Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Lets say peak power was at 5k and you wanted to generate this peak power so had full throttle, what would stop the motor revving to say 6k? That is what I am trying to understand.

Engine produces

150kw @ 3000rpm

180kw @ 4000rpm

200kw @ 5000rpm.

170kw @ 6000rpm

You need to access that 200kw so the throttle is open 100%. It cant go over 5000rpm because the engine makes less power above 5000rpm.

You can vary rpm using the throttle to achieve what you want or you can vary load on the engine using the variable hydraulics. It would be a combination of both

Edited by Bond

The generator would be the smart part of the system as it regulates its magnetic feild inconjunction with the demand from the APP sensor and the engine's delivered torque.

This would be alot more effienent than a hydraulic system by about 20-30 percent hence why Caterpillars new 795F is electrodrive.

You cannot base everything on the fact that CAT use this system in large dump trucks where weight and cost are of little issue. The systems i have been talking about are also made by CAT...does that mean they are superior....NO. The 20-30% efficiency may come from regenerative braking where energy is stored while travelling down the pit and then used later on

Edited by Bond

WIth the motor and generator combination, could you not just use an AC -> AC motor? There are no inverters, regulators, nothing needed, you could literally just wire them directly together removing a point of inefficiency.

If you just wire them together with nothing smart in the middle, then you have no way to modulate the speed of the vehicle separately to the engine speed. Your ECVT is then not a CVT, just an expensive coupling.

If you just wire them together with nothing smart in the middle, then you have no way to modulate the speed of the vehicle separately to the engine speed. Your ECVT is then not a CVT, just an expensive coupling.

Couldn't you just use the engines throttle to modulate speed. If you have more throttle you get more revs and power, hence the motor delivers more power. Less throttle means it delivers less throttle. You are right, this wouldn't be a true CVT then, but it would have of the benefits of a CVT, being able to hold a motor at peak power without a gearbox changing gears and dropping you out of the powerband.

It would be better with a control system, but a control system requires a huge ass VSD, inverters, AC -> DC etc which is another stage of inefficiency's.

Couldn't you just use the engines throttle to modulate speed. If you have more throttle you get more revs and power, hence the motor delivers more power. Less throttle means it delivers less throttle. You are right, this wouldn't be a true CVT then, but it would have of the benefits of a CVT, being able to hold a motor at peak power without a gearbox changing gears and dropping you out of the powerband.

It would be better with a control system, but a control system requires a huge ass VSD, inverters, AC -> DC etc which is another stage of inefficiency's.

Um, no, you couldn't. Think about it a bit more. The generator turns at exactly the same speed as the engine. If it is an AC generator then it will spit out a varying voltage and frequency, which if you hook it straight up to an AC motor will make the AC motor do pretty much the same as the generator is doing. Same speed. No gearing, nothing useful. If the generator is DC, then the gen will output a voltage that depends on the engine speed, and the DC motor that is hooked up to it will just spin at the same speed as the generator. As I said, an expensive coupling.

You could have different speeds between generator and motor by having different windings on them - ie you could make one 4 pole and one 6 pole and get a different synchronous speed on AC stuff. And if you were crazy you could put multiple windings into one or both of them and switch between them but this would only give you a number of different gears, not CVT.

You very much need to be able to chop the power that comes out of the generator into little pieces and smirsh it around and then feed it into the motor to give you the result you're looking for.

Of course, with an AC motor the speed is going to be proportional to the hz, the hz of course is exactly the same rpm the engine is doing hence it would be like having a single gear which is as you said just an expensive coupling.

So you would either need a VSD or convert it to DC and control it this way.

You cannot base everything on the fact that CAT use this system in large dump trucks where weight and cost are of little issue. The systems i have been talking about are also made by CAT...does that mean they are superior....NO. The 20-30% efficiency may come from regenerative braking where energy is stored while travelling down the pit and then used later on

I was mearly comparing electro drive to a hydraulic based system. Considering most variable displacement axial piston pumps are around 50-60% efficient.

And there is no regenerative braking on the 795F - just a really big resistor and cooler fan!

I don't think the powerband in a turbo petrol is small enough to warrant this setup. How about just hooking up an 8 speed Auto.

This really is the ultimate way to go, with 8 gears you could quite effectively utilise a power band that is even only 1k wide.

All hypothetical.

Assuming the system will be used as normal road going car.

Most power is required for acceleration, once at a constant speed your power requirement will be much less and once you start braking, you can use this energy to regenerate.

So I was thinking you can have a diesel engine running at its most effiecient RPM/powerband constantly, this then drives the electric motors and charges some sort of super capacitor/s.

The diesel engine idles down to a slower speed when the car is stationary or when generation is not required.

When the car accelerates the capacitors discharge into the electric motors to assist the power generated by the diesel engine for the burst of power required for acceleration. Once at constant speed the diesel engine's electricity output should be enough to sustain the an constant speed and slight acceleration.

When the car slows down, it will use regenerative braking to charge the capacitors, and the diesel engine can idle down earlier if needed.

This really is the ultimate way to go, with 8 gears you could quite effectively utilise a power band that is even only 1k wide.

Lexus IS-F :P

i don't wanna talk to a scientist, those mother f**kers lying and getting me pissed.

LOL

A-Z of shit music, triple J absolutely destroy them, f**king hilarious

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Latest Posts

    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
    • You are all good then, I didn't realise the port was in a part you can (have!) remove. Just pull the broken part out, clean it and the threads should be fine. Yes, the whole point about remote mounting is it takes almost all of the vibration out via the flexible hose. You just need a convenient chassis point and a cable tie or 3.
×
×
  • Create New...