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

[aarfa]

How about wind power?
The first turbine specs that I found:
http://primuswindpower.com/wind-power-products/air-breeze-turbine/
Sample wind map 80 meters above the ground:
http://apps2.eere.energy.gov/wind/windexchange/pdfs/wind_maps/us_windmap_80meters.pdf

Good majority of is above 4.5 m/s. The peak regions get double that which is outside of turbine specs. What agerage would be? 6? At that level the turbine would produce 40 kWh/month or 1.33 kWh/day.
It weights 7.7 kg so we have 173.15 kWh/kg/day.
This is very rough though:
* you need to add pole weight
* your pole will not be 80-meters high
* unlike with solar, you don't generate electricity while travelling

The second point seems the most important. Has anyone seen wind maps for low heights?

ADDED:
This article cautions:

Your generator needs to be placed well above buildings and trees to achieve maximum effectiveness. A wind turbine placed at the right altitude can show a 50% higher production than the same one placed too low above the ground.

You loose 1/3 of power by putting turbine too low? I expected something worse.
So adding a pole half as heavy as the turbine itself and reducing output by 1/3 gives nearly 77 kWh/kg/day. Solar is near 240.
It may be possible to find a better turbine, but the result is rather low, so I won't unless I'm bored.

ADDED:
Back to solar.
60 W/kg, 58 W/l, 173.7 W/m^2 More power to weight and power to area, but it's nearly twice as thick which makes it less efficient when it comes to volume.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_panels_on_spacecraft says that spaceship solar tops at 300W/kg.
Here is a real panel that does 150. Surprisingly, just 40 W/l (undefined W/m^2), it looks somewhat rigid though, which may be the reason.
However, there's no mention of whether they measure the power the same way it's done with earth based solars.

 

[biotect]

..

The Eco-John is a "waterless incinerating toilet". It uses an auger screw to move the waste to the oven. It is NOT a "vacu-flush". However, it does have a small water reservoir for rinsing the bowl.

http://www.ecojohn.com/ecojohn_sr.html

Hi dwh,

I've been very busy with other stuff, so I haven't had time to "defend" myself vis-a-vis my statements about the EcoJohn. But figured I should do so now, sooner rather than later, so here is something brief.

You are quite right that the standard model of EcoJohn does use an auger screw to transport the waste to an incinerating oven, located directly behind the toilet bowl.

But if you look carefully at EcoJohn's product literature, you will see that EcoJohn has also installed systems that have water-conserving vacu-flush toilets that then transport the waste to an incinerator, located some distance away. On my own view, this combines the best of both worlds. One gets the aesthetically and psychologically satisfying "flush and forget" experience, combined with waste incineration and no need to dispose of fecal blackwater effluent. The TerraLiner may still need a blackwater tank for the sink water, although perhaps that too could go directly to the EcoJohn incinerator?

For a full explanation, see post #451, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page46 . All the information is there, including the PDF literature. Here are three pages from the PDF literature that say it all; but there are five more pages from the PDF appended in that post, that could fill in the details if necessary.






As I also suggested back then, on its website EcoJohn advertises that it is very open to creating somewhat "custom" solutions. Just read the middle page above. In the case of the TerraLiner, it wouldn't be all that custom: just EcoJohn's standard system that works with vacu-flush toilets, hooked up to a separate incinerator. But a very compact incinerator made to work inside a motorhome. One would want EcoJohn to create an incinerator that is especially compact, efficient, and lightweight. And that perhaps disposes of all waste immediately, instead of first allowing the waste to accumulate in a tank, and then incinerating it in bulk...? What do you think?

Perhaps one advantage of delaying incineration, is that one could do so when it is "safe" to make a big smell. Or perhaps when driving fast on a highway, because all the smell will get quickly dispersed by the the turbulence.

Now if you recall I was somewhat overjoyed when I came across this EcoJohn possibility. All standard incinerating toilets smell like hell. On the Antarctica traverse that delivers supplies to the South Pole, they have an Incinolet, and they hate it. As a group they've established strict rules about how often and when they can use it, for instance, not less than one hour before meals. The odor the Incinolet creates in the cabin would ruin everyone's appetite, if it were used just before mealtime. Again, it smells simply awful, and they all detest it. Here once more is the very funny spoof-video by the conceptual artist Tom Sachs, and the even funnier testimonial by a regular Incinolet user in Alaska:


[video=vimeo;34907793]https://vimeo.com/34907793[/video]

So the very last thing I would want in the TerraLiner, is an incinerating toilet. I know that the MaxiMog had one, and if memory serves the Kirivan also has one. The MaxiMog guy I can understand, because he seemed like a super-outdoorsy type in any case. But Bran Ferren who built the Kirivan does not strike me as the kind of guy who could handle the discomfort that using an incinerating toilet entails. At least not given the personality that he projects in interviews. So it really surprised me that Ferren should spend all that money on the Kirivan, only to stink it up something fierce on a regular basis, by having installed an incinerating toilet.

Most people willing to pay a million dollars or more for a high-end motorhome (remember, Newell Coaches cost about 1.5 million, on average, and yet they built over 30 of them per year.....), such people are not going to be happy about a toilet that smells like hell. They will expect that the TerraLiner engineers and designer (aka "biotect" ) should be able to come up with a better solution.

Most people also won't be happy with a composting toilet. And as you know, I've read about and thought about almost every model of composting toilet that exists. Again, it's a psychological thing: most people want and need the "flush and forget" experience. Whereas when you use a composting toilet, you're basically sitting on top of a pile of poop. Recall that egn had thought about putting a composting toilet in Blue Thunder. But egn ran up against the WAF problem: the "Wife Acceptance Factor". His wife categorically rejected the idea of a composting toilet, so they installed a Sealand vacu-flush instead.

When I saw that EcoJohn literature, the solution was suddenly obvious: simply have a vacu-flush-and-forget toilet, hooked up to an incinerator. One wouldn't think that this could be done, because flush-and-forget produces water, and that kinda runs counter to the idea of incineration, right? But all incinerating toilets have no problem zapping urine, so just a half liter of water with a vacu-flush toilet is not going to be a problem either. And clearly EcoJohn has already installed many such systems, and they've done all the necessary engineering to make them work.

Once again, I am really grateful that you pointed me in the direction of this EcoJohn solution. I haven't thought about toilets or large blackwater tanks ever since post #451, because I consider the toilet problem basically "solved", thanks to your intervention.

All best wishes,



Biotect

 

[safas]

One would want EcoJohn to create an incinerator that is especially compact, efficient, and lightweight. And that perhaps disposes of all waste immediately, instead of first allowing the waste to accumulate in a tank, and then incinerating it in bulk...? What do you think?

Doing it in bulk is more efficient:

lt is also more efficient to burn full loads rather than partial loads since it takes virtually the same amount of fuel to preheat the combustion chamber under all load conditions.

 

[safas]

http://www.asertti.org/events/fall/2011/presentations-workshop/Landis.pdf says ISS has 250 kW array that weights 1 tonne. That's 250 W/kg in use today. And says that solar in space gets more W from the same cell due to atmospheric losses, but efficiency lower by ~18%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power says 55-60% of energy is lost in the atmosphere. With 40% of the power, but higher efficiency ISS would have 118 W/kg.

 

[Haf-E]

Solar arrays in space do not have to be encapsulated with glass or plastic - the cells are exposed since there is no moisture to cause corrosion in space. The lower efficiency is due to them getting hotter when working since there is no air flow across them to absorb the heat from the solar gain. The weight of the array is probably including the structure which supports it. Since a vehicle mounted solar array would use the vehicle as its structure it is hard to compare a space application to a terrestrial application.

Wind turbines on vehicles are possible but tend to drive occupants crazy due to the vibrations they introduce into the structure. The best solution I've seen is a pole mounted to a metal plate which is placed under a tire of the vehicle for support of the tower. The vibrations are then minimized because the plate is on the ground and isolated to a degree by the suspension of the vehicle.

This link gives a good summary of the experience with using one...

http://roadtreking.com/experiment-portable-wind-turbine/

 

[safas]

This is interesting:
http://www.altadevices.com/pdfs/uavs.pdf
http://www.altadevices.com/pdfs/automotive.pdf
They claim near 1000 W/kg for "unencapsulated solar product". Do they count connection wires within the system? As I understand the description, they should. Support structure is on the vehicle anyway. Some cover needs to be added. Transparent paint is the final paint layer anyway. It will reduce efficiency, probably by a lot. But not to 60 W/kg. How about 300 W/kg with a specially selected, thinly applied paint?
Also, it should be noted that Alta Devices is the current record holder for a single-junction non-concentrator cell with efficiency of 28.8% and ex-record-holder for double junction with 30.8%. Their production cell has 25% efficiency.
The best non-concentrator cells are 5-junction spectrolab ones with efficiency of 38.8%. BTW, spectrolab is the company that made ISS panels.

Solar arrays in space do not have to be encapsulated with glass or plastic - the cells are exposed since there is no moisture to cause corrosion in space.

http://www.spectrolab.com/cic.htm
They use coverglass

The lower efficiency is due to them getting hotter when working since there is no air flow across them to absorb the heat from the solar gain.

All lab results are @25 Celsius degrees and 1000W/m^2 total light power. But light spectrum is different, probably harder to exploit.

The weight of the array is probably including the structure which supports it. Since a vehicle mounted solar array would use the vehicle as its structure it is hard to compare a space application to a terrestrial application.

Indeed

 

[dwh]

..

But if you look carefully at EcoJohn's product literature, you will see that EcoJohn has also installed systems that have water-conserving vacu-flush toilets that then transport the waste to an incinerator, located some distance away. On my own view, this combines the best of both worlds. One gets the aesthetically and psychologically satisfying "flush and forget" experience, combined with waste incineration and no need to dispose of fecal blackwater effluent. The TerraLiner may still need a blackwater tank for the sink water, although perhaps that too could go directly to the EcoJohn incinerator?

As I also suggested back then, on its website EcoJohn advertises that it is very open to creating somewhat "custom" solutions. Just read the middle page above. In the case of the TerraLiner, it wouldn't be all that custom: just EcoJohn's standard system that works with vacu-flush toilets, hooked up to a separate incinerator. But a very compact incinerator made to work inside a motorhome. One would want EcoJohn to create an incinerator that is especially compact, efficient, and lightweight. And that perhaps disposes of all waste immediately, instead of first allowing the waste to accumulate in a tank, and then incinerating it in bulk...? What do you think?

Okay...

First, the smell. Not a problem - the Eco-John, unlike the Incinolet, does not vent fumes/odors into the liviing space. The auger screw has seals on the ends. Non-issue. The smell being vented to the outside of the living space is an issue, but they offer a "catalytic converter in the chimney" option to eliminate that odor. Don't know how wall that cat works, but odor is probably a non-issue both inside and outside.

Second - custom built. Hey, if you are going to have them custom design and build something for you, then you might as well just do it right. Make it the combination incinerator/distiller I suggested the other day. Incinerate the toilet waste and capture/distill the water back into the fresh tank. Combined with the Bliss-style grey recycling and you've reduced the water lost to a point where any little ol' AWG can keep the system topped off.

(And have them add an electric heating element backup to the incinerator in case the diesel-fired burner has any problems. If Eco-John had an all-electric option, they could probably steal half of Incinolet's buisiness.)

Third. They may do custom. Doesn't mean they'll do a one-off. Most manufacturers are willing to do custom work - IF the quantity ordered justifies it. Order a hundred, they'll build whatever you want. But just one? Maybe, maybe not. Of course, they'd probably be willing to do whatever kind of one-off you want as long as you're willing to pay the price.

Fourth. This:





is a "total loss" water system. Me no likey. Rather have Bliss style grey recycling + AWG + Incinerating toilet.

Fifth. The smallest of those Eco-John "WC Series" incinerators doesn't have a diesel option. The smallest one that does have diesel weighs 200 lbs (not too bad except that is just the incinerator and does not include the holding tank), can process up to 1.5 gallons of waste per hour, and burns .4 gallons of diesel per hour. It can process a maximum of 36 gallons per day. But only by running constantly 24 hours a day. 10 gallons of diesel a day. 288 amp*hours per day (at 12v). So it's too small to effciently handle grey water, and too big for processing the waste from a single toilet.


Sixth. I though the same guy built MaxiMog and KiraVan?

 

[dwh]

This link gives a good summary of the experience with using one...

http://http://roadtreking.com/experiment-portable-wind-turbine/

Broken link. Here, fixed:

http://roadtreking.com/experiment-portable-wind-turbine/

 

[Haf-E]

Fixed the link - thanks for noticing that.

On the space solar cells - the Gallium Arsenide single crystal type solar cells didn't use glass - but the thin film type apparently have to in order to protect the super thin atomic layers of materials involved. Maybe they all do now...

Moisture getting into the PV cells is what kills them - glass is a pretty good way of protecting them for terrestrial applications. I don't like any of the flexible / non-glass type solar modules as they seem to have a shorter life compared to normal "glass" type modules from my experience (installed my first PV system in 1984 - was a used/test module I got from Jet Propulsion Labs while I was a electrical engineering student). Good for applications which need true portability - but they are usually more expensive as well.

The highest efficiency commonly available PV modules are producing 300 watts from 1.6 square meters of space. This includes all of the losses and the frame, interconnects etc. These panels are about 1 meter wide by 1.6 meters long - so two can fit side by side on most large expedition vehicles (2 meters wide solar array with allowance for clearance between and on the edges for mounting. So if the vehicle's roof was, say, 10 meters long, the roof could hold 12 of these modules for a total rated output of 3600 watts. These are glass type modules with up to 30 year warranties. Depending on the supplier/brand etc these are available for as little as $1 USD a watt or even lower. With an air gap under them for cooling, they will also reduce the heat gain of the vehicle during the afternoon just like the land rover's "safari" roof they used to offer.

I've seen large RVs with a second slide out PV array mounted under the normal PV array which could be deployed when parked for more capacity. The complexity of doing this is considerable though and might be difficult to make it rugged enough for true expedition travel.

 

[egn]

If I make no mistake, I don't see a good justification for solar in a vehicle that needs to have a generator anyway. At least as long as you actually want to travel.

With a motorhome we normally have no weight problem, but a space problem.

A generator and fuel take up a lot of precious space, compared to solar. Beside that diesel generators make noise and produce exhaust. Especially in recreation areas here in Europe you are not welcome when running a generator. And myself I would be not very happy when running a generator myself, because I would like to enjoy the music and odor of nature when I stay somewhere.

So the aim should be to minimize generator hours as far as possible.

 

[safas]

With a motorhome we normally have no weight problem, but a space problem.

Yeah, but even super-thin 1.7 mm panels don't look great when it comes to space efficiency. And I haven't included controller and cabling in the calculations.

A generator and fuel take up a lot of precious space, compared to solar. Beside that diesel generators make noise and produce exhaust. Especially in recreation areas here in Europe you are not welcome when running a generator. And myself I would be not very happy when running a generator myself, because I would like to enjoy the music and odor of nature when I stay somewhere.

So the aim should be to minimize generator hours as far as possible.

Understand.

 

[Haf-E]

Yeah, but even super-thin 1.7 mm panels don't look great when it comes to space efficiency. And I haven't included controller and cabling in the calculations.

I guess I don't understand what you are saying - space efficiency due to there use of internal volume of the motorhome (i.e. cubic feet or meters) or space efficiency as in the available room on the roof (i.e. square feet or meters)? The space required for the controller and wiring is pretty insignificant - unless you are talking about a system where you have the solar array stored inside and it is then "deployed" when camping and have to have a long 50 foot cable or something...

A rig with several kilowatts of solar on the roof and a reasonably large storage battery (especially if it was Lithium-Ion) would handle a lot of loads - other than air conditioning and water making. If you only stop in a spot for a couple of days at a time then the running of the engine as you move to the next location would "reset" the system by charging up the batteries fully. The solar array just slows the discharging of the battery in many applications.

The tricky part for smaller vehicles (such as my sprinter) is that the roof is used for carrying kayaks etc - so its not ideal for a solar array. I have 250 watts of PV mounted on the side which I tilt up when parked instead - but we usually don't run too much and move the vehicle somewhat frequently. The biggest load is the frig.

 

[aarfa]

I guess I don't understand what you are saying - space efficiency due to there use of internal volume of the motorhome (i.e. cubic feet or meters) or space efficiency as in the available room on the roof (i.e. square feet or meters)? The space required for the controller and wiring is pretty insignificant - unless you are talking about a system where you have the solar array stored inside and it is then "deployed" when camping and have to have a long 50 foot cable or something...

A rig with several kilowatts of solar on the roof and a reasonably large storage battery (especially if it was Lithium-Ion) would handle a lot of loads - other than air conditioning and water making. If you only stop in a spot for a couple of days at a time then the running of the engine as you move to the next location would "reset" the system by charging up the batteries fully. The solar array just slows the discharging of the battery in many applications.

The tricky part for smaller vehicles (such as my sprinter) is that the roof is used for carrying kayaks etc - so its not ideal for a solar array. I have 250 watts of PV mounted on the side which I tilt up when parked instead - but we usually don't run too much and move the vehicle somewhat frequently. The biggest load is the frig.

I'm talking volume. It's not big, but whether it's efficient depends heavily on usage pattern.
Here I calculated that for the volume of the best pannels I could find, one would be able to camp with diesel fuel for nearly 9 days.
Good when you spend a lot of time in a single place, bad otherwise.


Some thoughts related to the thread, but not the recent discussion:
* Hard-to-open doors are negligible annoyance as long as the machine opens them for you
* RVs don't come with a lot of automation. Compared to the state of the art, they are both lousy homes and lousy cars. I guess for no good reason other than price. It would be nice to have:
- Careful metering of water and energy use. Knowing what you use is the first step in optimisation
- The vehicle should take care of maintenance scheduliing. Why can't it tell me that water filter X is will end it's life soon and should be replaced? Or brake pads?
- A domestic robot that is tuned to navigate the RV interior that would be a nice help
- Smart locks with something like face-recognition biometrics (with some fallback, like fingerprint, in case you're wounded).
- Automated shading (not sure if it wasn't mentioned here already)
- Advanced front-lighting system
- HUD
- infrared cameras
- Active aerodynamics
- Heating on all glass
- Automatic parking
- Pre-crash system
and so on.
* camper+ powered trailer arrangement has a benefit of splitting weight into 2 vehicles. When you cross a weak bridge, you can do it with car only, leaving the trailer behind. And then use a remote control to move the trailer across the bridge. If you're careful, you should be able to get within 15-tonne limit and yet carry 28 tonnes of stuff.

 

[safas]

An image for you:

 

[Pinstripe]

That's not going to get far on a fire road, even less so around the world.