funding can often lead to inferior design, simply because not every team can afford to have the best batteries, the best solar cells, the lightest materials, etc. The (self-inflicted) pressure to win often pushes ideas that are different, or ideas "that have been tried before" without success, even if the previous idea may have simply been a poor implementation. There is not much time or money to experiment with all the different ideas that someone may want to try. So, for the most part, everyone takes good ideas from the winners and implements it for themselves. Occasionally, big changes occur, but by and large, the sport has matured beyond the awkward stage where all the cars are trying a different shape, etc. For example, in most all the American Solar Challenge cars, you'll find a New Generation Motor (NGM), simply because it works, it's one of the few motors designed for solar car racing, and it solves a lot of problems for the teams building a car from scratch.
"Its not that hard to make a solar-powered car where student labor is free"
Really? I was team manager for a solar car team a few years ago, and student labor may not cost many dollars, but it most certainly isn't free. These cars take a lot of time and dedication to build, and motivating someone to do unpaid engineering is an exceptionally difficult challenge. You can't threaten to cut their pay (not that a good manager would need to resort to that), and they have competing demands, like doing well on exams and homework so as to get good grades so they can get a good, well-paying job when they graduate. Engineering aside, the copious paperwork, fundraising, and dealing with the university system aren't all that enjoyable either--unless you get a business student to do it, but that's hard, because their first thought is "that's an engineering project", and many business students try to partake in a very active social life.
So yes, it is hard, and free student labor is difficult to harvet (unless you happen to be a professor with grad students working under you).
Not to be too particular, but since I'm currently going throught the LLC application process, it might be useful to point out that it's not "articles of incorporation" but "articles of organization". "Articles of incorporation" is reserved for a corporation.
The difference between a corporation (Inc.) and limited liability company (LLC) is subtle but important. A corporation is a perpetual entity, so if a founding member dies, no problem. But if a founding member of an LLC dies, that pretty much ends the LLC. Taxes are a lot easier to handle, along with determining profit. Also, you don't have to have annual meetings where the minutes recorded, etc. However, with either one you get the benefit that your personal assets are not at risk. If the company fails miserably and owes a million dollars in debt, you still get to keep your personal car, your house, your money, etc. Thus the term "limited liability".
I suppose I'll agree to disagree on the definiton as well then...
As to the worries in stop and go traffic, since we're not operating anywhere near peak power (because peak power happens when we're about to redline), we won't be operating anywhere near peak current...it will cycle from 0 to about 125amps, then go to -125 when you regen and head back to (about) 0 when you're stopped, and using very rough math, that puts it at about 60-70 amps on the average (I'd normally calculate the root-mean-square current, but I don't care enough to do that at the moment, especially since I don't know what the current profile looks like). It won't take too much wiring to do that safely
Thanks for the lucid explanation. As I read through the posts, I wondered if I'd have to try to clear things up, but you handled it splendidly. If I hadn't already posted all over this topic, and if I had mod points, I'd give them all to you. Excellent work.
I agree about the "expected performance"...if you read my other posts in this topic, you'll see that I don't even think it's a serious claim.
However, it is fitting to consider it a performance upgrade because of the increase in low-end torque. If you only stop at the level of "power is power" and refuse to consider that power = torque * speed, and that for electric motors, torque is maximized at low speeds, then I'll be unable to convince you that there is a real performance boost at low speeds.
Just for comparison, the Prius only has a 30kW motor (twice the power of what we planned). Yet they use this motor for accelerating the car up to about 20mph or so, then turn on the engine. If 30kW (by itself) can perform normal acceleration, and we're proposing to add half of that to your vehicle (which can accelerate just fine by itself), then yes, I'd call that a good performance boost.
That's also why it's safe to make comparisons to a starter. This device (should it ever exist) was not meant to assist at high speeds. Certainly it can, but because it's we're talking about high speed, there is MUCH less torque it can provide. If someone really wants that little torque at high speeds (near engine redline) then fine, they can, but they'll be putting just as much stress on the wires as they put on their engine. Also, notice that typically, drivers will use about 150 amps. If we consider that this is 1/4 of the 600 amps PbA batteries can provide for starting, then if we calculate the resistance losses in the wire (which is directly proportional to the heat they produce), we find that Power = (Current^2)*(Resistance), so typically, the power lost through wiring is about (1/4)^2=1/16 compared to that for the starter wiring.
