backtop


Print 42 comment(s) - last by erple2.. on Feb 9 at 5:47 PM

Researchers say the pneumatic hybrid offers most of the efficiency of an electric hybrid at a much lower cost

With the poor global economy, consumers are looking for ways to maximize their money and saving on gasoline is one way to do that. At the same time, the U.S. is investing heavily in methods that will help reduce the U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

One of the ways that automakers are looking to help increase fuel economy, simultaneously reducing the need for oil and lowering the cost for fuel to consumers, are hybrid and electric vehicles. The biggest problem facing hybrid vehicles --like the Toyota Prius -- is that they cost much more than a comparable normal vehicle and the batteries needed are heavy and expensive to replace.

A group of German researchers and engineers are working on a new hybrid powertrain that uses compressed air rather than electric batteries to boost the efficiency of an internal combustion engine. Lino Guzzella, a Professor of Thermotronics, says that today's hybrid vehicles are too expensive to be used in developing nations like China and India.

Guzzella and his team are currently researching a pneumatic hybrid system that is simpler to build and cheaper than electric hybrid systems available today. Guzzella said, "The apple must be ripe but still hang just low enough to stay within reach."

The power plant concept that Guzzella is working on uses a compressed air tank connected to an engine rather than an electric battery. When the engine moves a vehicle from a stop or shifts gears the pneumatic hybrid system pumps compressed air into the engine through electronically controlled valves.

When fuel is added to the compressed air, the engine is able to respond quickly. The compressed air system allows the engine itself to be downsized from the common four-cylinder size to only two cylinders. Exact power figures for the engine aren’t offered, but Guzzella points out that your typical engine needs only 30 HP for normal driving conditions. To increase performance, the prototype engine uses a turbocharger.

The researchers point out that the pneumatic system isn’t as efficient as an electric hybrid system, but the pneumatic system does offer 80% of an electric hybrid’s efficiency. The big benefit of the pneumatic system is a significantly reduced cost to build and purchase compared to electric hybrid systems.

The engine, currently in testing on a test bench system, is capable of capturing compressed air from the engine during deceleration. The additional cost for adding a pneumatic hybrid powertrain to a vehicle is estimated to be only 10%. Additional costs for adding an electric hybrid system to a vehicle are estimated to be around 200%.

Guzzella and his team have already patented several of the ideas used in the hybrid system. According to the researchers there are already several engine makers and automotive suppliers interested in the pneumatic hybrid engine.

Despite the interest, launching a new power plant system in the current global economy may prove a very difficult challenge. Guzzella says he still thinks that people will find his pneumatic hybrid system interesting. He predicts that over the next 20 years technology on the horizon could replace the internal combustion engine.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Awesome!
By austinag on 2/2/2009 6:39:26 PM , Rating: 5
But, I think I'll hold out for the Mentos/Diet Coke hybrid drivetrain.




RE: Awesome!
By Kibbles on 2/3/2009 7:08:07 PM , Rating: 2
Have you seen the price of Coke lately?!? You're better of making the reverse switch and start drinking gasoline with compressed air.


Coffee anyone?
By c4xp on 2/3/2009 2:29:05 AM , Rating: 5
I hope we put our thinking caps on, and come up with something better than the same Otto cycle (In,Compress,Combust,Out).
It's highly inefficient due to the high number of moving parts.
I think there are over 1000 variations and optimizations of this model.
Can we say enough is enough ?
We need something different like an Electrostatic Pulse Engine which runs on a steam electric generator, I dunno.
But something gotta give.




RE: Coffee anyone?
By erple2 on 2/9/2009 5:47:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's highly inefficient due to the high number of moving parts.


No, the main reason why it's inefficient is the cycle itself, not the number of moving parts (though moving parts certainly contribute to inefficiencies). It does nothing to capture the heat generated during the combustion cycle, among other things. Read up on the Carnot Cycle (the impossible ideal for the Otto cycle) for why it's actually inefficient.


Hey 2002 called, it wants it's headline back
By chmilz on 2/2/2009 5:44:04 PM , Rating: 2
Pneumatic, hydraulic, same difference. Ford had this tech on a concept F350 Tonka truck back in 2002.

http://www.autonet.ca/autos/search/concepts/2002/0...




RE: Hey 2002 called, it wants it's headline back
By Alexvrb on 2/2/2009 10:44:40 PM , Rating: 2
It's hardly even THAT recent. Carman's take on this is impressive because of the size of the vehicles involved. Although I certainly can't verify his efficiency claims, the demonstrations of working models is impressive.

http://www.rexresearch.com/carman/carman.htm

With regards to more recent developments in this field, this is really less Ford's technology, and more the EPA's. The EPA has been leading the way on hydraulic hybrids. However, the EPA's system seems best suited for large vehicles, at least for the moment.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/technology/
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/technology/420f04024.pdf


By mydogfarted on 2/3/2009 10:13:06 AM , Rating: 2
Ducati used a similar principle in their Supermono. Twin cylinder, one is the "functioning" cylinder, the other is basically an air pump for the other.


pneumatic hybrid
By Brunbob on 2/2/2009 8:08:44 PM , Rating: 2
See some info on http://www.scuderigroup.com/ I think this is the same motor. To reply to homebredcorqi the air is "siphoned" actually stored from the engine cycle. The motor has been underdevelopment for a while. I'm surprised it has not been on here before but they do not have a working motor to my knowledge yet. Its and interesting motor if they can get it out the door.




RE: pneumatic hybrid
By tkmckay on 2/2/2009 9:32:48 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.pressroom.ups.com/mediakits/factsheet/0...

I recently read about this being used on a trial basis at UPS in hydraulic hybrid vehicles (HHVs). I looks very interesting and judging by the initial results, very impressive.


Air Jammer, Road Rammer
By Bruneauinfo on 2/2/2009 5:38:17 PM , Rating: 2
need i say more?




Good thing you included that...
By thomp237 on 2/2/2009 7:59:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The biggest problem facing hybrid vehicles --like the Toyota Prius -- is that they cost much more than a comparable normal vehicle and the batteries needed are heavy and expensive to replace.


Sure is a good thing you included that link to the only Hybrid vehicle on the planet. The rest of that was just crazy talk no one would have understood without it.




Smashy smashy....
By DM0407 on 2/2/2009 10:27:45 PM , Rating: 2
*in my most raciest of Asian accents*

Run for your lives..... ITS GUZZELLA!!!!




hmmm
By highlandsun on 2/3/2009 1:28:25 AM , Rating: 2
Sounds like the equivalent of a turbocharger with no boost lag. Cool, but is it really new? (I.e., a turbo compresses intake air as the engine operates. Here, you have a pre-canned supply of compressed air, which can be replenished from the engine exhaust. It's a basic turbo system, with an auxiliary reservoir. OK.)




Back further still - MEN
By gsellis on 2/3/2009 7:58:19 AM , Rating: 2
Try this article from 1978. We used to get Mother Earth News then.

http://www.motherearthnews.com/Green-Transportatio...




This has been done.
By TheFace on 2/3/2009 12:50:59 AM , Rating: 1
I saw a prototype of this at the University of Wisconsin Engineering school 10 years ago, maybe longer. Granted the timing was a bit early, but they eventually decided that the electric system was more efficient. I'm assuming this is being done to be a lower cost alternative, but as the Prius starts around $24k, and the Insight should be $18-20k, whats the point? Putting it in all vehicles as a low cost mileage enhancer? Or maybe for even lower cost vehicles like the Tata?




I'm sorry but...
By lco45 on 2/3/2009 4:56:04 AM , Rating: 1
I just don't believe we'll get gas savings from a man called Guzzella.

Luke




While we're making up words...
By homebredcorgi on 2/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: While we're making up words...
By semo on 2/2/2009 6:24:56 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
so high that I'm not sure I would want to be riding around with one.
scared of high pressure? but you have no problem in riding around on top of a 20 gallon tank full of highly combustible liquid. fuel deemed so dangerous that using a mobile phone while refilling your tank is disallowed.

don't worry, i'm not one of those greenpeace anti human extremists but I find it funny how most people have gotten so used to fossil fuels that they have forget it is actually very dangerous stuff.


RE: While we're making up words...
By grath on 2/2/2009 6:38:42 PM , Rating: 4
Gas at least has the relative caveat of needing mixture with air before it makes a catastrophic boom. Gas tanks are designed to minimize the occurence of this in a crash. In most cases when they rupture the immediate fire is on the ground and there is at least some time to escape or fight it.

An air tank at the required pressures to be useful for this application is basically a prepackaged catastrophic boom in itself. Given that it is to be used in conjunction with a gas tank, in a crash that ruptures both tanks youre giving the fire a massive supply of compressed oxidizer.

Not burn then boom, just boom.


RE: While we're making up words...
By othercents on 2/2/09, Rating: 0
By tastyratz on 2/2/2009 8:40:47 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Granted there is probably a pressure relief valve, but why waist all that excess energy?

My guess is to avoid impending death by over pressurizing a tank engineered for lower stress levels?

quote:
prepackaged catastrophic boom in itself. Given that it is to be used in conjunction with a gas tank, in a crash that ruptures both tanks youre giving the fire a massive supply of compressed oxidizer.


Yes and no. That might be the case if the compressor tank had an oxidizer containing something other than the contents of our atmosphere... or if the earth was suddenly devoid of oxygen. The more likely scenario would be that the sudden rush of air simply... blew the fire out. Just like when you pour gas on a fire - pure gas can out out a fire if it douses out the oxygen.

The only problem I can forsee is the gasoline being spread out to a wider area from the force of the tank explosion.

Also,
For the top comment poster:

quote:
The original article claims there is a compressed air tank, implying you would go get this filled from time to time. The DT article makes it sound like it is all siphoned from the engine (unlikely).


quote:
because the engine can pump air into the compressed air tank during braking, thus recovering the kinetic energy.


RE: While we're making up words...
By Fritzr on 2/2/2009 8:49:07 PM , Rating: 2
Actually if there is a fire you'll be hoping the air tank is ruptured. Heating raises the pressure in a sealed tank. If the safety valve is jammed then a pressurized air tank in a fire is a really big boom. This is why you do NOT throw an aerosol can in the fire.

To keep your gas tank boom free you need to keep it full or else pressurized with a non-oxidizing filler such as nitrogen, or a gas bladder that fills the void. A nearly empty gas tank is a fuel-air explosive waiting to be ignited. When you see a burning car suddenly go boom with a gas tank explosion, you know that the tank had a lot of air in it.


RE: While we're making up words...
By Pryde on 2/3/2009 5:23:10 AM , Rating: 3
A gas tank is designed not to go BOOM and it will not as long as the tank itself is still intact, there just simply is not enough oxygen inside the tank to make it go BOOM. Take a Molotov Cocktail for example, it will not going BOOM until you break the container.

There is a huge difference between fuel igniting and a oxygen tank exploding. Fuel is just a huge flash capable of fatal burns but there is very little force ( while break the glass but will not cause the amount of damage you see in movies ) and in a car the fuel flash is usually located away from passengers.

A oxygen tank exploding with enough pressure is capable of ripping the car apart


RE: While we're making up words...
By DigitalFreak on 2/2/2009 7:28:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
fuel deemed so dangerous that using a mobile phone while refilling your tank is disallowed


It's crap. See Mythbusters.


RE: While we're making up words...
By Etsp on 2/2/2009 9:01:26 PM , Rating: 4
Mythbusters may have shown that it was kind of ridiculous to ban the use of mobile phones while refilling your tank, that does not change the fact that it IS disallowed.

Gas is scary, it's one of the leading causes of deaths in male models. (After Gas-fight cigarette).

It's like parents that don't have their kids get immunizations because they think it maybe, possibly be a contributing factor to the right combination of mysterious events that cause autism, sorta.


RE: While we're making up words...
By FITCamaro on 2/2/2009 10:51:46 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know where you live, but in Florida and South Carolina I have seen no signs or laws banning this.


RE: While we're making up words...
By Etsp on 2/2/2009 11:31:32 PM , Rating: 2
In Ohio, they have signs on all fuel pumps stating what isn't allowed while pumping gas. (Smoking, leaving the car running, filling a gas can that isn't on the ground, etc.)


RE: While we're making up words...
By semo on 2/3/2009 4:37:09 AM , Rating: 1
it is banned in england at least. i know that because clerks kindly notify you over the PA system if they see you talking on the phone.

kind of extreme but it makes financial sense (if not for safety). i do everything at half speed when i'm on a phone so that means i spend more time at the pump. they're only after your money and not your presence.


RE: While we're making up words...
By FITCamaro on 2/3/2009 8:07:53 AM , Rating: 4
What are they gonna do if you don't hang up? Call the cops?

Because you see a lot of radio waves starting gas fires...just another example of how Britain is descending down a frightful path that I pray the US doesn't follow. No smoking is a given. Turning off your car is a given. Putting the gas can on the ground is a given. Talk on your cell phone? I'd love to see what reasoning they had behind that other than maybe so people aren't distracted and accidentally leave the gas pump nozzle in the car and drive off.


RE: While we're making up words...
By masher2 (blog) on 2/3/2009 10:28:37 AM , Rating: 3
> "Turning off your car is a given."

Actually, that rule came from the days before breakaway hoses. The fear wasn't that a running engine would ignite fumes, but rather that a car could slip into gear, tear off the hose, and cause an enormous fuel spill.


By DBRfreak on 2/3/2009 4:56:04 PM , Rating: 2
My little sister proved that even with breakaway hoses, driving off with the nozzle still in the tank can still cause a large fuel spill if the attendant can't get to the pump shutoff fast enough. So much so that the station may be shut down for 6+ hours while the hazmat team cleans things up.

Hearing her try to explain that was great times...


RE: While we're making up words...
By derwin on 2/2/2009 10:00:24 PM , Rating: 1
Gasoline is not flamable as a liquid, only its vapors combust.


By DBRfreak on 2/3/2009 5:04:29 PM , Rating: 2
That's true with most things. I can't say everything (I'm not that certain), but what I remember is that combustion only occurs with the fuel in the gas phase.


By meepstone on 2/3/2009 9:21:38 AM , Rating: 3
i'd hate to state the obvious to you but apparently you NEED it. gas tanks do not blow up, even if you shoot them with a bunch of bullets. tv doesnt = real. the same fuel
quote:
deemed so dangerous
that every person in the modern world uses it without a problem.


By quiksilvr on 2/2/2009 6:30:02 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't this just a obscured version of the hydraulic hybrid engine?

http://www.hydraulicinnovations.net/yahoo_site_adm...

I was wondering when truck makers would start making this for their cars. I would especially like to see an F150 with a hydraulic hybrid system.


RE: While we're making up words...
By rudy on 2/3/2009 1:37:01 AM , Rating: 3
People use compressed air to 5000 psi all the time. Fiber wrapped bottles are pretty safe. They let kids play paintball with them by the millions it is so safe. And they have no protection just a bare bottle pressed right against their chest. When a fiber wrapped bottle is damaged it may be a little ugly but it does not blow up.


By 67STANG on 2/3/2009 3:14:52 AM , Rating: 2
This sounds a lot like this ugly POS made in France: http://www.mdi.lu/english/

The tank on this car is seamed in such a way to allow for an even depressurization should a catastrophic failure occure. Doesn't change the fact that it's ugly-- but it does apparently work.


RE: While we're making up words...
By Pryde on 2/3/2009 5:32:47 AM , Rating: 2
Size of the container can play a huge role, yeah a tiny paintball bottle vs something as large as a 9kg bottle if they were pressurized to the same pressure the larger bottle will always cause more damage.


RE: While we're making up words...
By FITCamaro on 2/3/2009 8:09:14 AM , Rating: 2
People don't hit those bottles with a 6000 lb SUV going 50 mph either. Just saying.


RE: While we're making up words...
By homebredcorgi on 2/3/2009 2:22:11 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you. Exactly my point in the first post (which somehow got a zero rating).

Nowhere does it say what pressure this tank is at. I would bet it is in the thousands of psi (something engine back pressure will not get you despite what the article may say) in order to get that kind of efficiency gain. I personally do not want to drive around with something like that in a car. If you can prove to me they wont break in a head on collision, I might be more willing.

For the stooge that somehow thinks a tank of gas is equivalent in danger: go shoot a tank of gas with a gun and then go shoot a high pressure canister with one and tell me which one was worse. Flammable liquids still need an ignition source once they leak. High pressure gas just needs a way out (and hope your car isn't on fire when it does find a way out). I thought this point was rather obvious in my first post....


RE: While we're making up words...
By tastyratz on 2/3/2009 3:57:19 PM , Rating: 2
These tanks can be engineered for a collision however. They can make them with a seam meant to blow on impact, some sort of failsafe. They will be kept far away from the drivers compartment... The engineers obviously have this in mind. I am sure they are not reinventing the pinto here it can easily be made in a safe manner. They wont toss you off the highway bridge in a fender bender.


RE: While we're making up words...
By Spuke on 2/3/2009 4:46:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They will be kept far away from the drivers compartment
In a compact car, which is what "everyone" on DT thinks we all should be driving, you'll be pretty close to the tank. Close enough to do some damage anyways.


"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki