TerraLiner:12 m Globally Mobile Beach House/Class-A Crossover w 6x6 Hybrid Drivetrain

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

**************************************


C. The CMT-380 Sports Car fitted with a Capstone Turbine


Already back in 2009 Capstone unveiled the CMT-380 Supercar, which features an ultra-low-emissions Capstone C30 turbine (30 KW, or 40 HP), can reach 60 mph in 3.9 seconds, has a top speed of 150 mph, and can travel more than 500 miles (800 km) on a single tank of gas.

See http://www.capstoneturbine.com/_docs/CMT380 Microturbine Supercar.pdf , http://www.capstoneturbine.com/search/index.asp?q=CMT-380&s=Search , http://www.capstoneturbine.com/news/story.asp?id=536 , http://www.capstoneturbine.com/news/tradeshowsdetail.asp?id=50 , http://www.capstoneturbine.com/news/mediaeventsdetail.asp?id=29 , http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...-key-to-the-engine-of-the-future-1831956.html , http://www.examiner.com/article/turbines-for-hybrid-supercars-capstone-turbine-knows-a-thing-or-two , http://www.examiner.com/slideshow/capstone-turbine-cmt-380-hybrid-supercar#slide=3 , http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/01/cmt_380_microturbine/ , http://www.greencarcongress.com/200...tended-electric-supercar-at-la-auto-show.html , http://inhabitat.com/capstone-unveils-hybrid-supercar-propelled-by-a-jet-turbine/ , http://sportcar5.blogspot.it/2010/01/capstone-supercar-cmt-380-high.html , http://www.gizmag.com/capstone-cmt-380-an-electric-hybrid-featuring-wind-turbines/13517/ , http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1039249_cmt-380-hybrid-concept-comes-complete-with-jet-turbine , https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=187538462863 , http://www.fastcompany.com/1474521/eas-need-speed-creator-designs-cmt-380-actual-hybrid-supercar , http://green.autoblog.com/2010/03/05/update-on-the-cmt-380-microturbine-hybrid-sports-car/ , http://designcarperformance.blogspot.it/2010/01/capstone-supercar-cmt-380-high.html , http://inhabitat.com/capstone-unveils-hybrid-supercar-propelled-by-a-jet-turbine/ , http://dailynewsdig.com/capstone-cmt-380-electric-concept-car/ , http://venturebeat.com/2009/12/01/cmt-380-supercar-watches-porsche-in-the-rear-view/ , http://www.diseno-art.com/encyclopedia/vehicles/road/cars/capstone_cmt-380.html , http://greensupercar.com/2011/01/ne...ept-capstone-turbine-cmt-380-hybrid-supercar/ , and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7125056 :









The gentleman with the long hair in the first few photographs is Electronic Arts Chief Creative Director Richard Hilleman, the proud owner, who developed the CMT-380 in partnership with Capstone. See http://www.interactive.org/about/rich_hilleman.asp , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hilleman , http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,8/ , and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiboVZsXYXY . The following is a short interview with Hilleman, in which he explains the CMT-380. He comes across as a very smart and very humble "über-geek", whose description initially passes way over the head of the interviewer:





**************************************

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

**************************************








**************************************

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

**************************************









**************************************

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

**************************************


Like Jay Leno's EcoJet, discussed in a post further below, the Capstone CMT-380 supercar is fuel-flexible, and can run on either diesel or biodiesel. Here is an excerpt from the Winter 2010 edition of Capstone's "Turbine Talk" newsletter, which explains how -- see http://www.capstoneturbine.com/search/index.asp?q=winter+2010+Turbine+talk and www.capstoneturbine.com/news/turbineTalkDL.asp?id=4 :





It's also worth noting that the Capstone microturbine components are mounted on a single shaft supported by air bearings, so oil lubricant isn't necessary. Here is a good video description:


[video=youtube;RqaPtzIXxzU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqaPtzIXxzU [/video]


The microturbine does not need cooling liquid either, and it's very maintenance-free. This seems to be a common property of turbines: they are more maintenance-free than internal combustion engines.

Furthermore, the microturbine's patented combustion system is so clean, that it does not require exhaust after-treatment to meet the stringent clean air requirements of the California Air Resources Board, or EPA 2010. For a more technical description of how the Capstone C30 microturbine achieves such low emissions, see http://www.seeei.org/EL2013/Article/015-ART-EN.pdf . The following is a quote from the same:

Capstone microturbines use a lean premix combustion system to achieve low emissions levels at a full power range. Lean premix operation requires operating at high air-fuel ratio within the primary combustion zone. The large amount of air is thoroughly mixed with fuel before combustion. This premixing of air and fuel enables clean combustion to occur at a relatively low temperature. Injectors control the air-fuel ratio and the airfuel mixture in the primary zone to ensure that the optimal temperature is achieved for the NOX minimization. The higher air-fuel ratio results in a lower flame temperature, which leads to lower NOX levels. In order to achieve low levels of CO and Hydrocarbons simultaneously with low NOX levels, the air-fuel mixture is retained in the combustion chamber for a relatively long period. This process allows for a more complete combustion of CO and Hydrocarbons.

In addition, the exhaust of microturbines can be used in direct heating or as an air pre-heater for downstream burners, once it has a high concentration of oxygen. Clean burning combustion is the key to both low emissions and highly durable recuperator designs.

The CMT-380 has lithium-polymer battery cells that can be charged at home or at a public recharging station, and it can travel 80 miles on battery power alone. When the batteries reach a certain level of discharge, the Capstone microturbine automatically fires up, and recharges the batteries on the fly to extend the driving range to the full 500 miles. The microturbine can recharge the batteries in about an hour if they are completely dead. And apparently the microturbine is reasonably quiet: nothing at all like Jay Leno's EcoJet. But even still, perhaps not quite as silent when the vehicle is stationary, as a comparable stationary ICE would be, when just idling? This is unclear; more below.

Again, the CMT-380 was developed in partnership with Electronic Arts Chief Creative Director Richard Hilleman, and the “Whisper” powertrain is by Langford Performance Engineering – see http://www.lpengines.com , http://www.lpengines.com/about_us.php , and http://www.lpengines.com/news_detail.php?id=10 . CMT-380 is not mass-produced, but apparently a limited production is being sold to individuals with money and interest, in “kit car” format.

The downside? Well, cost is still a major hurdle, even though Capstone has carved out a successful niche providing microturbines for power generation:

Capstone has shipped over 5,000 microturbines worldwide which are able to produce energy ranging from 30 kilowatts up to 5 megawatts and are supplying power at sites around the world, including office buildings, hospitals, hotels, universities, oil and gas applications, landfills, waste water treatment plants, farm digesters, industrial manufacturing operations and others.



Capstone microturbines can run on a variety of fuels, including natural gas, waste methane from landfills, biodiesel, diesel, kerosene and propane.

…..

The 220-people company got a $48 million revenue last year, so their business model is profitable enough to sustain them…..

Capstone says their turbine now costs $30,000, but if put in mass production the price could get lower than $3,000. “Compared to a small gas engine, it'll cost more and be noisier for an automotive application,” said Jake Fisher, senior engineer for Consumer Reports' auto test track, who looked at the CMT-380 at the L.A. Convention Center. “Engines are cheap. They're out there. They're proven. And they're efficient. It'll be hard to compete with them in the near term.”

See http://www.capstoneturbine.com/news/story.asp?id=536 and http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2009/12/04/cmt-380-hybrid-car-capstone-microturbine/#.U-yfd3mSf6k .

Here are some videos of the CMT-380:


[video=youtube;EmoD87THXzQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmoD87THXzQ [/video] [video=youtube;MbZ9LioGQeA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbZ9LioGQeA [/video]
[video=youtube;EGW_hgbQ03M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGW_hgbQ03M [/video] [video=youtube;Wyo7v39fY_0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wyo7v39fY_0 [/video]


The first two videos are perhaps the most valuable, because one of them shows the CMT-380 in motion, and both videos suggest the decibel level of the Capstone C30 turbine when the car is stationary. Definitely not as loud as Jay Leno's EcoJet, described below, but not exactly whisper-silent either. I really do wonder how the CMT-380 compares in terms of decibels to most ICE cars idling?

But of course it's not just decibels that matter, but also frequency. The Capstone C30 microturbine spins at an optimal speed of 90,000 RPM, and it "idles" at just 3/4 of that, so it generates a very high-frequency sound that is substantially different from the low-frequency rumble of a diesel engine idling.

The following are some more videos of the C30 microturbine on its own, but perhaps these are less instructive, because in an automotive application the microturbine would be surrounded by considerable sound-baffling:


[video=youtube;xwqvGWTIKbA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwqvGWTIKbA [/video] [video=youtube;_-hTEb-nsJw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-hTEb-nsJw [/video]


And here is the Capstone C30 subject to what appears to be the rigors of an earthquake-simulating shake table:


[video=youtube;JNQfDjoXRRI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNQfDjoXRRI [/video]



**************************************

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

**************************************


I provided all of the above information about Capstone turbines as fitted in various vehicles because this is not common knowledge. When dwh and I exchanged private messages, it was simply assumed that we both knew all of the above.


3. dwh's Second Private Message

With a Tatra chassis, which does not flex, you have the entire space between the frame rails and above the transaxle available. I would think that would be a very nice place for a gigantic battery bank - and the majority of the weight would be *below* the frame rails (ballast). Also, very well protected by the transaxle. The space outside the frame rails, between the front and rear axles would seem to be a good place to locate the turbine(s). Easily accessible for service. But soundproof it and duct the intake/exhaust to the roof to blow both heat and sound out and up away from the neighbors, who love to ********** about generator (and air conditioner and watermaker) noise.

Alternately, perhaps only have the battery bank in the rear, and locate the generating plant between the frame rails under the cab. The Tatra cab tilts, but you would lose that advantage with an integrated design.

Another plus of the Tatra design, is that the transaxle has a single power input point, which would make it easy to construct a combined inline unit consisting of motor/torque converter/gear box (say 1.5:1 OD, 1:1 and 2:1 (low range))/regenerative braking system (use the clutch pedal to control the field of a massive alternator and there's your regen system - while still retaining the air brake system). You could probably engineer that combined unit to just drop in between the frame rails. In which case, you could probably (or at least, mostly) eliminate the doghouse in the cab, for a flat floor.

In any case, you have to make your embedded steps fit *outside* the frame rails.

You could make the center section of floor able to be lifted out, and have access from above. Design a side hatch, so that the seats could be removed (creating a workshop space), the center section of the floor lifted out, and then open the hatch, run in the cherry picker (engine hoist) and lift out the entire generator plant or powertrain unit. You might be able to do it through the door, but I think it would be tight.

OR, put everything on a slide out the front, similar to the way they do generators on some of the larger motorhomes:

http://www.rvst.org/candidate/Images/Gen7.png

Open the floor up, disconnect a few bits here and there, and then just slide the whole works out. You could probably rig it so the battery bank slides out the rear as well.

Or use Tesla batteries.

http://www.teslamotors.com/batteryswap


Cheers

And here is the image:





Now for my reply.....
.

 

[biotect]

.
dwh,

Some really interesting ideas about placement of the Capstone microturbine!

But first, backing up a bit, addressing hybrid technology more generally......


***************************************


1. Hybrid Expedition Vehicles: Other Threads, Other Web-Forums?


***************************************


There does not appear to be much discussion yet on ExPo about hybrid technologies for use in Expedition Vehicles. A google search of "Expedition Portal + Hybrid" turns up (a) articles about the new Land Rover diesel-electric hybrid -- see http://expeditionportal.com/land-rover-launches-new-range-rover-hybrid/ , http://expeditionportal.com/silk-road-expedition-2013-nears-the-finish/ , http://expeditionportal.com/land-roves-banner-year-of-expedition/ , http://expeditionportal.com/tag/hybrid/ , and (b) a short thread about the Subaru XV Cross Trek Hybrid -- see http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/118205-Subaru-XV-Cross-Trek-Hybrid .

Would you -- or anyone else reading this -- know of other places on the web where hybrid technologies have been discussed at length, with specific reference to their use (or potential use) in expedition and/or military vehicles?


***************************************


2. This Thread on Hybrid Technologies in Expedition Vehicles


***************************************


Here are the posts that appeared so far in this thread about hybrid technology, prior to your broaching the topic of microturbines. To advance discussion further seemed useful to collect them in one place, easily accessible:

As I also wrote, for such a concept vehicle I would look into a advanced propulsion system. One electrical motor at every axle and 2-3 smaller diesel generators placed somewhere else, would do the trick.

All these problems around engine placement and weight distribution bring me back to the idea of using a totally different propulsion system.

Shouldn't an advanced vehicle concept not only look at the interior and exterior design, but also at the propulsion system?

The trend goes towards hybrid and electric vehicles, not only because this is more fuel efficient and has lower emissions. It has also large advantages regarding power and torque, which is very important off-road. With an hybrid driveline it is possible to distribute all the components of engine/transmission all over the vehicle and most smaller components can be placed without much additional space.

Glad you brought up hybrid and electric, egn.

In previous posts you've been dead-set against electrics for the chassis and engine. Your central concern has been ease of repair/maintenance in remote corners of the globe, where suitable mechanics or diagnostic equipment will not be available. So why would you propose hybrid or electric for such a vehicle? Even militaries that are well-funded and have internal, "in house" mechanics, are now deliberately buying mechanically and electrically simplified vehicles so that they don't have headaches in the field. I remember reading somewhere that military-spec G-wagens don't have electric windows, for exactly this reason. So why would you propose that an expedition vehicle like this should have an electric engine (or engines, plural...)?