Yeah, I wish(ed) it were higher voltage too, but regardless, even at 42V it can work reasonably well. But the power rating is spot-on. And the claims...yeah, I don't agree with them either. Even if (somehow) they turn out to be true, you'd still have to have racing slicks to take advantage of that kind of acceleration.
How about a new paradigm? Like left clicking on the upper-right cornermost X closes the app, and right clicking it closes the current document/tab/child window/etc. It's consistent, saves space, and convenient.
What you say is true. I also don't know exactly how they decide when to engage the torque converter clutch, but it is possible that they can, which would allow some benefit for regenerative braking. If you want to get technical though, that's not the torque converter transmitting power but rather the clutch, so it is possible (actually likely) that I asked the wrong question and thus got the wrong answer. Thanks for pointing that out.
The maximum we looked at was 15 horsepower (approx 12kW). We were also going to use a 42V system. This worked out to just under 300 amps max. This isn't even much of a concern because you'd only use this much current if you try to add a lot of torque at when the car is redlining. Most people tend not to redline their car. The typical driver might never use more than 150 to 200 amps (but we'd design it to handle 300, at least for a short duration).
The benefit comes in at lower speeds, when even smaller amounts of power (like 15hp) at low speeds translate into high torque. Keep in mind that when you buy a car with a 300hp engine, that power rating happens at a particular speed and torque, and says nothing about low end torque capabilities.
With an electric motor, torque is maximum at low speeds. With an engine, torque is maximum at high speeds. THAT is why the two devices complement each other so well, and the motor does not need a very large power rating to do it's job well.
Also, the currents mentioned are reasonable...a starter can draw up to about twice that much, and we'd use bigger wires than that to cut down the resistance. I admit, I would personally liked to have used a much higher voltage and drop the current WAY down (much like the commercial hybrids on the market), but because this was an aftermarket product, and we didn't want people killed during installation, we had to limit the voltage for safety reasons.
Heh, there's a bunch of things about the McMaster Motor that are just plain wrong...for example, the total volume per chamber never changes. If you see a 2D animation, it might look like it, but that thing in the middle is basically a tilted plate that spins, so there is no volume displacement into or out of the chamber whatsoever.
Also, their fuel source (hyrdogen and oxygen) is a problem...you'll note they say they'll use solar power to produce the oxygen and hydrogen and then use that to power the engine...unfortunately, unless you violate a few laws of thermodynamics, you'd be better off using the electrical energy directly, as every step (solar -> electricity -> hydrogen) introduces inefficiencies. Basically, if solar power is used as the input, that is the limiting factor for the maximum average power. And my experience on the solar car team says that right now, for something the size of a car, you don't get nearly enough power compared to the controlled combustion of hydrocarbons...
Compare all that to the starrotor and there's a world of difference. Basically, the starrotor is a small jet engine with a funky-looking compressor and expander (common components on jet engines). Air is brought in and compressed, fuel is added, combustion occurs (pressure goes up), and so more pressure is put on the expander than was put on the compressor, and you have real work being done. The only reason tight tolerances are needed is because (for engine life reasons) they are designing the starrotor such that the inner rotor does not physically contact the outer rotor.
Hey guys, just so you know, if you want the heads up on all this, look at the replies I've posted...I was actually involved with the project, so they'll probably be your best source of information about it. In one of the replies, I even lay out the whole story (the reply to the topic "No connection")...
Wow, thanks for pointing that out...I have no idea what they're talking about. We had talked to BMW for awhile, but not specifically about the Electrocharger...and I don't know who the programmer is that they're referring to. I also never heard anything about a Mitsubishi EVO, or who are the "guys working diligently"... Of course, I could simply be out of the loop--not likely since I did the research on the battery/ultracapacitor pack and they haven't talked to me for awhile.
Those updates at the bottom are quite interesting to read, and I honestly can't confirm or deny them (since I've been back at Texas A&M since Fall 2004), but I can say that it's news to me.
Yeah, I think those initial calculations were based on a Hummer, then assumed constant for all vehicles---not a good assumption to make. Like you'll find throughout my posts in this topic, while I worked there I didn't like how much of the information was presented, nor how inaccurate much of it seemed to be. I think the product (if it were ever finished) would have sold itself just as well (probably better) without all the hype.
I completely agree. If you want to see a better engine overall, check out www.starrotor.com
I know the professor leading the work on this (he's on my committee for my masters research), and it's based in pretty solid reality. Plus, because the Star Rotor engine is based on the Brayton cycle, it's got a fairly flat torque profile...that makes it an especially good candidate for hybridization with electric motors.
