TerraLiner:12 m Globally Mobile Beach House/Class-A Crossover w 6x6 Hybrid Drivetrain
- Thread starter biotect
- Start date
An alternator would be better in that case. The engine would have to put out the extra work needed to drive a turbine, just like a boat will have to put out the energy to drag a generator.
One last thing:
Heat is wasted energy if your aim is to produce electricity. If Capstone's turbine makes 70% of the fuel used into heat, that means that only 30% of it becomes electricity. If you don't need the heat, that is a terrible waste (and that boat which has it, is not exactly a boat intended for cold regions). And if you need heat, but not electricity, that is 30 percent of the fuel wasted.
If you want to see how things can be done - at least on boats with extreme amounts of tankage, take a look at the FPBs (both Wind Horse (83ft), the 64s, and the in-progress FPB 78) at www.setsail.com
Heat is wasted energy if your aim is to produce electricity. If Capstone's turbine makes 70% of the fuel used into heat, that means that only 30% of it becomes electricity. If you don't need the heat, that is a terrible waste (and that boat which has it, is not exactly a boat intended for cold regions). And if you need heat, but not electricity, that is 30 percent of the fuel wasted.
If you want to see how things can be done - at least on boats with extreme amounts of tankage, take a look at the FPBs (both Wind Horse (83ft), the 64s, and the in-progress FPB 78) at www.setsail.com
Haf-E
Expedition Leader
The capstone microturbine is a generator - it gives all of its output as electricity. So no need to add another generator.
Using the exhaust for heating would be pretty straightforward - just duct it to the outside sitting area! JK - but a heat exchanger to efficiently drop the high temp exhaust to interior heat is bulky - might not have enough space available. The equipment required to use the waste heat for cooling would be way to large to fit into a expo-bus type rig - better to use conventional air conditioning / heat pump equipment.
Kerosene is widely available around the world but often is at a higher cost than diesel - so no real savings there.
I would say the possibility of this working out for a expo-bus type rig is pretty far out there - maybe for something like the MaxiMog/KiraVan guy who doesn't seem to go anywhere in his rigs - but it could be interesting to do the same thing with a more conventional diesel generator system. Expo rigs have the advantage of usually only being driven for limited periods of time each day - so a smaller generator running for longer periods of time to recharge a large battery bank might be a viable option. Coupled with a smaller vehicle for local explorations (motorcycle etc) it might work. When power is available (i.e. RV park) then the generator wouldn't need to be operated. A conventional generator would be easier to have repaired and is already designed for severe vibration etc.
The military has been working on this for a long time - here is a short summary of projects done in the 1993 which consisted of a HMMWV with a 1.9L VW Diesel engine powering a generator and then either two motors (one per axle) or four motors (one per wheel). At the time the performance of the batteries doomed the project - but now with viable Li-Ion storage I think it is practical - just expensive.
http://www.alu.army.mil/alog/issues/MarApr01/MS635.htm
Using the exhaust for heating would be pretty straightforward - just duct it to the outside sitting area! JK - but a heat exchanger to efficiently drop the high temp exhaust to interior heat is bulky - might not have enough space available. The equipment required to use the waste heat for cooling would be way to large to fit into a expo-bus type rig - better to use conventional air conditioning / heat pump equipment.
Kerosene is widely available around the world but often is at a higher cost than diesel - so no real savings there.
I would say the possibility of this working out for a expo-bus type rig is pretty far out there - maybe for something like the MaxiMog/KiraVan guy who doesn't seem to go anywhere in his rigs - but it could be interesting to do the same thing with a more conventional diesel generator system. Expo rigs have the advantage of usually only being driven for limited periods of time each day - so a smaller generator running for longer periods of time to recharge a large battery bank might be a viable option. Coupled with a smaller vehicle for local explorations (motorcycle etc) it might work. When power is available (i.e. RV park) then the generator wouldn't need to be operated. A conventional generator would be easier to have repaired and is already designed for severe vibration etc.
The military has been working on this for a long time - here is a short summary of projects done in the 1993 which consisted of a HMMWV with a 1.9L VW Diesel engine powering a generator and then either two motors (one per axle) or four motors (one per wheel). At the time the performance of the batteries doomed the project - but now with viable Li-Ion storage I think it is practical - just expensive.
http://www.alu.army.mil/alog/issues/MarApr01/MS635.htm
Haf-E
Expedition Leader
Here is an excellent analysis of a side-by-side testing of a conventional vs a hybrid HMMWV:
http://articles.sae.org/11940/
Here is the diagram of the hybrid vehicle -
And the conclusion of the tests:
"The analysis of the HEVEA data revealed that the hybrid XM1124 does not always produce better fuel economy than the conventional M1113. Factors that adversely affected fuel economy of the XM1124 include low vehicle speeds (<10 mph), resulting in the engine operating at lower efficiency; wet and cold road conditions, which affected fuel economy; and excessive charging of the battery using the PGU, resulting in an overall lower efficiency from fuel tank to wheel."
One note on this - the SAFT li-ion battery is not the most advanced out there - and its size here is fairly small (only 18.6 kWh - the tesla sedan's battery is up to 85 kWh). I think a hybrid HMMWV could perform better if it had a larger battery than this experimental one did.
http://articles.sae.org/11940/
Here is the diagram of the hybrid vehicle -
And the conclusion of the tests:
"The analysis of the HEVEA data revealed that the hybrid XM1124 does not always produce better fuel economy than the conventional M1113. Factors that adversely affected fuel economy of the XM1124 include low vehicle speeds (<10 mph), resulting in the engine operating at lower efficiency; wet and cold road conditions, which affected fuel economy; and excessive charging of the battery using the PGU, resulting in an overall lower efficiency from fuel tank to wheel."
One note on this - the SAFT li-ion battery is not the most advanced out there - and its size here is fairly small (only 18.6 kWh - the tesla sedan's battery is up to 85 kWh). I think a hybrid HMMWV could perform better if it had a larger battery than this experimental one did.
Last edited:
biotect
Designer
.
Hi optimusprime,
The whole idea behind installing a Capstone C30 microturbine, is that it would not be a Honeywell LTS101 of the kind that drives Jay Leno's EcoJet, and it would not be a Honewell AGT-1500 of the sort that drives an Abrams tank. The microturbine would not drive the vehicle's wheels directly at all. There would be no mechanical connection whatsoever between the turbine and the wheels. As per this diagram:
Instead, the vehicle would be what's called a "serial hybrid", in which the circular motion of the microturbine only generates electricity, and nothing but electricity. The Capstone C30 microturbine already is a generator: just a microturbine powered generator. It's a generator that would then charge a huge battery pack, which powers the electric motors that directly drive the wheels. That's why the Capstone C30 microturbine is also called a "range extender": because its primary purpose is to extend the range of the batteries of a vehicle that is otherwise all-electric.
The DesignLine buses discussed earlier in the thread, the Capstone CMT-380 sports car, the Wrightspeed garbage trucks, the Walmart/Capstone/Great Dane concept truck, and the Langstrom Performance Engineering Ford S-Max Crossover concept car: all of these vehicles have exactly this sort of "serial hybrid" configuration. In none of these vehicles does the microturbine directly drive the wheels.
Perhaps it's worth looking over those posts again, just to get clear about this? See posts #495 - #501, #504, #505, and see the bottom of the post #510. Or perhaps just read everything that I wrote from post # 491 onward, beginning at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page50 , to get a really clear picture of what microturbines can offer, when used specifically as range-extendens. Have you read all the posts between #491 and this post? Just a tip: the discussion in this thread is soon going to get very technical very fast, especially now that Haf-E has chimed in. As near as I can tell, Haf-E is an automotive engineer by profession. So best to read up in this thread, from post #491 onward, to get clear about exactly what's being discussed, OK? I deliberately tried to write in "layman's language", with lots of pictures, in order to make the whole concept more accessible. But I also provided lots of links to other websites, where perhaps this idea is explained better?