I've been involved with electric vehicles for over 20 years and I do think that the time is approaching soon for hybrid-electric expedition vehicles. The concern about the electronics in many of today's "modern" cars and trucks is due to single points of failure causing one to be stranded. With hybrid-electric designs its possible to build in redundancy into the system to allow effective "limp" modes in case of problems.

That said - I prefer vehicles without elaborate electronic systems myself - even though I am an electrical engineer - so go figure out that!

Since many of these large RV type expedition vehicles will also have the need for a fairly good sized generator - making the truck all electric (i.e. the generator powering the water heater, space heating, AC, cooking etc)when parked and also being a source of power for driving as well. This idea will make sense compared to having many multiple separate systems such as diesel cooktop, diesel hydronic heater, etc.)... Although This would probably require dual generators and a fairly large Li-Ion battery pack to allow driving at full speed for any distance.

I have seen a hydrid electric HUMVEE which had four separate electric motors (one per wheel) and a large diesel generator instead of an engine - it could do a lot of very interesting things - like tank steering where the wheels on each side turn opposite directions - and be able to run a full remote outpost at night off the generator - but the cost is still a bit to much for even the military.

There are also hybrid electric transit busses working this way - and, of course, the diesel electric locomotives have been doing it for a long time already.

Haf-E and egn:

I've studied electric propulsion and hybrid systems some, but get the feeling that to participate effectively in such a discussion, will need to read up more. In particular, about such systems applied to military and/or unusual, “extreme environment” applications. So a short-list of 10 - 20 links, articles, and book titles would be great, if you two would be willing.

A committed “auto-dictat”, I eat books for breakfast (so to speak). I also enjoy the search-process for new information. But speed here is of the essence, because I will need to produce a draft-proposal in a few months, with concept and sketches. So again, any advice/direction you two might provide (and any others reading this!), would be most appreciated. Up until now I had just assumed that the vehicle would have a diesel engine, preferably Euro 3, and probably military surplus. But if you guys can convince me that hybrid-electric is the way to go, then I would design for that.

Transportation design has become a series of niche specializations (aircraft, rail, naval, car, truck, military, civilian, etc. etc.), and so too, interior versus exterior. My strong suit (and greatest interest) has been interior design, but with that said, I probably now know more about the vehicular parameters of expedition motorhome design, in particular, than any of my instructors. So again, just some reading advice, so that if I do propose electric/hybrid propulsion for a "TerraLiner", I will sound like I know what I'm talking about…..:ylsmoke:

So why would you propose that an expedition vehicle like this should have an electric engine (or engines, plural...)?

The answer is pretty easy:

With a hybrid/electric propulsion you can build in redundancy easily. i.e. you can spend every axle an extra motor, have multiple smaller engine/generator units, multiple battery modules, ... So the availability of such a drive-train could be much higher than with only one large engine and transmission.

Implementation can be a serial hybrid, but may be also be other types of hybrids like direct propulsion of one or more axles mechanical and the other axles electrical. The engines/generator modules may be replaced by fuel-cell modules later to push fuel-efficiency further.

Full electric trucks have been already build like E-Force.

Siemens even build hybrid vehicles for the eHighway.

Of course, this all is currently to expensive for general commercial use, but private expedition truck owners may not look at how economic such a solution is, but more if it is something exclusive with special capabilities. The most expensive part will currently be the battery modules. But the price may come down considerably in the future.

The advantage of an integrated solutions also that it can be optimized aero-dynamically very well, without to many compromises on aesthetics. Our integrated Concorde camper had a fuel consumption of about 14 l/100km, the same sized bed over cab camper version used 16+ l/100km.

Full electric buses used for regular line service use less than 1 kWh/km. . At highway speed such a vehicle will use about 1-2 kWh/km.

1 kWh storage currently costs about 500 US$/400 €. So to have a range of 100 km electric, you need 100-200 kWh of battery storage with prices ranging from about 50.000 US$/40.000€ to 100.000 US$/80.000€. I think an hybrid-electric propulsion should be possible for material costs of about 200.000 - 300.000 US$. You can save much with a lower range, but then you have to look whether the battery can support the necessary discharge rate.

As was already written, such a concept is also ideal to have an all-electric household and use only one fuel type in the vehicle. Solar power all over the vehicle with a few kWp can fuel the household and in emergency the car itself at least for a few km a day.

So if I would win a lottery and have then the money to spend, I would certainly look into such a concept. :wings:

For an electric/hybrid you need 2 units of something like this.

You have to power the vehicle fully during travel. With highway speed you will need about 100-150 kW power on average. Off-road you will need much more, at least for peak power. A part can be supplied from the battery storage, but sometime you have to fill the storage again.

May be you can make an arrangement with Tesla regarding use of the super chargers. But of course, they will not be available in the middle of nowhere. :sombrero:

Many thanks for the lead on the 120 KW Jenoptik magnet flywheel generator, used by hybrid buses and trolleys -- see http://www.jenoptik.com/en_40173_adsf263 and http://www.jenoptik.com/en_30134_auxiliary_power_units , http://www.jenoptik.com/de_40173_adsf263 , and http://www.jenoptik.com/cms/products.nsf/0/0160C5F91F7D98AFC12579D1004BD728/$File/esw_euro5_apu_120kw_2012.pdf?Open . This is an excellent lead to help motivate further research into a hybrid solution.

But just a few skeptical questions.....:sombrero:

1. One doesn't necessarily save space in contrast to a more conventional diesel engine in this hybrid scenario, does one? That Jenoptik generator is pretty darn big: 1.4 m long x 60 cm wide x 85 cm high, and it weighs 350 kg. The logical place to put it would be in the rear of the vehicle, as per a “Pusher” diesel placement, yes? Or do you think it would be narrow enough to locate on the side, slung low beside the chassis frame? It would weigh a great deal there, of course, but perhaps could be balanced by tanks on the other side?

2. However, if it's best for it to locate this generator somewhere along the mid-line of the vehicle, then “Pusher” placement seems best. But if there is going to be a bit diesel engine in the back anyway, why not install a regular diesel that directly drives the wheels, and just equip that engine with dual high-output alternators? Now sure, if the diesel engine directly drives the wheels, then 6 separate electric motors will not. But given that one already needs such a large diesel engine anyway, why make the system even more complicated, by adding electric into the mix? Will fuel efficiency dramatically improve?

3. Now of course there will be solar panels across every square cm of free space on the roof, and a large lithium battery bank. But presumably much of that energy will be needed to run the various systems of the motorhome. So how much of that energy would be genuinely available to run the 6 electric motors?

4. One could imagine a scenario in which it has been cloudy for a few days, one runs the electric motors off the batteries and drains them down, arrives at one's destination, and there is very little power left for anything else. So one needs to use the 120 kw diesel generator after all to recharge the system. And one can imagine this happening quite often.

So I guess I am just wondering if the extra complexity would be worth it? Particularly in an off-road motorhome where, ideally, systems should be simple enough so that one can do all basic repair and maintenance oneself, as you do on the engine of your MAN KAT?

These are just skeptical questions, and maybe there is no good basis for them. But I thought I should ask….

Diesel electric:

You are right, the [Jepotnik] engine/generator unit is big and heavy. But a large conventional engine and transmission are much bigger an heavier. I.e. the engine of the MAN KAT is 1,4 m x 1,1 m x 1,0 m and has a weight of about a ton. The transmission has a similar length, but a little bit smaller and has a similar weight. One could probably place two of this engine/generator units in the space used currently by KAT engine/transmission with less than half the weight.

The advantage is, that you can place it nearly anywhere, without having to think about to get the power to the wheels. You just install high voltage cables to the motor controller(s) and from there to the motors.

You cannot provide the power to move a heavy vehicle with the power provided by alternators. And the point is, that you don't need as much power for the fuel engine with a hybrid vehicle, because part or all of the power can come from much more powerful electric motors, buffered by the battery. The fuel engine/generator must only provide the average power and not the peak power necessary going up a hill or through off-road terrain. The peak power comes from the electrical motors, which take stored energy in the battery.

Regarding hybrid/electric drive trains there are many different concepts. Which on is best suited for an off-road overlander, I really don't know. The above engine/generator unit can be used for a serial hybrid drive train. But another possibility I can think of is a parallel-hybrid, where the fuel engine directly drives one axle and the other axles are powered by electrical motor. This can save an extra generator because you can use the electrical motors for the other axles as generator, when part of the fuel engine power is not used. But then you cannot charge battery when the vehicle doesn't move. And you loose redundancy.

I wouldn't install an electrical motor for every wheel, but for every axle only, and leave the axles as they are. And you cannot power the vehicle from solar power, because you may only get 10 kWh per day, but need about 150 kWh to go 100 km. Solar power is mostly needed for living. The energy for movement must come from fuel engines, or may be in the future from a powerful fuel cells.

When I see what you want to install in such a vehicle, then you have to drop the requirement of self-repair. It is already much too complex, even for the best mechanic. No modern engine can be repaired in the conventional way, like it was done before electronics found its way into them. Alone for diagnostic of problems you need equipment that you cannot take with you, even if you would get it from the manufacturers. And repair then consists of replacing modules. So the only way to achieve high availability is redundancy for all important components. This means you have to avoid single points of failure, and a conventional drive train is a single point of failure. A electric/hybrid power train allows full redundancy.

If you insist on self-repair than you have to go back very far and you would not be allowed to register a new vehiclke with such an old engine.

*******************************

Oshkosh Diesel-Electric Hybrid


I am also very interested in Oshkosh automotive technology, for instance, the TAK 4 independent suspension system. But more about TAK 4 later.

We've discussed hybrid-offroad a few times in this thread, and just recently I came across Oshkosh's “Propulse” hybrid program, which seems to have been implemented primarily in its HEMMT A3 Heavy Tactical Vehicle. But “Propulse” was developed to apply to the MTVR Medium Tactical Vehicle range as well, and some more civilian vehicle types – see http://oshkoshdefense.com/components/propulse/ , http://oshkoshdefense.com/products/heavy-tactical-vehicles/ , http://oshkoshdefense.com/vehicles/hemtt-a3-diesel-electric/ , http://oshkoshdefense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/HEMTT_A3_SS_6-13-11.pdf , http://oshkoshdefense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/ProPulse_SS_6-13-11.pdf , http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007power/...snasrCopyofJointServicePowerOTC42407Final.pdf , http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009power/may6Nader.pdf , http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2011power/Session16_12834Mimnagh.pdf , and http://www.oshkoshcorporation.com/pdfs/Oshkosh_ProPulse_drive_brochure.pdf :




At the end of the second video below, the HEMMT A3 demonstrates that it can produce enough electricity to light up an airfield (!):




I then wonder whether Rheinmetall-MAN (RMMV) is working on anything even remotely equivalent?

Some of Oshkosh's “Propulse” research seems to have been funded by DARPA (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA and http://www.darpa.mil/default.aspx ), and Europe probably does not have an institution even remotely equivalent, with such deep pockets. One might then conjecture that perhaps RMMV is well behind Oshkosh in the development of hybrid vehicle propulsion systems, of the kind tough enough to handle off-road driving?

Of course this would be most surprising, because aside from Oshkosh, another major player – BAE systems – has been investing heavily in military-grade hybrid technology – see http://inhabitat.com/bae-systems-develops-hybrid-electric-drive-tank-for-the-u-s-army/ , http://www.gizmag.com/bae-gcv-hybrid-tank/25113/ , http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsbae-gcv-hybrid-electric-drive , http://www.armyrecognition.com/augu...uccessfully_completed_2000_miles_testing.html , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GCV_Infantry_Fighting_Vehicle , and http://www.baesystems.com/product/B...&_afrWindowMode=0&_adf.ctrl-state=rzhnsr5np_4 .

But who knows? So if anyone has further information about RMMV's investment (or lack thereof) in hybrid technology, for challenging, off-road military-vehicle applications in particular, please post.

Now if RMMV is not investing, then perhaps the ideal large expedition vehicle would be a Tatra 815 6x6 chassis with backbone tube, driven by an Oshkosh “Propulse” hybrid drive system…..