FYI they can already do compressors, and the only thing keeping them from doing the engines right now is dealing with the heat in the expander. The expander is supposed to only allow the air to expand, but because the air is so hot, the expander itself increases in size, and the requirement of tight tolerances causes a few problems....not a showstopper, mind you, but just something to slow them down.
Actually, we were working with Gates Corporation (www.gates.com) and they seemed fairly confident that they could handle the belt issues.
Or course, I'm an electrical guy and my work there focused mostly on the battery/ultracapacitor pack, so I'm not familiar with how they would handle it...
What we proposed was a passive combination of battery and ultracapacitor. Basically connecting them in series, with the idea that the ultracap will provide the power, the battery will provide the energy. Because the two components will be tied at the hip (i.e. voltage), it's more complicated than that, but theoretically, it's possible that there are benefits in doing so when you take into account internal resistances creating a hysteresis effect--that is, that the voltage drops simply because you draw power, then rises back up when you stop drawing power.
Yeah, I didn't like the terminology much either while I worked there, and had hoped it might change to be more accurate/less misleading, but alas...
P.S. I wouldn't expect much better miles per gallon unless your city vs. highway miles per gallon were significantly different.
Parent poster is right on both counts...we actually checked with Ford or GM (I don't remember which), and for the torques we specified, they said we were well under the mechanical limits. Apparently they count on people abusing^H^H^H^Hsouping up their cars.
Yes, it makes sense. With a mechanically commutated motor (i.e. a DC motor that uses physical brushes and commutators.), you can just provide a DC voltage and it will happily run the motor. However, you can also have electrically commutated motors (Brushless DC, SRM, etc.) that run off a DC voltage but use a set of switches (MOSFETs) that need a motor controller to turn on and off the voltages seen by the coils of the motor. Thus, even though the battery is providing a constant DC voltage (as opposed to the 60Hz AC voltage your electrical outlet provides), the motor is reciving varying voltages from the motor controller.
You can even do cooler stuff like using pulse-width modulation (turning on and off switches really fast) to make a DC source look like an AC source, with the benefit that you can control the frequency (which you can't do with your wall outlet). This would be useful for controlling the speed of an AC induction motor, although it can also be used (and has been used) to control brushless DC (BLDC) and switched reluctance motors (SRM).
Two things, it would be relatively useless in terms of mpg because you still have the same base engine, so you can't really do better than your highway mpg. That's why it was marketed as a performance product--electric motors deliver excellent low-end torque. Second, the storage was not just ultracapacitor, but a passive combination of ultracapacitor and battery...that part was pretty innovative in that it's a hybrid battery pack for a hybrid car.
Not really...FAS uses an electric between the engine and transmission. The Electrocharger was going to simply replace the alternator with a more sophisticated motor--much simpler and more accessible in terms of converting older vehicles.
You are correct...this was a question I had while working there. I even contacted a company that makes torque converters to see if they even CAN transmit power from the wheels to the engine, and they said no (which isn't very surprising when you see how they work). So, no braking regen for automatic transmissions. However, if you want regen in a manual transmission, you just need to make sure you don't step on the clutch until you absolutely have to--stepping on the clutch right when you start braking will make any regen impossible. See my other post in this topic for more general information.
I admit, it was especially frustrating seeing the outrageous claims from the inside but not having the power/authority to correct them. Although if I did have the power to do such things, the first thing I would do is have the web pages make more sense in terms of both layout/organization. Then I'd delete the excessive, unfounded claims.
Slashdot Mirror
I knew the Chinese were mandating birth control for a reason...if they produce fewer feet than we do, then our feet are worth less and less and we need more of them just to do the same tasks we had done a few years ago.
I think NASA should take this into consideration the next time they launch something...
Laser beams were so last decade. Now they use toxic darts and roam the New Orleans area...
So do you recommend applying over the website or sending a resume to you so you can get credit for the referral?
Unfortunately, my background does not match up with the position open in your team, but maybe there's another position in the company where I might be of use. As I'm graduating in December, I like to hear about good companies--most of the ones that come to career fairs and such are so large and impersonal that I don't enjoy the prospect of working for them...you can almost tell which ones to look out for simply by how they handle the recruiting process. If I feel like I'm already "just a number" when I'm talking to the recruiter, I have almost no reason to suspect that their internal business practices will be any better.
Most all the rules are there to ensure safety and/or fairness. If there are any rules that are a problem, it would be the fairness ones, but in the context of a race, they are required. If you are designing your own solar vehicle, you would neither need nor want ballast bags to bring up the driver weight to minimum value. Also, awhile back, a team did quite well with an aerodynamic solar car that basically didn't have any solar cells except in the trunk. When they wanted to charge, they stopped, unfolded the array, and got a quick charge. This seemed to work well for them, and if I recall correctly, it was a bout of bad weather that ended up costing them the race. However, the idea was quite novel and fell within the rules of the race. But the next racing season, the rules had been adapted so that the array cannot be reconfigured during the race. In the name of fairness, that innovation fell by the wayside. However, rules aside, there are more dynamics involved in why teams design the way that they do. Students are oftentimes busy people, trying to both do their schoolwork and build a solar car within a limited timeframe, and particularly with limited funds. If something worked on a previous car, and the winners of the last race had something similar, then it's usually not something that will change. The lack of funding can often lead to inferior design, simply because not every team can afford to have the best batteries, the best solar cells, the lightest materials, etc. The (self-inflicted) pressure to win often pushes ideas that are different, or ideas "that have been tried before" without success, even if the previous idea may have simply been a poor implementation. There is not much time or money to experiment with all the different ideas that someone may want to try. So, for the most part, everyone takes good ideas from the winners and implements it for themselves. Occasionally, big changes occur, but by and large, the sport has matured beyond the awkward stage where all the cars are trying a different shape, etc. For example, in most all the American Solar Challenge cars, you'll find a New Generation Motor (NGM), simply because it works, it's one of the few motors designed for solar car racing, and it solves a lot of problems for the teams building a car from scratch.
"Its not that hard to make a solar-powered car where student labor is free"
Really? I was team manager for a solar car team a few years ago, and student labor may not cost many dollars, but it most certainly isn't free. These cars take a lot of time and dedication to build, and motivating someone to do unpaid engineering is an exceptionally difficult challenge. You can't threaten to cut their pay (not that a good manager would need to resort to that), and they have competing demands, like doing well on exams and homework so as to get good grades so they can get a good, well-paying job when they graduate. Engineering aside, the copious paperwork, fundraising, and dealing with the university system aren't all that enjoyable either--unless you get a business student to do it, but that's hard, because their first thought is "that's an engineering project", and many business students try to partake in a very active social life.
So yes, it is hard, and free student labor is difficult to harvet (unless you happen to be a professor with grad students working under you).
Not to be too particular, but since I'm currently going throught the LLC application process, it might be useful to point out that it's not "articles of incorporation" but "articles of organization". "Articles of incorporation" is reserved for a corporation.
The difference between a corporation (Inc.) and limited liability company (LLC) is subtle but important. A corporation is a perpetual entity, so if a founding member dies, no problem. But if a founding member of an LLC dies, that pretty much ends the LLC. Taxes are a lot easier to handle, along with determining profit. Also, you don't have to have annual meetings where the minutes recorded, etc. However, with either one you get the benefit that your personal assets are not at risk. If the company fails miserably and owes a million dollars in debt, you still get to keep your personal car, your house, your money, etc. Thus the term "limited liability".
I suppose I'll agree to disagree on the definiton as well then...
As to the worries in stop and go traffic, since we're not operating anywhere near peak power (because peak power happens when we're about to redline), we won't be operating anywhere near peak current...it will cycle from 0 to about 125amps, then go to -125 when you regen and head back to (about) 0 when you're stopped, and using very rough math, that puts it at about 60-70 amps on the average (I'd normally calculate the root-mean-square current, but I don't care enough to do that at the moment, especially since I don't know what the current profile looks like). It won't take too much wiring to do that safely
Yeah, especially those faculty that teach courses on web development and server administ...ummm..err...
*CLAP* *CLAP* *CLAP* *CLAP*
Thanks for the lucid explanation. As I read through the posts, I wondered if I'd have to try to clear things up, but you handled it splendidly. If I hadn't already posted all over this topic, and if I had mod points, I'd give them all to you. Excellent work.
I agree about the "expected performance"...if you read my other posts in this topic, you'll see that I don't even think it's a serious claim.
However, it is fitting to consider it a performance upgrade because of the increase in low-end torque. If you only stop at the level of "power is power" and refuse to consider that power = torque * speed, and that for electric motors, torque is maximized at low speeds, then I'll be unable to convince you that there is a real performance boost at low speeds.
Just for comparison, the Prius only has a 30kW motor (twice the power of what we planned). Yet they use this motor for accelerating the car up to about 20mph or so, then turn on the engine. If 30kW (by itself) can perform normal acceleration, and we're proposing to add half of that to your vehicle (which can accelerate just fine by itself), then yes, I'd call that a good performance boost.
That's also why it's safe to make comparisons to a starter. This device (should it ever exist) was not meant to assist at high speeds. Certainly it can, but because it's we're talking about high speed, there is MUCH less torque it can provide. If someone really wants that little torque at high speeds (near engine redline) then fine, they can, but they'll be putting just as much stress on the wires as they put on their engine. Also, notice that typically, drivers will use about 150 amps. If we consider that this is 1/4 of the 600 amps PbA batteries can provide for starting, then if we calculate the resistance losses in the wire (which is directly proportional to the heat they produce), we find that Power = (Current^2)*(Resistance), so typically, the power lost through wiring is about (1/4)^2=1/16 compared to that for the starter wiring.
Yeah, I wish(ed) it were higher voltage too, but regardless, even at 42V it can work reasonably well. But the power rating is spot-on. And the claims...yeah, I don't agree with them either. Even if (somehow) they turn out to be true, you'd still have to have racing slicks to take advantage of that kind of acceleration.
How about a new paradigm? Like left clicking on the upper-right cornermost X closes the app, and right clicking it closes the current document/tab/child window/etc. It's consistent, saves space, and convenient.
What you say is true. I also don't know exactly how they decide when to engage the torque converter clutch, but it is possible that they can, which would allow some benefit for regenerative braking. If you want to get technical though, that's not the torque converter transmitting power but rather the clutch, so it is possible (actually likely) that I asked the wrong question and thus got the wrong answer. Thanks for pointing that out.
First, double check the math. 1000W/12V = 83.3A
The maximum we looked at was 15 horsepower (approx 12kW). We were also going to use a 42V system. This worked out to just under 300 amps max. This isn't even much of a concern because you'd only use this much current if you try to add a lot of torque at when the car is redlining. Most people tend not to redline their car. The typical driver might never use more than 150 to 200 amps (but we'd design it to handle 300, at least for a short duration).
The benefit comes in at lower speeds, when even smaller amounts of power (like 15hp) at low speeds translate into high torque. Keep in mind that when you buy a car with a 300hp engine, that power rating happens at a particular speed and torque, and says nothing about low end torque capabilities.
With an electric motor, torque is maximum at low speeds. With an engine, torque is maximum at high speeds. THAT is why the two devices complement each other so well, and the motor does not need a very large power rating to do it's job well.
Also, the currents mentioned are reasonable...a starter can draw up to about twice that much, and we'd use bigger wires than that to cut down the resistance. I admit, I would personally liked to have used a much higher voltage and drop the current WAY down (much like the commercial hybrids on the market), but because this was an aftermarket product, and we didn't want people killed during installation, we had to limit the voltage for safety reasons.
Heh, there's a bunch of things about the McMaster Motor that are just plain wrong...for example, the total volume per chamber never changes. If you see a 2D animation, it might look like it, but that thing in the middle is basically a tilted plate that spins, so there is no volume displacement into or out of the chamber whatsoever.
Also, their fuel source (hyrdogen and oxygen) is a problem...you'll note they say they'll use solar power to produce the oxygen and hydrogen and then use that to power the engine...unfortunately, unless you violate a few laws of thermodynamics, you'd be better off using the electrical energy directly, as every step (solar -> electricity -> hydrogen) introduces inefficiencies. Basically, if solar power is used as the input, that is the limiting factor for the maximum average power. And my experience on the solar car team says that right now, for something the size of a car, you don't get nearly enough power compared to the controlled combustion of hydrocarbons...
Compare all that to the starrotor and there's a world of difference. Basically, the starrotor is a small jet engine with a funky-looking compressor and expander (common components on jet engines). Air is brought in and compressed, fuel is added, combustion occurs (pressure goes up), and so more pressure is put on the expander than was put on the compressor, and you have real work being done. The only reason tight tolerances are needed is because (for engine life reasons) they are designing the starrotor such that the inner rotor does not physically contact the outer rotor.
Hey guys, just so you know, if you want the heads up on all this, look at the replies I've posted...I was actually involved with the project, so they'll probably be your best source of information about it. In one of the replies, I even lay out the whole story (the reply to the topic "No connection")...
Wow, thanks for pointing that out...I have no idea what they're talking about. We had talked to BMW for awhile, but not specifically about the Electrocharger...and I don't know who the programmer is that they're referring to. I also never heard anything about a Mitsubishi EVO, or who are the "guys working diligently"... Of course, I could simply be out of the loop--not likely since I did the research on the battery/ultracapacitor pack and they haven't talked to me for awhile.