I wrote all that material above, from post #491 onwards, because even though the idea of a "microturbine-driven serial hybrid" configuration is very clear in my head, and even though it's clear in dwh's head, Haf-E's head, and Aspire's head, it's probably not so clear in the heads of most people. Even people who love cars, trucks, and campers?
After all, it's already difficult enough trying to understand what a serial hybrid is, as depicted in the diagram above. But then add to this the idea of a serial hybrid driven by a microturbine instead of an ICE (i.e. an Internal Combustion Engine), and many people find the whole idea just too confusing.
Just watch the following video, in which the narrator tries to interview Richard Hilleman, the owner of the Capstone CMT-380 sports car. This is a car that the interviewer just doesn't "get". Richard Hilleman's description goes way over the interviewer's head. Even at the very end of the interview, the interviewer still doesn't understand what the CMT-380 actually is:
At the beginning of the video, the interviewer seems to think that the CMT-380 is an all-electric car. But it's not. It's something much more complicated than that. The interviewer then seems to think that it's a turbine-driven car, like Jay Leno's EcoJet or the Abrams tank. But it's not that either.
And this is an interviewer who specializes in cars! So if he can't "get" it, then it wouldn't be too surprising if it will take most people some time to "get it" as well.
My speciality is transportation design, and I live and breathe this stuff. So when dwh first proposed microturbines as electricity-producing range-extenders for expedition trucks, I could immediately see the idea. In fact, his first post on the subject hit me like a bullet. But not because I am "smart" (I am not smart), but merely because I live and breath transportation design all day, every day, 24/7.
*********************************************
In short, I was asking something dwh different. The exhaust contains all the heat energy that remains left over after the microturbine has powered an electric generator. In the example of the "Argonon" ship discussed above, that very hot exhaust is then put through a heat exchanger to heat water, which in turn heats the crew accommodation -- see post #523 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page53 . So I was asking dwh how he thinks a similar arrangement might work in an expedition motorhome, with a big camper in back.
dwh: any thoughts?
Aspire and Haf-E: I will respond to your posts next....
All best wishes,
Biotect
Hi optimusprime,
The whole idea behind installing a Capstone C30 microturbine, is that it would not be a Honeywell LTS101 of the kind that drives Jay Leno's EcoJet, and it would not be a Honewell AGT-1500 of the sort that drives an Abrams tank. The microturbine would not drive the vehicle's wheels directly at all. There would be no mechanical connection whatsoever between the turbine and the wheels. As per this diagram:
Instead, the vehicle would be what's called a "serial hybrid", in which the circular motion of the microturbine only generates electricity, and nothing but electricity. The Capstone C30 microturbine already is a generator: just a microturbine powered generator. It's a generator that would then charge a huge battery pack, which powers the electric motors that directly drive the wheels. That's why the Capstone C30 microturbine is also called a "range extender": because its primary purpose is to extend the range of the batteries of a vehicle that is otherwise all-electric.
The DesignLine buses discussed earlier in the thread, the Capstone CMT-380 sports car, the Wrightspeed garbage trucks, the Walmart/Capstone/Great Dane concept truck, and the Langstrom Performance Engineering Ford S-Max Crossover concept car: all of these vehicles have exactly this sort of "serial hybrid" configuration. In none of these vehicles does the microturbine directly drive the wheels.
Perhaps it's worth looking over those posts again, just to get clear about this? See posts #495 - #501, #504, #505, and see the bottom of the post #510. Or perhaps just read everything that I wrote from post # 491 onward, beginning at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page50 , to get a really clear picture of what microturbines can offer, when used specifically as range-extendens. Have you read all the posts between #491 and this post? Just a tip: the discussion in this thread is soon going to get very technical very fast, especially now that Haf-E has chimed in. As near as I can tell, Haf-E is an automotive engineer by profession. So best to read up in this thread, from post #491 onward, to get clear about exactly what's being discussed, OK? I deliberately tried to write in "layman's language", with lots of pictures, in order to make the whole concept more accessible. But I also provided lots of links to other websites, where perhaps this idea is explained better?
I wrote all that material above, from post #491 onwards, because even though the idea of a "microturbine-driven serial hybrid" configuration is very clear in my head, and even though it's clear in dwh's head, Haf-E's head, and Aspire's head, it's probably not so clear in the heads of most people. Even people who love cars, trucks, and campers?
After all, it's already difficult enough trying to understand what a serial hybrid is, as depicted in the diagram above. But then add to this the idea of a serial hybrid driven by a microturbine instead of an ICE (i.e. an Internal Combustion Engine), and many people find the whole idea just too confusing.
Just watch the following video, in which the narrator tries to interview Richard Hilleman, the owner of the Capstone CMT-380 sports car. This is a car that the interviewer just doesn't "get". Richard Hilleman's description goes way over the interviewer's head. Even at the very end of the interview, the interviewer still doesn't understand what the CMT-380 actually is:
At the beginning of the video, the interviewer seems to think that the CMT-380 is an all-electric car. But it's not. It's something much more complicated than that. The interviewer then seems to think that it's a turbine-driven car, like Jay Leno's EcoJet or the Abrams tank. But it's not that either.
And this is an interviewer who specializes in cars! So if he can't "get" it, then it wouldn't be too surprising if it will take most people some time to "get it" as well.
My speciality is transportation design, and I live and breathe this stuff. So when dwh first proposed microturbines as electricity-producing range-extenders for expedition trucks, I could immediately see the idea. In fact, his first post on the subject hit me like a bullet. But not because I am "smart" (I am not smart), but merely because I live and breath transportation design all day, every day, 24/7.
*********************************************
In short, I was asking something dwh different. The exhaust contains all the heat energy that remains left over after the microturbine has powered an electric generator. In the example of the "Argonon" ship discussed above, that very hot exhaust is then put through a heat exchanger to heat water, which in turn heats the crew accommodation -- see post #523 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page53 . So I was asking dwh how he thinks a similar arrangement might work in an expedition motorhome, with a big camper in back.
dwh: any thoughts?
Aspire and Haf-E: I will respond to your posts next....
All best wishes,
Biotect
Last edited:
Can I just restate that Capstone themselves say that 70% of the fuel is made into heat that is exhausted, that is a huge waste. Yes, you can use it to get hot water, but a boat of that size propably have a water maker (desalinator, that is), and carry - and use - vast amounts of fresh water, so there is a lot of water to be heated (it is probably used for charter). An expedition vehicle will carry far less water and use far less water too out of necessity. Assume a lossless system (it's easier to calculate), and for the smallest one, you will in essense have a calorifier of 30kw x 70 percent = 21kw heating element, which is ridiculously powerful. To heat the amount needed on an expedition, a better solution would be to heat the water either "directly" (i.e. to make use of a furnace of sorts) or to use a much smaller generator of one kind of another to produce a fitting amount of electricity to heat the water. A smaller one will be much more effective, and use less fuel per liter heated, because with what is akin to a 21kw heater element, you have to burn copious amounts of fuel.
That fuel usage, btw, is not a problem for the boat, because it carries a lot, and as it seems to be used for charter, there is plenty of opportunity to get the tanks filled constantly.
Edit:
Btw, you can get ERV/HRVs which is using water as the storage medium. Meaning, that in essense it is a calorifier, even though it doesn't make the water boil.
Edit #2:
The Argonon is a huge ship. Really huge. There is more than enough room and fuel on ships like that.
That fuel usage, btw, is not a problem for the boat, because it carries a lot, and as it seems to be used for charter, there is plenty of opportunity to get the tanks filled constantly.
Edit:
Btw, you can get ERV/HRVs which is using water as the storage medium. Meaning, that in essense it is a calorifier, even though it doesn't make the water boil.
Edit #2:
The Argonon is a huge ship. Really huge. There is more than enough room and fuel on ships like that.
Last edited:
optimusprime
Proffessional daydreamer.
Hi Biotect
Yep get it now!
Must have been a case of information overload,and not reading things properly,and in order!
(But I'll blame you instead for changing and editing your posts!! :sombrero joke!)