For more information about Oshkosh's "Propulse" hybrid diesel-electric propulsion system, see http://www.forbes.com/2006/01/30/oshkoshtrucks-fuelcells-trucks-cz_atg_0131osk.html , http://oshkoshdefense.com/components/propulse/ , http://www.oshkoshcorporation.com/about/tech_innovations~propulse.html , http://investor.oshkoshcorporation.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=93403&p=irol-newsArticle2&ID=392590&highlight= , http://investor.oshkoshcorporation.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=93403&p=irol-newsArticle2&ID=263493&highlight= , http://investor.oshkoshcorporation.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=93403&p=irol-newsArticle2&ID=931029&highlight= , http://www.oemoffhighway.com/article/10166467/hybrid-technology-the-technology-pulse , http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/12/oshkosh_propuls.html , http://green.autoblog.com/2006/12/27/oshkosk-using-copper-motor-rotor-technology-for-military/ , and http://www.showtimesdaily.com/news-articles/oshkosh-to-show-propulse-hybrid-mtvr . And for additional information about the HEMMT A3 Diesel-Electric Hybrid in particular, see http://www.4x4offroads.com/oshkosh-hemtt-a3.html , http://www.defencetalk.com/oshkosh-to-supply-new-heavy-tactical-vehicles-for-us-army-34893/ , http://www.dieselpowermag.com/features/1107dp_diesel_electric_hybrid_hemtt_oskosh_a3/ , http://www.dieselpowermag.com/features/1107dp_diesel_electric_hybrid_hemtt_oskosh_a3/photo_03.html , http://www.hybrid-vehicle.org/hybrid-truck-hemtt.html , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_Expanded_Mobility_Tactical_Truck , http://www.army-technology.com/projects/oshkosh-hemtt/ , http://seekingalpha.com/article/81600-oshkoshs-diesel-electric-hybrid-monster-truck , http://www.automotive-business-revi...splays_fuel_efficient_military_vehicle_091026 , http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/10/26/idUS97479+26-Oct-2009+BW20091026 , http://www.army-technology.com/news/news68124.html , http://investor.oshkoshcorporation....3403&p=irol-newsArticle2&ID=1346005&highlight= , and http://www.defencetalk.com/fuel-efficient-military-vehicle-on-display-at-hybrid-truck-forum-22758/ .

For Oshkosh hybrid technology in other applications, see http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/11/oshkosh_truck_u.html , http://trailer-bodybuilders.com/archive/oshkosh-unveils-fuel-saving-hybrid-drive-refuse-vehicle , http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2006/11/14/028594.html , and http://files.harc.edu/Sites/TERC/About/Events/ETAC200705/HybridCommercialization.pdf . And for articles about military-grade hybrid technology in general, see http://www.nationaldefensemagazine....VehiclesShouldMakeLeaptoHybridTechnology.aspx , http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2001/April/Pages/Array_of_Army7062.aspx , http://www.electricvehiclesresearch...ic-vehicle-suppliers-00003444.asp?sessionid=1 , http://defense-update.com/features/du-3-05/feature-HED.htm , http://defense-update.com/features/du-3-05/feature-HED-about.htm , http://defense-update.com/features/du-3-05/feature-HED-trucks.htm , http://defense-update.com/20060520_feature-hed-trucks.html , http://defense-update.com/features/du-3-05/feature-HED-afv.htm , http://defense-update.com/features/du-3-05/feature-HED-power.htm , http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a556694.pdf , http://www.g2mil.com/hybrid.htm , https://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/Hybrid_Electric_Drive_54-56.pdf , http://www.defenceprocurementintern...parking Interest in Hybrid Electric Drive.pdf , and http://www.ge.com/battery/resources/pdf/BochenekGEResearchV5.pdf .

**************************************

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

...​

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

**************************************


3. Hybrid Micro-Turbine Powered Expedition Vehicles: Some Questions


***************************************


A. Electric Motor Redundancy


In light of egn's comments in particular, posted just above, here are a few questions. You wrote:

Another plus of the Tatra design, is that the transaxle has a single power input point, which would make it easy to construct a combined inline unit consisting of motor/torque converter/gear box (say 1.5:1 OD, 1:1 and 2:1 (low range))/regenerative braking system (use the clutch pedal to control the field of a massive alternator and there's your regen system - while still retaining the air brake system). You could probably engineer that combined unit to just drop in between the frame rails. In which case, you could probably (or at least, mostly) eliminate the doghouse in the cab, for a flat floor.

But wouldn't it be better to have 3 electric motors separately powering three axles, instead of a single large "motor/torque convertor/gear box"? Thereby building redundancy into the system?

Early on in the thread egn seems to have undergone a "conversion" of sorts, from advocating repair-it-yourself ICE simplicity, to hybrid redundancy. And egn mostly seems to have converted because even diesel engines are becoming so complex, that self-repair in remote areas is out of the question.

I wouldn't install an electrical motor for every wheel, but for every axle only, and leave the axles as they are......

No modern engine can be repaired in the conventional way, like it was done before electronics found its way into them. Alone for diagnostic of problems you need equipment that you cannot take with you, even if you would get it from the manufacturers. And repair then consists of replacing modules. So the only way to achieve high availability is redundancy for all important components. This means you have to avoid single points of failure, and a conventional drive train is a single point of failure. A electric/hybrid power train allows full redundancy.

If you insist on self-repair than you have to go back very far and you would not be allowed to register a new vehiclke with such an old engine.

Whereas at least with hybrid one can build redundancy into the system, so one avoids "single points of failure". And "a conventional drive train is a single point of failure". egn seemed disposed in favor of the Tatra backbone tube, but he seems to have imagined the tube configured with three separate electric engines, driving three separate axles.


***************************************

B. Locating the Battery Pack(s)


Very much agreed about the location of the battery pack:

With a Tatra chassis, which does not flex, you have the entire space between the frame rails and above the transaxle available. I would think that would be a very nice place for a gigantic battery bank - and the majority of the weight would be *below* the frame rails (ballast). Also, very well protected by the transaxle.

This is where DesignLine placed some of the batteries in its "ECOSmart" all-electric buses, although not all of the batteries. Some battery packs were also housed at the back of the bus:









**************************************

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST.
.

 

[biotect]

......
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

**************************************







For complete versions of these pdfs, see http://nccleantech.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/DesignLine-Presentation-for-4.12.2012.pdf , http://epvinc.com , http://www.busexchange.com/newbusmodels/NewModelBrochures/DESIGN LINE/EcoSaver IV-Transit Bus.pdf , and http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/bus/zbus/meetings/0509workshops/designline.pdf .

Now as this literature suggests, in its microturbine-equipped, range-extended "ECOSaver" buses specifically, DesignLine did not seem to place any of its battery banks under the floor between the frame rails. Instead, it seems that all of the batteries were located at the back of the bus, right beside the microturbine. This might have been a mistake. I don't want to go into it right now, but there is some speculation on some blogs that excess heat generated by a microturbine in this configuration is not a good thing for batteries located nearby. And it is alleged that this might be the reason why the battery pack in one DesignLine bus may have spontaneously caught fire. See http://www.bizjournals.com/charlott...-DesignLine-bus-damaged-by-fire.html?page=all and http://talk.baltimoresun.com/topic/204096-hybrid-buses-worth-the-extra-cost/page-5 . More details later in the thread.

In a different automotive implementation of Capstone microturbines, this one by Wrightspeed for medium-sized trucks, the battery pack is located exactly as you suggest it should be:





Wrightspeed just recently delivered its "Route" powertrain to Federal Express. See http://wrightspeed.com , http://wrightspeed.com/products/the-route/ , http://wrightspeed.com/about/ , http://wrightspeed.com/news/ , http://wrightspeed.com/contact/ , http://www.truckinginfo.com/channel...s-and-whooshes-but-saves-fuel-maker-says.aspx , http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/04/prweb11718575.htm , http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/plehner/the_tesla_of_garbage_trucks_co.html , http://www.fleetsandfuels.com/fuels/cng/2012/03/wrightspeed-for-cng-plug-in-the-route/ , http://www.hybridcars.com/wrightspeed-combines-gas-turbine-and-batteries-for-big-fuel-savings/ , http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/03/prweb11674427.htm , and http://www.businessweek.com/article...e-wheel-of-super-fast-electric-delivery-truck .

Wrightspeed also has another implementation of its power train called the "Circuit", designed for a high-performance sports car in which all 4 wheels are powered by 4 X 250 HP electric motors -- see http://www.hybridcars.com/wrightspeed-combines-gas-turbine-and-batteries-for-big-fuel-savings/ :





In this implementation, the microturbine seems to be located somewhat nearer to the battery pack, and one wonders whether this would be a good thing?


***************************************

C. Locating the Microturbine(s): First Suggestion


Now I am a bit less enthusiastic about your first suggestion regarding location of the microturbines:

The space outside the frame rails, between the front and rear axles would seem to be a good place to locate the turbine(s). Easily accessible for service. But soundproof it and duct the intake/exhaust to the roof to blow both heat and sound out and up away from the neighbors, who love to ********** about generator (and air conditioner and watermaker) noise.

Earlier in the thread egn suggested some of the key reasons why one might want a 6x6 MAN-KAT instead of an 8x8 MAN-KAT:

(a) an 8x8 cannot turn the front wheels as far as a 6x6.
(b) sure, an 8x8 is even better regarding ground pressure and number of driven wheels than a 6x6, but an 8x8 has a lower power to weight ratio than a 6x6, and it has the same engine as an 6x6.
(c) an 8x8 does not add that much length to a 6x6 (if length is one's objective).
(d) even though one loses trench-crossing capability with an 6x6, one gains tremendously in terms of storage space between the front and rear axles, on either side of the frame.

egn then concluded that a 6x6 is still the "best compromise regarding size, weight and off road capability" -- see post #307, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page31 .

So while housing the microturbines on either side of the frame between the axles would be great for service access, it would subtract from these volumes as storage space.


**************************************

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST

 

[biotect]

......
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

**************************************


D. Locating the Microturbine(s): Third Suggestion


I very much preferred your third proposal:

OR, put everything on a slide out the front, similar to the way they do generators on some of the larger motorhomes:

http://www.rvst.org/candidate/Images/Gen7.png

Open the floor up, disconnect a few bits here and there, and then just slide the whole works out. You could probably rig it so the battery bank slides out the rear as well.

Here is the image again:





A brilliant solution. Full 360-degree access to the microturbine(s), and no need for a tilting cab.

One of the major "plusses" of a hybrid solution, as suggested by egn, is that even if the range-extender were an ICE, it would still be much lighter than a conventional MAN-KAT engine and transmission:

You are right, the [Jepotnik] engine/generator unit is big and heavy. But a large conventional engine and transmission are much bigger an heavier. I.e. the engine of the MAN KAT is 1,4 m x 1,1 m x 1,0 m and has a weight of about a ton. The transmission has a similar length, but a little bit smaller and has a similar weight. One could probably place two of this engine/generator units in the space used currently by KAT engine/transmission with less than half the weight.

But a Capstone Turbine would be lighter still than even a range-extending ICE. Which makes pulling out the microturbine + generator on a tray eminently possible.....:victory: Solves in one stroke the problem that COE and a tilting cab undermines a fully integrated design.

Again, thank you.

For a full explanation of why this is such an optimal solution, see post #492 in this thread, near the bottom, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page50 (standard ExPo pagination).


**************************************

E. The Problem of Noise Pollution


Now although New York buses equipped with Capstone microturbines did not seem too noisy from outside, they were not exactly "noise free" either -- see post #495 on the previous page, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page50 . So too, the C30 microturbine in the Capstone CMT-380 seemed noisier that I expected, given that it is marketed as a component of Langford Performance Engineering's "Whisper" power train. See post #500 above, same page as this, and here are the two videos again. These videos seem to clearly demonstrate the potential noise-level of the Capstone C30 in an automotive application:




Perhaps it's just me, but this does not seem like the kind of noise that campsite neighbors would tolerate.....?

dwh, in your second private message you wrote:

But soundproof it and duct the intake/exhaust to the roof to blow both heat and sound out and up away from the neighbors, who love to ********** about generator (and air conditioner and watermaker) noise.

So my question to you is then this: do you honestly think that a microturbine could be baffled enough to eliminate most of the decibels and "squealing sound" heard in the videos above? A microturbine needs to have an open face at one end, that sucks in air, and an open back, that jettisons exhaust. It's a jet engine, after all. So if the air intake and the exhaust cannot really be baffled...?

Most of the noise probably comes from the hot exhaust. So do microturbine "mufflers" exist?

Here it's worth noting that the value of a home significantly decreases if it's located near an airport, and especially if it's located underneath a heavily used flight path -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_noise and http://www.gatwickairport.com/busin...fic-noise-explained/causes-of-aircraft-noise/ . So one can imagine consumers protesting vehemently if already noisy ICE vehicles began to be replaced by vehicles that sound like jets. If microturbines seriously threaten to exacerbate already bad levels of noise pollution, they will not catch on.

I tried finding material about noise-dampening for microturbines, but came up short. Still, it does seem like a critical issue, and this might be a potentially deep, structurally built-in flaw in the technology. But I am not certain about this.


**************************************

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
..

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

**************************************


F. A brief detour by way of Jay Leno's EcoJet Turbine Car: Noise Pollution[SUP]2[/SUP]


Have you heard about Jay Leno's Jet Car, the turbine-powered EcoJet? Sure, it's not a hybrid, but rather, a more antiquated sort of turbine-powered car, with the turbine directly driving the axles. But even still it's worth looking into briefly, because it suggests both the potential and the possible limitations of turbines in cars.

In 2006 Jay Leno collaborated with General Motors to produce a concept car vaguely reminiscent of the Chrysler Turbine Car of the 1960's – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Turbine_Car , http://www.allpar.com/mopar/turbine.html , http://www.popularmechanics.com/car...leno-drives-one-of-the-last-chrysler-turbines , http://www.detroitnews.com/article/...gets+rare+Chrysler++author+gets+plug+for+book , http://www.turbinecar.com/misc/History.pdf , http://www.turbinecar.com/turbine.htm , http://www.turbinecar.com/sia/sia127.htm , http://www.turbinecar.com/driversguide.swf , http://auto.howstuffworks.com/chrysler-turbine-concept-cars.htm , and http://auto.howstuffworks.com/chrysler-turbine-concept-cars2.htm . Jay Leno owns one of the only two remaining Chrysler Turbine Cars that are still running:


[video=youtube;b2A5ijU3Ivs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2A5ijU3Ivs [/video] ,


So working with General Motors, Jay Leno's garage set out to custom-build a contemporary update of this futuristic Chrysler. It was supposed to be more "ecological", in the sense that like the Capstone CMT-180, the EcoJet car would exploit the fuel-flexibility of turbines, and would run on biodiesel made from soy bean oil:

The car contains two separate fuel tanks; one contains the main fuel, a biodiesel soy bean oil, and the other contains a traditional clean burning jet engine fuel - Jet A. The Jet fuel is used to start the turbine easily at the beginning of a trip and also to run the engine at the end of a trip to clean it since a biodiesel fuel tends to gum up a turbine (causing it to seize) if the biofuel is not cleared. The exhaust air is 1000 degrees Fahrenheit in normal operation and 1800 Fahrenheit at full power. Basically the car runs on refined cooking oil and so it gives off the same kind of smell created by cooking French fries.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EcoJet_concept_car , https://foreverdriven.wordpress.com/tag/honeywell-turbine-lt101/ , http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/automobiles/14JETCAR.html?_r=0 , http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/jay-leno/green-garage/4334674 , http://www.gizmag.com/go/6425/ , http://www.carbodydesign.com/archive/2006/10/31-gm-turbine-powered-ecojet-concept/ , http://www.autoblog.com/2006/10/31/sema-jay-leno-and-gm-unveil-turbine-powered-ecojet-supercar/ , http://jalopnik.com/211247/the-ecojet-jay-lenos-new-gm-outsourced-supercar , http://images.businessweek.com/ss/08/07/0704_high-tech_concepts/1.htm , http://images.businessweek.com/ss/08/07/0704_high-tech_concepts/8.htm , http://www.autoblog.com/2009/09/28/video-jay-leno-explains-his-biodiesel-powered-ecojet-races-a-p/ , http://www.diseno-art.com/encyclopedia/concept_cars/GM_EcoJet.html , http://www.motorauthority.com/news/...cojet-concept-makes-appearance-at-all-gm-show , http://www.roadandtrack.com/go/future-cars/jay-lenos-ecojet , http://www.dieselpowermag.com/news/0807dp_biodiesel_gm_ecojet_concept_car/?__federated=1 , http://green.autoblog.com/2010/06/09/video-jay-lenos-ecojet-visits-all-gm-show-in-california/ , http://scottsantoro.blogspot.it/2010/06/gm-show-in-woodley-park-ecojet-and.html , and http://www.sfgate.com/cars/slideshow/Jay-Leno-039-s-cars-79274/photo-5834915.php .

The Honeywell LTS101 turboshaft engine used in the EcoJet was originally designed for use in a Bell 222 helicopter – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycoming_LTS101 and http://www.honeywell.com/sites/docs/DIP6YGFTBP5X0J2QEJ1K7FTT5GMEGBEZH.pdf .

And here are some good videos of the EcoJet that demonstrate just how unbelievably noisy that Bell 222 helicopter engine is:




**************************************

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
..

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

**************************************


Here are some images of the EcoJet:








Even when it's not roaring at the top of its lungs, the EcoJet sure has presence......:sombrero:


**************************************

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
..

 

[biotect]

..
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

**************************************









**************************************

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

**************************************






At least there's this to be said for the Capstone CMT-380: it is not even half as noisy as Jay Leno's EcoJet.

Furthermore, the exhaust temperature of the Capstone C30 microturbine is not 1800 Fahrenheit, as per the EcoJet's exhaust at full power. Rather, the Capstone C30's exhaust temperature is 275 ̊C (530 ̊F), whether fueled by oil and gas; diesel, kerosene, or bio-diesel; or natural gas -- see http://www.capstoneturbine.com/_docs/datasheets/C30 Oil & Gas_331034E_lowres.pdf , http://www.capstoneturbine.com/_docs/C30 Liquid Fuel.pdf , and http://www.capstoneturbine.com/_docs/datasheets/C30 NatGas_331031E_lowres.pdf . The exhaust temperature of the Capstone C65 is slightly higher, 309°C (588°F), again no matter what the fuel used -- see http://www.capstoneturbine.com/_docs/C65 & C65-ICHP NATGAS.pdf , http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/veltman2/docs/Capstoneinfo.pdf , http://www.capstoneturbine.com/_docs/PDS_NatGasC65&C65-ICHP-Int1R.pdf , http://www.horizonpowersystems.com/Amend/images/pdfs/C65 Oil & Gas_331040E_lowes.pdf , http://www.regattasp.com/files/460044A_C65_Product_Specification_083007.pdf , and http://http://interstatepower.us/Ca...ers Manuals/400017A_C65_Users_Manual_V5XX.pdf .

The Capstone C30 microturbine also seems more truly "mulit-fuel" capable than the EcoJet's LTS101 turboshaft engine made by Honeywell. As the Wikipedia article quoted above suggests, the EcoJet's turbine has to be "cleaned" by a run of jet fuel after each use of biodiesel, because " biodiesel fuel tends to gum up the turbine (causing it to seize) " -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EcoJet_concept_car . Not so the Capstone C30, which is fully biodiesel capable:

The Capstone MicroTurbine system can be configured to run on the following fuels: Low Pressure Natural Gas, High Pressure Natural Gas, Compressed Natural Gas, Diesel, Gaseous Propane, Kerosene, "Sour" Gas, Landfill Gas, and Digester Gas.

See http://www.capstoneturbine.com/company/faq.asp#cp1 and http://www.capstoneturbine.com/_docs/C30 Liquid Fuel.pdf . For further technical confirmation of the Capstone C30's suitability for biodiesel, see the 2007 Brookhaven National Laboratory study at http://www.bnl.gov/isd/documents/35423.pdf .

Finally, in terms of fuel-efficiency, there is simply no comparison. The EcoJet is a "biodiesel fuel-guzzler", in part because turbines cannot run at low RPM. Even just "idling", turbines still run at roughly 3/4 full power RPM. Turbines really want to run all out, at full RPM and maximum power/fuel efficiency, which is fine in jet aircraft that travel long distances, point-to-point. But turbines are not the optimal "direct drive" solution for cars.

Microturbines are only just now beginning to have an automotive future because they are being incorporated as range-extenders in serial hybrid solutions. When used as range-extenders, microturbines do not directly drive the wheels, as per the EcoJet, but rather they only power electric generators, as per the CMT-380. So in hybrid configurations microturbines can run fuel-efficiently, at maximum RPM. When microturbines are used as range-extenders in hybrid solutions like the CMT-380, they can prove very fuel-efficient indeed, as the CMT-380's numbers suggest.

But there still remains the critical question: if microtrubines fail to successfully resolve the noise issue, they will have only a very limited commercial future in automotive applications, including expedition motorhomes.


**************************************

G. Langford Performance Engineering: "Whisper" Power Train???


Another reason I am voicing some degree of "noise skepticism" regarding microturbines, is the promotional video produced by Langford Performance Engineering, the company that provides the "Whisper" powertrain for the CMT-380 – see http://www.lpengines.com , http://www.lpengines.com/about_us.php , and http://www.lpengines.com/news_detail.php?id=10 . Langford Performance Engineering has applied the same technology – including the Capstone C30 generator – to a Ford S-Max Crossover concept car:


[video=youtube;bwG3ZF5ktjI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwG3ZF5ktjI [/video]


See http://www.capstoneturbine.com/news/story.asp?id=512 , http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...2BRZDjIwMwte_nNphpoRFPg&bvm=bv.73231344,d.bGE , http://www.lpengines.com , http://www.lpengines.com/about_us.php , http://www.lpengines.com/news_detail.php?id=10 , http://www.thechargingpoint.com/opi...The-Whisper-turbine-charged-electric-car.html , and http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=74000225 .

The narrator in this video seems to want to emphasize that batteries alone are sufficient for city driving. At one point he specifically promises, "....the turbine only needs to kick in when the car is in rural areas, away from city congestion....." But surely this does not capture all driving patterns, or all driving days? One can easily imagine people living in the "exurbs" (the countryside just past the suburbs), wanting to spend a day shopping in the city, using the car frequently, then returning home. Total elapsed travel could be well beyond 60 miles. So if the battery does not hold up long enough, and the microturbine kicks in while still in the thick of "city congestion", will other drivers and pedestrians curse because the microturbine is too loud?

In short, why the qualification, "away from city congestion"?? Because in rural areas fewer people will be bothered by the noise that the Capstone microturbine makes when re-charging the car's batteries?

Perhaps I am being too skeptical, and this particular instantiation of the Capstone microturbine hybrid solution really is "Whisper" quiet. But given the videos above that document the noise made by the CMT-380 and the EcoJet, I would want to hear the microturbine of this Ford S-Max Crossover for myself, firsthand, before believing the marketing rhetoric.


**************************************

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
..

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

**************************************


H. Locating the Air-Intake and Microturbine(s), to enable Fording Capability


For microturbine installation in a large, 6x6, RTW (Round the World) expedition motorhome, two additional issues need to be addressed: (1) air-intake location, and (2) microturbine location and/or compartmentalization, such that a MAN SX-series chassis, or a similar Tatra 815 series chassis, would still have robust fording capabilities.

Recall that MAN HX-series trucks have the air-take mounted on the left hand side of the vehicle, behind the first axle, because MAN wants to locate the radiator and air-intake away from the front of the vehicle, where they would get gummed up with mud, would be more vulnerable to mine-blasts, and might reduce the approach angle. The air-intake in the HX-series is a very large, noticeable, square-shaped grille.

The following are amongst the best photos that I previously uploaded, which clearly show this grille:










I uploaded these photos when creating the long sequence about MAN SX and HX trucks -- see posts #249 - #277, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page25 to http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page28 . For the first image in particular, see http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...bane-Truck-Show?highlight=brisbane+truck+show.


**************************************

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

**************************************


The air-intake on the MAN SX-series trucks is different.

In the SX-series the air-intake is actually mounted above (!) the engine, and behind (!) the cab. And so on the side of an SX cab, the only things visible are small air vents that are not the air-intake. For a discussion illustrated with images of the different identifying features of MAN SX-series versus HX-series trucks, see post #259, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page26 .

It is nearly impossible to find good images that show the SX-series air-intake from above. Probably the very best image is to be found in the "Mobility Elite" pdf, still available online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/17296072/The-Mobility-Elite :





It's worth noting that when Doleoni converted the cab of a MAN-KAT A1, the precursor of the SX-series, they had to re-design the cab with this sort of "roof-top" air-intake in mind:





See http://www.doleoni.com/wp/en/#prettyPhoto[3425-2 Man, PROCESSING]/7/ and http://www.doleoni.com/wp/en/#prettyPhoto[3425-2 Man, PROCESSING]/8/ .


This difference in the location of air-intakes between SX and HX trucks, as well as the higher mounting of the engine in the SX, led me to wonder about their comparative fording capabilities:

7. I've been wondering about the comparative fording capability of the HX versus the SX. Websites like Deagel, Military Today, etc. seem to suggest that the HX can also ford 1.5 m "with preparation". But given that the HX engine is COE placement, I wonder if this is true? See http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page27 , post # 262:

Originally Posted by biotect

Note that engine placement in the HX, which is based on the commercial TGA truck, is standard COE. In the HX the engine does not sit behind the cab, as per the SX, but rather it sits below the cab. But even still, according to the "Mobility Elite" brochure "the thermostat-controlled cooling system and air intake can be found on top of the frame behind the [HX] cab, which protects them from dirt and dust and allows for prolonged fording." See http://www.scribd.com/doc/17296072/The-Mobility-Elite .

The fording depth of the SX series without special preparation is 1.2 m, and with preparation, a maximum of 1.5 m. Deagel, Military Today, etc. state the same figures as the fording capability of the HX series. But I wonder if HX fording capability is in fact the same, given its COE engine placement?

So what do you think? Do you think that the HX-series has the same fording capability as the SX-series, even though engine-placement is COE in the HX? And if not, why not?

To which egn replied:

Q7: I think the fording capability isn't restricted by the placement of the engine. If the engine gets air, enough cooling, and the electrical connectors are water-proof, it can also run below the water line. On YouTube you can find a lot of videos where the engine of the vehicles is running below water when crossing deep water.

BTW, Marcel drove his KAT1 with some preparation once through 2,5 m deep water without any problem.

Of course, he had to cleanup afterward. But, he has converted his KAT1 to a very special vehicle that is much more capable as the original 4x4. You find more information on his web site.

But, again, everything changes when one goes hybrid. To achieve 1.5 m fording capability, for instance, the huge battery pack between the rails would have to be completely waterproofed. Sure, this seems a natural enough requirement in any case, but for an expedition vehicle that might ford a stream 1.5 m deep, the waterproofing has to be extra-secure. And although as egn suggests, ICE vehicles seem somewhat immune to partial immersion in water, the same might not be true for a vehicle equipped with microturbines?

So two additional, big questions arise when considering microturbines in a 6x6, globally capable expedition motorhome:

1. Locating and/or containing the microturbine(s), such that a MAN SX-series truck, or a Tatra 815 series truck, would still have 1.5 m fording capability

2. Locating the air-intake and exhaust, to enable the same


**************************************

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.