Those updates at the bottom are quite interesting to read, and I honestly can't confirm or deny them (since I've been back at Texas A&M since Fall 2004), but I can say that it's news to me.
-David
Yeah, I think those initial calculations were based on a Hummer, then assumed constant for all vehicles---not a good assumption to make. Like you'll find throughout my posts in this topic, while I worked there I didn't like how much of the information was presented, nor how inaccurate much of it seemed to be. I think the product (if it were ever finished) would have sold itself just as well (probably better) without all the hype.
I completely agree. If you want to see a better engine overall, check out www.starrotor.com
I know the professor leading the work on this (he's on my committee for my masters research), and it's based in pretty solid reality. Plus, because the Star Rotor engine is based on the Brayton cycle, it's got a fairly flat torque profile...that makes it an especially good candidate for hybridization with electric motors.
FYI they can already do compressors, and the only thing keeping them from doing the engines right now is dealing with the heat in the expander. The expander is supposed to only allow the air to expand, but because the air is so hot, the expander itself increases in size, and the requirement of tight tolerances causes a few problems....not a showstopper, mind you, but just something to slow them down.
Actually, we were working with Gates Corporation (www.gates.com) and they seemed fairly confident that they could handle the belt issues.
Or course, I'm an electrical guy and my work there focused mostly on the battery/ultracapacitor pack, so I'm not familiar with how they would handle it...
-Daivd
What we proposed was a passive combination of battery and ultracapacitor. Basically connecting them in series, with the idea that the ultracap will provide the power, the battery will provide the energy. Because the two components will be tied at the hip (i.e. voltage), it's more complicated than that, but theoretically, it's possible that there are benefits in doing so when you take into account internal resistances creating a hysteresis effect--that is, that the voltage drops simply because you draw power, then rises back up when you stop drawing power.
Yeah, I didn't like the terminology much either while I worked there, and had hoped it might change to be more accurate/less misleading, but alas...
P.S. I wouldn't expect much better miles per gallon unless your city vs. highway miles per gallon were significantly different.
Parent poster is right on both counts...we actually checked with Ford or GM (I don't remember which), and for the torques we specified, they said we were well under the mechanical limits. Apparently they count on people abusing^H^H^H^Hsouping up their cars.
-Dave
Yes, it makes sense. With a mechanically commutated motor (i.e. a DC motor that uses physical brushes and commutators.), you can just provide a DC voltage and it will happily run the motor. However, you can also have electrically commutated motors (Brushless DC, SRM, etc.) that run off a DC voltage but use a set of switches (MOSFETs) that need a motor controller to turn on and off the voltages seen by the coils of the motor. Thus, even though the battery is providing a constant DC voltage (as opposed to the 60Hz AC voltage your electrical outlet provides), the motor is reciving varying voltages from the motor controller.
You can even do cooler stuff like using pulse-width modulation (turning on and off switches really fast) to make a DC source look like an AC source, with the benefit that you can control the frequency (which you can't do with your wall outlet). This would be useful for controlling the speed of an AC induction motor, although it can also be used (and has been used) to control brushless DC (BLDC) and switched reluctance motors (SRM).
Two things, it would be relatively useless in terms of mpg because you still have the same base engine, so you can't really do better than your highway mpg. That's why it was marketed as a performance product--electric motors deliver excellent low-end torque. Second, the storage was not just ultracapacitor, but a passive combination of ultracapacitor and battery...that part was pretty innovative in that it's a hybrid battery pack for a hybrid car.
Not really...FAS uses an electric between the engine and transmission. The Electrocharger was going to simply replace the alternator with a more sophisticated motor--much simpler and more accessible in terms of converting older vehicles.
You are correct...this was a question I had while working there. I even contacted a company that makes torque converters to see if they even CAN transmit power from the wheels to the engine, and they said no (which isn't very surprising when you see how they work). So, no braking regen for automatic transmissions. However, if you want regen in a manual transmission, you just need to make sure you don't step on the clutch until you absolutely have to--stepping on the clutch right when you start braking will make any regen impossible. See my other post in this topic for more general information.
I admit, it was especially frustrating seeing the outrageous claims from the inside but not having the power/authority to correct them. Although if I did have the power to do such things, the first thing I would do is have the web pages make more sense in terms of both layout/organization. Then I'd delete the excessive, unfounded claims.