Yep get it now!
Must have been a case of information overload,and not reading things properly,and in order!
(But I'll blame you instead for changing and editing your posts!! :sombrero
joke!)
biotect
Designer
.
Hi Aspire:
First off, regarding the theme of this thread.
This thread began with a question: If one were to use a 6x6, torsion-free MAN-KAT, MAN SX series, or Tatra 815 series chassis as a base, could one place on top of that a large, fully integrated expedition camper, similar to a "one-room-design" German Liner motorhome? Without any need for a 3-point or 4-point pivoting sub-frame? And without any need for the cab and the camper to remain separate?
Turns out that the answer to that question was, "YES".
Indeed, something like this been done before, in various MAN-KAT conversions, like the Doleoni -- see http://www.doleoni.com/wp/en/man-kat-1-a1/ . And egn had certainly considered doing it as well, when he first began designing "Blue Thunder". But the cost was too prohibitive for him.
But still, it was not an idle or stupid question, because no less an authority than Stephen Stewart has written:
See http://www.xor.org.uk/silkroute/equipment/choosevan.htm .
In other words when compared to more mainstream motorhomes, in terms of interior space and light most expedition motorhomes seem to be very bad designs. Most expedition motorhomes seem to be space-inefficient, crap designs. They only begin to "make sense", once one realizes that they sacrifice interior comfort in favor of the engineering that seems necessary so that they can be off-road capable and yet remain light. Ergo, their pivoting sub-frames. Whereas a torsion-free frame, as per the MAN SX or Tatra 815, is comparatively heavy.
So earlier in the thread, what those who objected to the "torsion free" solution were really saying, is that engineering and off-road capability should always trump interior comfort. They were saying that raw off-road performance -- for instance, the ability to drive along small mud tracks in the Congo -- is more important than having a comfortable, spacious, fully-integrated interior to live in, full-time. egn and I then simply disagreed with them, that one must be willing to sacrifice comfort to off-road capability, or to geographic reach. Or that geographic reach should be the only criterion that determines expedition motorhome design.
Now the thread could have stopped there. But it didn't.
Myself and others thought it would be interesting to continue discussing the other aspects of the specification for a large, globally capable, “Round the World” motorhome. Including systems like toilets, bath/shower, kitchen equipment, and of course, the drive train. If you are not interested in this more global, rambling sort of discussion, no worries. It's not to everyone's taste. But nothing compels anyone to read threads on ExPo…..
Sure, perhaps I should have started a new thread titled something like, "Fully Integrated Round the World 6x6 Motorhome built on Torsion-Free MAN or Tatra Chassis." Or perhaps I should have renamed the thread. But I didn't, because the thread had already turned into that in any case. Indeed, the thread was already turning into that back on page 6 or 7..... So those who've read the thread from beginning, and those who've participated in the thread most intensely, already know what it's about.
****************************************
1. Hybrid Drive Train, and Microturbine Noise
On the topic of the drive-train, egn wrote:
egn thought that hybrid technology seemed worth exploring, and the topic has been on the “backburner” for most of this thread. Just thought I'd bring it to the fore.
As for microturbine noise, if you had read the thread from post #491 onwards, you would have seen that I've been literally obsessed with the problem of microturbine noise. But after watching various videos, for me the jury is still out. I don't know how loud or how silent a Capstone microturbine might be inside a big truck. But I do know this: the technology is promising enough that Peterbilt (a manufacturer of big trucks), and Walmart (a chain of even bigger stores) thought it was worth giving serious attention. You seem German -- the reference to the "Passiv-Haus" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house ). So are you familiar with these American corporate heavyweights?
Do you know what it means for a big OEM like Peterbilt, and a mega-sized retailer like Walmart, to explore microturbine technology in a working prototype truck? Please see posts #496 and #497, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page50 , if you have not already read them.
****************************************
2. Microturbine Fuel Efficiency and Low Maintenance
Furthermore, microturbine technology is not so ridiculous, that DesignLine buses were considered “unrealistic” from a practical point of view.
In fact, before DesignLine was bought out by American investors who did not seem to know what they were doing, DesignLine was a successful, innovative New Zealand company that had built up an excellent, 20-year track record. In Australia and New Zealand, DesignLine's microturbine serial hybrid buses had developed a good reputation for fuel efficiency and low maintenance.
When the company was still New Zealand-owned and managed by its founder, John Turton, DesignLine was well-run and profitable, from 1985 to 2006. It created the much-loved “Tindo” solar-powered electric bus for Adelaide, for instance – see http://green.autoblog.com/2007/12/13/tindo-solar-powered-bus-makes-its-debut-in-adelaide/ . DesignLine buses manufactured and used in New Zealand had an admirable service record:
See http://www.capstoneturbine.com/news/story.asp?id=156 .
However, in 2006 DesignLine was bought by the American father-and-son investors, Buster and Brad Glosson, along with additional Charlotte, North Carolina investors. In 2008 they set up another large manufacturing plant in Charlotte, North Carolina, and seem to have overextended. There is also some question whether the American-owned company fraudulently incorporated used parts in its buses sold as new – see http://www.charlotteobserver.com/20...erns-about-designline-parts.html#.U-3X43mSf6k .
****************************************
3. Microturbines that run on Diesel
It doesn't seem like you've read all of the previous posts, which is of course OK, and quite understandable. It's a great deal to digest, and sure, there is the problem of "information overload", as optimusprime put it.
But if you had read the earlier posts, you might have come across the links to the Capstone website where it explicitly states that its microturbines can be configured to run on diesel – see http://www.power-eng.com/articles/2...esel-fueled-microturbine-order-in-mexico.html , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capstone_Turbine , http://www.capstoneturbine.com/_docs/C30 Liquid Fuel.pdf , and http://www.capstoneturbine.com/company/faq.asp#cp1:
I then honestly do not understand why you think that turbines cannot run long-term on diesel?
Of course, it's worth repeating here that the turbine in the Abrams tank was specifically designed to run on different kinds of diesel, as well as other kinds of fuel – see post #513 and #516 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page52 .
****************************************
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.
Hi Aspire:
First off, regarding the theme of this thread.
This thread began with a question: If one were to use a 6x6, torsion-free MAN-KAT, MAN SX series, or Tatra 815 series chassis as a base, could one place on top of that a large, fully integrated expedition camper, similar to a "one-room-design" German Liner motorhome? Without any need for a 3-point or 4-point pivoting sub-frame? And without any need for the cab and the camper to remain separate?
Turns out that the answer to that question was, "YES".
Indeed, something like this been done before, in various MAN-KAT conversions, like the Doleoni -- see http://www.doleoni.com/wp/en/man-kat-1-a1/ . And egn had certainly considered doing it as well, when he first began designing "Blue Thunder". But the cost was too prohibitive for him.
But still, it was not an idle or stupid question, because no less an authority than Stephen Stewart has written:
See http://www.xor.org.uk/silkroute/equipment/choosevan.htm .
In other words when compared to more mainstream motorhomes, in terms of interior space and light most expedition motorhomes seem to be very bad designs. Most expedition motorhomes seem to be space-inefficient, crap designs. They only begin to "make sense", once one realizes that they sacrifice interior comfort in favor of the engineering that seems necessary so that they can be off-road capable and yet remain light. Ergo, their pivoting sub-frames. Whereas a torsion-free frame, as per the MAN SX or Tatra 815, is comparatively heavy.
So earlier in the thread, what those who objected to the "torsion free" solution were really saying, is that engineering and off-road capability should always trump interior comfort. They were saying that raw off-road performance -- for instance, the ability to drive along small mud tracks in the Congo -- is more important than having a comfortable, spacious, fully-integrated interior to live in, full-time. egn and I then simply disagreed with them, that one must be willing to sacrifice comfort to off-road capability, or to geographic reach. Or that geographic reach should be the only criterion that determines expedition motorhome design.
Now the thread could have stopped there. But it didn't.
Myself and others thought it would be interesting to continue discussing the other aspects of the specification for a large, globally capable, “Round the World” motorhome. Including systems like toilets, bath/shower, kitchen equipment, and of course, the drive train. If you are not interested in this more global, rambling sort of discussion, no worries. It's not to everyone's taste. But nothing compels anyone to read threads on ExPo…..
Sure, perhaps I should have started a new thread titled something like, "Fully Integrated Round the World 6x6 Motorhome built on Torsion-Free MAN or Tatra Chassis." Or perhaps I should have renamed the thread. But I didn't, because the thread had already turned into that in any case. Indeed, the thread was already turning into that back on page 6 or 7..... So those who've read the thread from beginning, and those who've participated in the thread most intensely, already know what it's about.
****************************************
1. Hybrid Drive Train, and Microturbine Noise
On the topic of the drive-train, egn wrote:
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:
egn thought that hybrid technology seemed worth exploring, and the topic has been on the “backburner” for most of this thread. Just thought I'd bring it to the fore.
As for microturbine noise, if you had read the thread from post #491 onwards, you would have seen that I've been literally obsessed with the problem of microturbine noise. But after watching various videos, for me the jury is still out. I don't know how loud or how silent a Capstone microturbine might be inside a big truck. But I do know this: the technology is promising enough that Peterbilt (a manufacturer of big trucks), and Walmart (a chain of even bigger stores) thought it was worth giving serious attention. You seem German -- the reference to the "Passiv-Haus" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house ). So are you familiar with these American corporate heavyweights?
Do you know what it means for a big OEM like Peterbilt, and a mega-sized retailer like Walmart, to explore microturbine technology in a working prototype truck? Please see posts #496 and #497, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page50 , if you have not already read them.
****************************************
2. Microturbine Fuel Efficiency and Low Maintenance
Furthermore, microturbine technology is not so ridiculous, that DesignLine buses were considered “unrealistic” from a practical point of view.
In fact, before DesignLine was bought out by American investors who did not seem to know what they were doing, DesignLine was a successful, innovative New Zealand company that had built up an excellent, 20-year track record. In Australia and New Zealand, DesignLine's microturbine serial hybrid buses had developed a good reputation for fuel efficiency and low maintenance.
When the company was still New Zealand-owned and managed by its founder, John Turton, DesignLine was well-run and profitable, from 1985 to 2006. It created the much-loved “Tindo” solar-powered electric bus for Adelaide, for instance – see http://green.autoblog.com/2007/12/13/tindo-solar-powered-bus-makes-its-debut-in-adelaide/ . DesignLine buses manufactured and used in New Zealand had an admirable service record:
See http://www.capstoneturbine.com/news/story.asp?id=156 .
However, in 2006 DesignLine was bought by the American father-and-son investors, Buster and Brad Glosson, along with additional Charlotte, North Carolina investors. In 2008 they set up another large manufacturing plant in Charlotte, North Carolina, and seem to have overextended. There is also some question whether the American-owned company fraudulently incorporated used parts in its buses sold as new – see http://www.charlotteobserver.com/20...erns-about-designline-parts.html#.U-3X43mSf6k .
****************************************
3. Microturbines that run on Diesel
It doesn't seem like you've read all of the previous posts, which is of course OK, and quite understandable. It's a great deal to digest, and sure, there is the problem of "information overload", as optimusprime put it.
But if you had read the earlier posts, you might have come across the links to the Capstone website where it explicitly states that its microturbines can be configured to run on diesel – see http://www.power-eng.com/articles/2...esel-fueled-microturbine-order-in-mexico.html , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capstone_Turbine , http://www.capstoneturbine.com/_docs/C30 Liquid Fuel.pdf , and http://www.capstoneturbine.com/company/faq.asp#cp1:
I then honestly do not understand why you think that turbines cannot run long-term on diesel?
Of course, it's worth repeating here that the turbine in the Abrams tank was specifically designed to run on different kinds of diesel, as well as other kinds of fuel – see post #513 and #516 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page52 .
****************************************
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.
Last edited:
biotect
Designer
..
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST
****************************************
4. Stinkpots versus Sailing Catamarans
****************************************
But in closing, many thanks for the link to FPB boats, at http://setsail.com/why-fpb-3/ . FPB boats are incredible machines, and truly inspirational. I hadn't come across them before, and they are indeed very beautiful, as well as functional. FPB boats seem just like the large, 6x6 expedition vehicles made by UniCat or ActionMobil: luxurious “glampers” inside, but utilitarian-looking outside, so as not to attract attention.
If I were doing nautical design, however, I would not be interested in motorboats, but rather, sailboats. I grew up sailing, so perhaps some measure of contempt for “stinkpots” is in my DNA? :coffeedrink:
Now if I were doing nautical design, I would most definitely be interested in working on a carbon-fibre sailing catamaran like a Gunboat – see post #409, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page41 , middle of the post. Or see http://www.gunboat.com/app/webroot/userfiles/178/File/ProBoat144_Gunboat_EdFinal-SMALL.pdf , http://www.gunboat.com , http://www.gunboat.com/series/gunboat-55 , http://www.gunboat.com/series/gunboat-60 , http://www.gunboat.com/media/download-a-gunboat-brochure-page , http://pdf.nauticexpo.com/pdf/gunboat-32721.html , http://www.oceannavigator.com/October-2013/Gunboat-60/ , and http://www.gunboat.com/media/press:
Perhaps the mere mention of all-carbon-fiber catamarans is too “Sci Fi” for your taste? Even though dozens of them have been built over the last 10 years?
Experienced sailors who handle them all agree that Gunboats are vastly superior catamarans, especially from the point of view of safety and practicality. Carbon fiber means lighter, and lighter means faster, which means being able to outrun a storm. Furthermore, the forward cockpit of a Gunboat, although not Gunboat's innovation (as near as I can tell, it was Chris White's innovation – see http://www.chriswhitedesigns.com/atlantic_cats/ ), completely changes the sailing experience. Above all, it makes it possible for a husband + wife team to handle a very big boat, up to 60 feet long, just the two of them. Longer than that, and the sails get too heavy.
But less than a decade ago “realists” were saying that big, 60 foot catamarans were only “practical” purchases for people who could afford to pay for additional crew, or who had large families, in which everyone loves sailing. Gunboat ignored the realists, and has been making terrific, super-Sci-Fi boats ever since. Gunboats are great for retired couples who want to cruise around the world. But Gunboats are also so fast that they will beat almost any sailing monohull on the water except, maybe, a Rambler 100, which is basically a Volvo Open 70 on steroids – see http://www.yachtingworld.com/news/517102/rambler-100-breaks-record , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuzXRIeaJgM , and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_Open_70 .
Unfortunately, a Rambler 100 just recently capsized in Fastnet when it snapped its keel..... http://www.sail-world.com/UK/Rambler-100-capsized-in-Fastnet---all-crew-safe/87337 and https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5DC1A8B1C133AD7B . Whereas catamarans are some of the most secure and safest sailing vessels afloat, especially in high seas; and especially when they don't have their daggerboards down…..:sombrero:
****************************************
5. Microturbine Hybrids are Simple
Finally, for what it's worth, one of the reasons why some people think that micoturbine serial hybrid technology could be the future, is because this it is quite possibly the "simplest" hybrid technology available. Parallel hybrid cars are much more complicated. Whereas a serial hybrid is really just an electric vehicle fitted with a range extender. And a microturbine range extender has just one moving part.
Agreed, technology for its own sake is a dead-end street, and there is no value in making things complicated. But I was genuinely attracted to the idea of the microturbine serial hybrid solution because:
1. the microturbines could be multi-fuel
2. they would be comparatively maintenance-free
3. they would be smaller and lighter than an ICE generator of comparable power
4. they would be low-emissions, or very "green"
5. for service and maintenance, they could be pulled out of the front of the vehicle on a tray, just like a more standard sort of electric generator
This makes a flat-floor cab without engine tunnel possible, and it eliminates any need for the cab to tilt forwards.
In other words, a microturbine serial hybrid solution is the perfect drive train to complement a fully integrated design. And "fully integrated" is in the title of this thread....
All best wishes,
Biotect
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST
****************************************
4. Stinkpots versus Sailing Catamarans
****************************************
But in closing, many thanks for the link to FPB boats, at http://setsail.com/why-fpb-3/ . FPB boats are incredible machines, and truly inspirational. I hadn't come across them before, and they are indeed very beautiful, as well as functional. FPB boats seem just like the large, 6x6 expedition vehicles made by UniCat or ActionMobil: luxurious “glampers” inside, but utilitarian-looking outside, so as not to attract attention.
If I were doing nautical design, however, I would not be interested in motorboats, but rather, sailboats. I grew up sailing, so perhaps some measure of contempt for “stinkpots” is in my DNA? :coffeedrink:
Now if I were doing nautical design, I would most definitely be interested in working on a carbon-fibre sailing catamaran like a Gunboat – see post #409, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page41 , middle of the post. Or see http://www.gunboat.com/app/webroot/userfiles/178/File/ProBoat144_Gunboat_EdFinal-SMALL.pdf , http://www.gunboat.com , http://www.gunboat.com/series/gunboat-55 , http://www.gunboat.com/series/gunboat-60 , http://www.gunboat.com/media/download-a-gunboat-brochure-page , http://pdf.nauticexpo.com/pdf/gunboat-32721.html , http://www.oceannavigator.com/October-2013/Gunboat-60/ , and http://www.gunboat.com/media/press:
Perhaps the mere mention of all-carbon-fiber catamarans is too “Sci Fi” for your taste? Even though dozens of them have been built over the last 10 years?
Experienced sailors who handle them all agree that Gunboats are vastly superior catamarans, especially from the point of view of safety and practicality. Carbon fiber means lighter, and lighter means faster, which means being able to outrun a storm. Furthermore, the forward cockpit of a Gunboat, although not Gunboat's innovation (as near as I can tell, it was Chris White's innovation – see http://www.chriswhitedesigns.com/atlantic_cats/ ), completely changes the sailing experience. Above all, it makes it possible for a husband + wife team to handle a very big boat, up to 60 feet long, just the two of them. Longer than that, and the sails get too heavy.
But less than a decade ago “realists” were saying that big, 60 foot catamarans were only “practical” purchases for people who could afford to pay for additional crew, or who had large families, in which everyone loves sailing. Gunboat ignored the realists, and has been making terrific, super-Sci-Fi boats ever since. Gunboats are great for retired couples who want to cruise around the world. But Gunboats are also so fast that they will beat almost any sailing monohull on the water except, maybe, a Rambler 100, which is basically a Volvo Open 70 on steroids – see http://www.yachtingworld.com/news/517102/rambler-100-breaks-record , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuzXRIeaJgM , and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_Open_70 .
Unfortunately, a Rambler 100 just recently capsized in Fastnet when it snapped its keel..... http://www.sail-world.com/UK/Rambler-100-capsized-in-Fastnet---all-crew-safe/87337 and https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5DC1A8B1C133AD7B . Whereas catamarans are some of the most secure and safest sailing vessels afloat, especially in high seas; and especially when they don't have their daggerboards down…..:sombrero:
****************************************
5. Microturbine Hybrids are Simple
Finally, for what it's worth, one of the reasons why some people think that micoturbine serial hybrid technology could be the future, is because this it is quite possibly the "simplest" hybrid technology available. Parallel hybrid cars are much more complicated. Whereas a serial hybrid is really just an electric vehicle fitted with a range extender. And a microturbine range extender has just one moving part.
Agreed, technology for its own sake is a dead-end street, and there is no value in making things complicated. But I was genuinely attracted to the idea of the microturbine serial hybrid solution because:
1. the microturbines could be multi-fuel
2. they would be comparatively maintenance-free
3. they would be smaller and lighter than an ICE generator of comparable power
4. they would be low-emissions, or very "green"
5. for service and maintenance, they could be pulled out of the front of the vehicle on a tray, just like a more standard sort of electric generator
This makes a flat-floor cab without engine tunnel possible, and it eliminates any need for the cab to tilt forwards.
In other words, a microturbine serial hybrid solution is the perfect drive train to complement a fully integrated design. And "fully integrated" is in the title of this thread....
All best wishes,
Biotect
Last edited:
biotect
Designer
Hi Biotect
Yep get it now!
Must have been a case of information overload,and not reading things properly,and in order!
(But I'll blame you instead for changing and editing your posts!! :sombrero
Glad to hear it. Yes, there was a great deal of information in that sequence, from post #491 onwards. My apologies for the information overload. But seemed necessary to post it all together, so that microturbines would get a fair hearing.
What really amazes me is just how little discussion there is on ExPo of hybrid technologies, given that ExPo is a "vehicle" website, where most participants seem interested in machines. Just do a google search for "Expedition + Portal + Hybrid", and very little comes up.
Whereas in the world of automotive design and engineering, professionals can't seem to talk about anything else. Indeed, I was so sick and tired of hearing about hybrid technology, that at the beginning of this thread I tried to avoid the topic. I really wanted to think about and discuss all the other aspects of large expedition vehicle design instead. Not hybrid technology.
But then dwh posted about microturbines, and a light went off in my head, and.....
All best wishes,
Biotect
Last edited:
Ok, let me rephrase it then:
What I miss is adherence to the mission, rather than sci-fi solutions that is not only impractical in general, but moreso on a comparatively small scale (compared to grand sailing yachts and big commercial ships).
No, carbon is not sci-fi. Thinking you can apply huge ship's systems which comes with huge fuel tanks and endless water supply (by way of their water makers) to an expedition vehicle is.
My favourite carbon multihull is the Paradox - built with stretched amas from the forms from the Fuji racing trimaran. Look it up. Whether a catamaran is as safe as a trimaran is up for debate, and if you mix monohulls into the mix, the water is even muddier. both are very stable platforms, but that can work against them in big waves - especially in the case of the gunboats, as they don't dive into the waves as well as a trimaran, and tend to follow the surface of the waves more.
But again, both the much lighter Paradox (it's a one-off) and the Gunboats have endless supplies of water, and the Gunboats - especially the bigger ones, carries quite a lot of fuel too - but since both the Gunboats and trimarans are sailing boats, they don't need so much fuel over long distances for propulsion. They can use most of what they have for "consumption".
Btw, Paradox annihilated the Gunboats in the races where they both partook.
As for "stinkpots". The Dashews (setsail) have been sailing and design sailboats for decades. But as for a go-anywhere vehicle (vessel, but you know), I am not sure I would want to sail in the arctic with a superfast sailing boat made from carbon. Dashews have always built strong boats, the FPB series is no exception. In fact they are even stronger, and the FPB 78 series is built to surpass the highest ice category there is, and FPB78-1 and I believe it is FPB78-3 (or is it 2?) will both have the paperwork and inspections to prove it.
I'd rather be pushing small icebergs and ice slurry, or let the bow climb over to break ice inches thick with the FPB than attempt such things in a fast multihull.
You want to build a huge man or tatra, but you seem to look down on the FPBs and Unicat because they are luxurious on the inside and unassuming on the outside? Isn't a huge tatra in itself like that, regardless of how you paint it, and are you saying that is a bad thing? Do you want flash on the outside too, or am I misunderstanding something?
Btw, the FPBs being unassuming, even looking a bit like military vessels is a biproduct of them wanting their boats to be as free of varnishing and polishing as possible. Hence no wood and no paint on them - not even on the topsides. With that said, I like the resulting look.
Back to the multihulls: It doesn't matter how fast either of them are - only that because they are so fast and relatively easily driven - by wind - they don't rely on their engines. Case in point: Paradox has at least one hydrogenerator - the purpose of which would be wasted if it were not driven by wind, and many Gunboats have two (one on each hull). The hydro generator of choice for fast multi and monohulls are these from Watt & Sea:
http://www.wattandsea.com/en
Anyway, perhaps a more practical approach in order to adhere to the mission statement. You are not "building" something that has as much volume as huge ships, you are not building something that has the volume of the large monohull yacht, you are not building something with as large a volume as the gunboats, you are not building something that has endless supply of water as do all of your boating examples, you are not building something that is driven by the wind, and you are certainly not building something fast that is driven by the wind, which allows the use of hydro generators (which most fast multihulls are fitted with, because if they can save on fuel tankage, or even forego a generator altogether, they will save weight, meaning they will go faster. Weight is the enemy of multihulls to the extreme. Hence the prepreg carbon/foam composites of the Gunboats, and the ultralight (in comparison) and spartan Paradox. You are supposedly building (designing, I know), a go-anywhere world-expedition vehicle, which limits width, length, height, and to a certain degree weight too. With those physical limitations, and the fact that you are not in water, and are propelled by an engine, not by the wind, many of the solutions of sailing boats, be they sailing super yachts, fast cataramans, fast trimarans, is simply not possible, or even applicable. The same goes for huge cargo ships. With every pie in the sky idea, there has to be some sort of filter if things you see in other parts of the tech world is 1) applicable, and 2) possible. I would love to have unlimited supplies of water, an extreme turbine to do the water and all, and the fuel to run it just for electricity when 70 percent of the energy is expelled as heat, and I have no need for heat because I'm roaming parts of the world where I don't need the heat.
And this brings me to the point of applying all these ideas: How much fuel (I can't remember how much it uses per hour) does the smallest turbine generator (i.e. it generators 70 percent heat, 30 percent electricity, if we say it is lossless use? If you were to use it as an electric generator:
1) How much of the 9kw electricity (if we think of it as lossless here) can actually be put into a battery. The batteries will have to able to absorb it.
2) How big a battery bank will be needed?
3) Which chemistry should it be, to allow for several C's of charge?
4) How effective will it be when not builk charging?
5) Since it cannot deliver all its juice all the time (because the batteries can't absorb it all the time), and that 70% of the kw it generates is pure heat, at which point - period of time - will it pay to carry a smaller generator instead of fuel for the 30Kw turbine? When should you use a small generator, when should you use the big one, and is it then even necessary to have a 30kw generator and associated fuel use?
There are more things to consider, of course, but these are calculations that needs to be done to arrive at anything even remotely useful. Now, I'm not saying a turbine is a no-go, but until there is some calculations to check, it is still just idle speculation and what I call "tech horniness" (I tend to do get that way myself, so I get it).
Of course, you could build the truck with a small external cabin for living - really small, and have almost all the tech you want, taken up the entire space of the truck bed, lol. In reality, though, you want to be able to live - preferably in luxury - in a truck of this size, which is a parameter that works against putting endless amounts of storage and tech in it.
What I miss is adherence to the mission, rather than sci-fi solutions that is not only impractical in general, but moreso on a comparatively small scale (compared to grand sailing yachts and big commercial ships).
No, carbon is not sci-fi. Thinking you can apply huge ship's systems which comes with huge fuel tanks and endless water supply (by way of their water makers) to an expedition vehicle is.
My favourite carbon multihull is the Paradox - built with stretched amas from the forms from the Fuji racing trimaran. Look it up. Whether a catamaran is as safe as a trimaran is up for debate, and if you mix monohulls into the mix, the water is even muddier. both are very stable platforms, but that can work against them in big waves - especially in the case of the gunboats, as they don't dive into the waves as well as a trimaran, and tend to follow the surface of the waves more.
But again, both the much lighter Paradox (it's a one-off) and the Gunboats have endless supplies of water, and the Gunboats - especially the bigger ones, carries quite a lot of fuel too - but since both the Gunboats and trimarans are sailing boats, they don't need so much fuel over long distances for propulsion. They can use most of what they have for "consumption".
Btw, Paradox annihilated the Gunboats in the races where they both partook.
As for "stinkpots". The Dashews (setsail) have been sailing and design sailboats for decades. But as for a go-anywhere vehicle (vessel, but you know), I am not sure I would want to sail in the arctic with a superfast sailing boat made from carbon. Dashews have always built strong boats, the FPB series is no exception. In fact they are even stronger, and the FPB 78 series is built to surpass the highest ice category there is, and FPB78-1 and I believe it is FPB78-3 (or is it 2?) will both have the paperwork and inspections to prove it.
I'd rather be pushing small icebergs and ice slurry, or let the bow climb over to break ice inches thick with the FPB than attempt such things in a fast multihull.
You want to build a huge man or tatra, but you seem to look down on the FPBs and Unicat because they are luxurious on the inside and unassuming on the outside? Isn't a huge tatra in itself like that, regardless of how you paint it, and are you saying that is a bad thing? Do you want flash on the outside too, or am I misunderstanding something?
Btw, the FPBs being unassuming, even looking a bit like military vessels is a biproduct of them wanting their boats to be as free of varnishing and polishing as possible. Hence no wood and no paint on them - not even on the topsides. With that said, I like the resulting look.
Back to the multihulls: It doesn't matter how fast either of them are - only that because they are so fast and relatively easily driven - by wind - they don't rely on their engines. Case in point: Paradox has at least one hydrogenerator - the purpose of which would be wasted if it were not driven by wind, and many Gunboats have two (one on each hull). The hydro generator of choice for fast multi and monohulls are these from Watt & Sea:
http://www.wattandsea.com/en
Anyway, perhaps a more practical approach in order to adhere to the mission statement. You are not "building" something that has as much volume as huge ships, you are not building something that has the volume of the large monohull yacht, you are not building something with as large a volume as the gunboats, you are not building something that has endless supply of water as do all of your boating examples, you are not building something that is driven by the wind, and you are certainly not building something fast that is driven by the wind, which allows the use of hydro generators (which most fast multihulls are fitted with, because if they can save on fuel tankage, or even forego a generator altogether, they will save weight, meaning they will go faster. Weight is the enemy of multihulls to the extreme. Hence the prepreg carbon/foam composites of the Gunboats, and the ultralight (in comparison) and spartan Paradox. You are supposedly building (designing, I know), a go-anywhere world-expedition vehicle, which limits width, length, height, and to a certain degree weight too. With those physical limitations, and the fact that you are not in water, and are propelled by an engine, not by the wind, many of the solutions of sailing boats, be they sailing super yachts, fast cataramans, fast trimarans, is simply not possible, or even applicable. The same goes for huge cargo ships. With every pie in the sky idea, there has to be some sort of filter if things you see in other parts of the tech world is 1) applicable, and 2) possible. I would love to have unlimited supplies of water, an extreme turbine to do the water and all, and the fuel to run it just for electricity when 70 percent of the energy is expelled as heat, and I have no need for heat because I'm roaming parts of the world where I don't need the heat.
And this brings me to the point of applying all these ideas: How much fuel (I can't remember how much it uses per hour) does the smallest turbine generator (i.e. it generators 70 percent heat, 30 percent electricity, if we say it is lossless use? If you were to use it as an electric generator:
1) How much of the 9kw electricity (if we think of it as lossless here) can actually be put into a battery. The batteries will have to able to absorb it.
2) How big a battery bank will be needed?
3) Which chemistry should it be, to allow for several C's of charge?
4) How effective will it be when not builk charging?
5) Since it cannot deliver all its juice all the time (because the batteries can't absorb it all the time), and that 70% of the kw it generates is pure heat, at which point - period of time - will it pay to carry a smaller generator instead of fuel for the 30Kw turbine? When should you use a small generator, when should you use the big one, and is it then even necessary to have a 30kw generator and associated fuel use?
There are more things to consider, of course, but these are calculations that needs to be done to arrive at anything even remotely useful. Now, I'm not saying a turbine is a no-go, but until there is some calculations to check, it is still just idle speculation and what I call "tech horniness" (I tend to do get that way myself, so I get it).
Of course, you could build the truck with a small external cabin for living - really small, and have almost all the tech you want, taken up the entire space of the truck bed, lol. In reality, though, you want to be able to live - preferably in luxury - in a truck of this size, which is a parameter that works against putting endless amounts of storage and tech in it.
I know you're thinking of using the "micro" turbine as a generator for a serial hybrid, but again, with 70% of the energy in the fuel expelled as heat, it is still a pie in the sky, until you have made at least some calculations to check how fruitful it would be to use that type of generator for such a design. It needs to be at least on par with a direct drive piston" (normal diesel) to be even worth looking at (because of fuel economy/tankage), and for it to be a viable alternative, there has to be more practical pros than a flat floor in the cab - people can get that with "traditional" engined trucks as it is.
Try "hybrid site:expeditionportal.com" (without the quotation marks).
Edit:
The reason you don't get many (usable) hits when doing such a search is that this is not a designer forum. People here buy already existing products and alter them, or have them altered to suit their needs (and wallet). Very few are here because of their love for cutting edge design or because they want to explore what might be technically feasible.
If you want a board choke full of designers (and wannabes) and plenty of thoughts and practical attempts on hybrid designs with diesel as the fuel, take a look at:
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/hybrid/
Yeah, it's boats, but at least it's a bit more hands-on, although many of them use theirs only to get in and out of the harbour, and many of them are only relying on it as an auxilliary form of propulsion (i.e. they are mostly in sailboats).
Try "hybrid site:expeditionportal.com" (without the quotation marks).
Edit:
The reason you don't get many (usable) hits when doing such a search is that this is not a designer forum. People here buy already existing products and alter them, or have them altered to suit their needs (and wallet). Very few are here because of their love for cutting edge design or because they want to explore what might be technically feasible.
If you want a board choke full of designers (and wannabes) and plenty of thoughts and practical attempts on hybrid designs with diesel as the fuel, take a look at:
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/hybrid/
Yeah, it's boats, but at least it's a bit more hands-on, although many of them use theirs only to get in and out of the harbour, and many of them are only relying on it as an auxilliary form of propulsion (i.e. they are mostly in sailboats).
Last edited:
About that sailing yacht with a Capstone Turbine, I take note that Capstone themselves, say it is a "A liquid-fueled Capstone C30".
To me, that means it is not running on diesel, even though diesel is a liquid too. Because if it ran on diesel, why wouldn't they just say so?
Take a look at their description under the video they uploaded:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLTinWDhZNk
If it's not running on diesel, it's probably because their turbine has the same limitations as "normal" turbines (turboprop engines): They can run on diesel, but not for very long, and for a very limited time between rebuilds. If it's not running diesel, and are capable of running that as the sole fuel, is it still viable on a go-anywhere global expedition vehicle?
Getting hold of kerosene and/or JetA1 can quickly become a project in itself when you're not flying.
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/hybrid/capstone-microturbine-39265.html
Ok, I'm done.
To me, that means it is not running on diesel, even though diesel is a liquid too. Because if it ran on diesel, why wouldn't they just say so?
Take a look at their description under the video they uploaded:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLTinWDhZNk
If it's not running on diesel, it's probably because their turbine has the same limitations as "normal" turbines (turboprop engines): They can run on diesel, but not for very long, and for a very limited time between rebuilds. If it's not running diesel, and are capable of running that as the sole fuel, is it still viable on a go-anywhere global expedition vehicle?
Getting hold of kerosene and/or JetA1 can quickly become a project in itself when you're not flying.
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/hybrid/capstone-microturbine-39265.html
Ok, I'm done.
Last edited:
biotect
Designer
Hi Aspire,
In your first message above you did not quote me. Instead you just imputed to me positions that I have not taken. I then wonder whether it's worth responding? I mean, if you're gonna put words in my mouth that I never wrote, what's the point in discussing anything with you at all? You might as well just talk to yourself, merely inventing positions that I never took, and arguing with yourself against those invented positions.
I did not say that expedition vehicles on land should be designed like big catamarans. I never said anything of the sort. And it does not take a genius to realize that an expedition vehicle should not and cannot accommodate everything that a Gunboat can accommodate. And yet you seem to think that I have been suggesting that Gunboat-sized systems should be able to fit into a 6x6 expedition motorhome?
Even if I were not a transportation designer, I would never think anything so foolish. In fact, most people would never think anything so foolish. And certainly not regular participants on ExPo.
So it would be nice if you were to extend to other forum participants, including myself, some “benefit of the doubt”. It's usually good policy on a forum like this to assume that other participants are reasonably rational, and that they are probably just as intelligent as oneself. Perhaps even more intelligent. And if you were to begin with that assumption, you might be less quick to impute foolish positions to other participants, positions that they never took.
**********************************************
1. Fuel Tank: 1500 Liters
As regards the amount of fuel carried specifically, I've made it clear earlier in the thread that a 6x6 motorhome of this sort would carry 1500 liters of diesel, just like the Doleoni MAN-KAT. Egn's “Blue Thunder” carries 1300 liters of diesel.
**********************************************
2. The Question of Thermal Efficiency
As for your other point, new-car gasoline engines are usually about 25 % thermally efficient, and diesels can be 30 – 49 % efficient. Diesel semi tractor-trailer trucks are about 35 % thermally efficient. Only when ICE engines get really big, do they achieve much better thermal efficiencies, nearing 50 %. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency and http://www.researchgate.net/post/Wh...he_commercially_available_automobile_engines2 .
This is one of the reasons why Capstone turbines have proven so attractive in power generation. Because when you combine their 30 % thermal efficiency generating electricity, with CHP – “combined heat and power” – their overall efficiency radically improves. Microturbines used in power generation that employ CHP to recover heat energy from the exhaust, can typically achieve efficiencies topping 60 %. Capstone even claims 75 or 80 % efficiency for some applications. Which is better than anything that smaller, diesel-fueled ICE power generators can achieve -- see http://www.capstoneturbine.com/prodsol/solutions/chp.asp , http://www.microturbine.com/_docs/WCEMC04.pdf , and http://www.epa.gov/chp/documents/microturbine_tech.pdf .
Which is why Capstone microturbines have become so popular for small-to-medium-sized power generation.
For what it's worth, this is precisely why I asked the question about CHP energy recovery, to heat the motorhome and provide hot water. Because with that included, it's possible that overall, a pair of C30 microturbines (a pair for redundancy) might be much more thermally efficient than the standard combination of internal combustion diesel + separate diesel heaters. A Capstone C30 microturbine might not be the most thermally efficient solution for a small car. But for a motorhome that needs substantial camper heating in any case, it just might be.
Now I do not know if this is true. Those reading this who are engineers would be in a much better position to judge.
And yet even without CHP, the owner of the “Lethantia” seemed to think that his new Capstone C-30 turbine was a vast improvement over the diesel-electric generators that it replaced. The owner of the “Lethantia” did not care about “flat floor” design. Rather, he cared about low maintenance, and environmentally friendly exhaust, for instance. Watch the video again, and see if his reasoning makes sense to you:
[video=youtube;vLTinWDhZNk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLTinWDhZNk [/video]
Of course, he also claims that his Capstone microturbine is much less noisy than the diesel generators that it replaced, a claim that you would probably deny.....:coffeedrink:
Now earlier in the thread you suggested that 30 % efficiency is a "terrible waste":
But as suggested by the websites just quoted above, about the thermal efficiency of automobiles, 30 % thermal efficiency is not terribly bad. Most gasoline internal combustion engines in cars are less efficient than 30 %.
Even still, I should thank you for getting me to think in a focused way about thermal efficiency. It would be very interesting to know:
(a) the thermal efficiency of the more popular, large, turbo-charged diesel-electric generators available for motorhomes, for instance, Cummins, Kohler, Fischer-Panda, etc.
(b) the thermal efficiency of the best possible ICE range-extender currently on the market: an ICE range-extender that has an electrical power output equivalent to a Capstone C30, or a Capstone C65.
I don't know the numbers on these, but they are clearly important. If anyone reading this actually knows the numbers, or can point me towards useful websites where I might find the numbers, please post!
**********************************************
3. The Question of Size, Design Flexibility, and Center of Balance
As for size, a Capstone C30 microturbine (the smallest kind) has been successfully placed inside a not-very-large sports car (the CMT-380), and a Ford Crossover. The C30 has also been successfully placed inside larger vehicles like garbage trucks and buses. And the Capstone C65 microturbine – which is quite a bit bigger than a C30 – has been successfully placed inside a semi tractor-trailer truck, the Peterbilt/Walmart concept truck.
Now perhaps when we add up the weight of microturbines + lithium-ion batteries + electric motors + anything else associated with a serial hybrid system, maybe the total hybrid package comes out weighing much the same as a big MAN diesel + equally heavy transmission. Or maybe it does not. Maybe it really will weigh less. I honestly do not know, and as you suggest, the devil is in the details. However, I doubt that the combined weight would be more.
But suppose the weight of the total hybrid package were the same. Even then, as egn has remarked earlier in the thread, the advantage of hybrid technology is that you can “spread” the components around, instead of having so much weight concentrated in one place, as with a traditional big diesel motor + transmission:
In other words, even though egn is an very successful engineer by profession, and very practically-minded, egn was able to recognize that hybrid technology provides more “design freedom”. And "design freedom" not only matters to egn; it also matters to me, as a designer.
Design freedom may not matter to you, Aspire. But it does matter to me. And more to the point, design freedom matters, very much, in this particular thread. More below.
Hybrid technology also allows one to play with the center of balance, which is very important in an expedition motorhome. egn stated in one of his posts that he spent lots of time trying to get Blue Thunder's center of balance right, and that going hybrid would have made achieving an optimal center of balance much easier.
****************************************
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.
In your first message above you did not quote me. Instead you just imputed to me positions that I have not taken. I then wonder whether it's worth responding? I mean, if you're gonna put words in my mouth that I never wrote, what's the point in discussing anything with you at all? You might as well just talk to yourself, merely inventing positions that I never took, and arguing with yourself against those invented positions.
I did not say that expedition vehicles on land should be designed like big catamarans. I never said anything of the sort. And it does not take a genius to realize that an expedition vehicle should not and cannot accommodate everything that a Gunboat can accommodate. And yet you seem to think that I have been suggesting that Gunboat-sized systems should be able to fit into a 6x6 expedition motorhome?
Even if I were not a transportation designer, I would never think anything so foolish. In fact, most people would never think anything so foolish. And certainly not regular participants on ExPo.
So it would be nice if you were to extend to other forum participants, including myself, some “benefit of the doubt”. It's usually good policy on a forum like this to assume that other participants are reasonably rational, and that they are probably just as intelligent as oneself. Perhaps even more intelligent. And if you were to begin with that assumption, you might be less quick to impute foolish positions to other participants, positions that they never took.
**********************************************
1. Fuel Tank: 1500 Liters
As regards the amount of fuel carried specifically, I've made it clear earlier in the thread that a 6x6 motorhome of this sort would carry 1500 liters of diesel, just like the Doleoni MAN-KAT. Egn's “Blue Thunder” carries 1300 liters of diesel.
**********************************************
2. The Question of Thermal Efficiency
As for your other point, new-car gasoline engines are usually about 25 % thermally efficient, and diesels can be 30 – 49 % efficient. Diesel semi tractor-trailer trucks are about 35 % thermally efficient. Only when ICE engines get really big, do they achieve much better thermal efficiencies, nearing 50 %. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency and http://www.researchgate.net/post/Wh...he_commercially_available_automobile_engines2 .
This is one of the reasons why Capstone turbines have proven so attractive in power generation. Because when you combine their 30 % thermal efficiency generating electricity, with CHP – “combined heat and power” – their overall efficiency radically improves. Microturbines used in power generation that employ CHP to recover heat energy from the exhaust, can typically achieve efficiencies topping 60 %. Capstone even claims 75 or 80 % efficiency for some applications. Which is better than anything that smaller, diesel-fueled ICE power generators can achieve -- see http://www.capstoneturbine.com/prodsol/solutions/chp.asp , http://www.microturbine.com/_docs/WCEMC04.pdf , and http://www.epa.gov/chp/documents/microturbine_tech.pdf .
Which is why Capstone microturbines have become so popular for small-to-medium-sized power generation.
For what it's worth, this is precisely why I asked the question about CHP energy recovery, to heat the motorhome and provide hot water. Because with that included, it's possible that overall, a pair of C30 microturbines (a pair for redundancy) might be much more thermally efficient than the standard combination of internal combustion diesel + separate diesel heaters. A Capstone C30 microturbine might not be the most thermally efficient solution for a small car. But for a motorhome that needs substantial camper heating in any case, it just might be.
Now I do not know if this is true. Those reading this who are engineers would be in a much better position to judge.
And yet even without CHP, the owner of the “Lethantia” seemed to think that his new Capstone C-30 turbine was a vast improvement over the diesel-electric generators that it replaced. The owner of the “Lethantia” did not care about “flat floor” design. Rather, he cared about low maintenance, and environmentally friendly exhaust, for instance. Watch the video again, and see if his reasoning makes sense to you:
[video=youtube;vLTinWDhZNk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLTinWDhZNk [/video]
Of course, he also claims that his Capstone microturbine is much less noisy than the diesel generators that it replaced, a claim that you would probably deny.....:coffeedrink:
Now earlier in the thread you suggested that 30 % efficiency is a "terrible waste":
But as suggested by the websites just quoted above, about the thermal efficiency of automobiles, 30 % thermal efficiency is not terribly bad. Most gasoline internal combustion engines in cars are less efficient than 30 %.
Even still, I should thank you for getting me to think in a focused way about thermal efficiency. It would be very interesting to know:
(a) the thermal efficiency of the more popular, large, turbo-charged diesel-electric generators available for motorhomes, for instance, Cummins, Kohler, Fischer-Panda, etc.
(b) the thermal efficiency of the best possible ICE range-extender currently on the market: an ICE range-extender that has an electrical power output equivalent to a Capstone C30, or a Capstone C65.
I don't know the numbers on these, but they are clearly important. If anyone reading this actually knows the numbers, or can point me towards useful websites where I might find the numbers, please post!
**********************************************
3. The Question of Size, Design Flexibility, and Center of Balance
As for size, a Capstone C30 microturbine (the smallest kind) has been successfully placed inside a not-very-large sports car (the CMT-380), and a Ford Crossover. The C30 has also been successfully placed inside larger vehicles like garbage trucks and buses. And the Capstone C65 microturbine – which is quite a bit bigger than a C30 – has been successfully placed inside a semi tractor-trailer truck, the Peterbilt/Walmart concept truck.
Now perhaps when we add up the weight of microturbines + lithium-ion batteries + electric motors + anything else associated with a serial hybrid system, maybe the total hybrid package comes out weighing much the same as a big MAN diesel + equally heavy transmission. Or maybe it does not. Maybe it really will weigh less. I honestly do not know, and as you suggest, the devil is in the details. However, I doubt that the combined weight would be more.
But suppose the weight of the total hybrid package were the same. Even then, as egn has remarked earlier in the thread, the advantage of hybrid technology is that you can “spread” the components around, instead of having so much weight concentrated in one place, as with a traditional big diesel motor + transmission:
In other words, even though egn is an very successful engineer by profession, and very practically-minded, egn was able to recognize that hybrid technology provides more “design freedom”. And "design freedom" not only matters to egn; it also matters to me, as a designer.
Design freedom may not matter to you, Aspire. But it does matter to me. And more to the point, design freedom matters, very much, in this particular thread. More below.
Hybrid technology also allows one to play with the center of balance, which is very important in an expedition motorhome. egn stated in one of his posts that he spent lots of time trying to get Blue Thunder's center of balance right, and that going hybrid would have made achieving an optimal center of balance much easier.
****************************************
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.
Last edited: