Ford Ranger Lightning!

[FunInTheSun]

No, a Turbine isn't efficient at producing power, a smaller turbine will need to rev at higher rpms to produce the power necessary it's why they are not used for commercial applications. They're maintenance heavy, loud and suck fuel. Chrysler's Turbine engine concept is a great second explanation for that. The car is driven and it is loud for how low the RPMs are for just being a car. You don't understand the concept of what is necessary for a turbine to work. Except for Jet Fighters and Commercial Aircraft Turbine engines are anything but practical. The best Hybrid application is Diesel Electric.

Brilliant "analysis"... I'm not going to be rude, because I know very well you didn't actually do any calculations to make these statements. But I will go so far as to assume you didn't really understand the system I was envisioning. I am very familiar with the Chrysler Turbine car. I have spent the greater majority of my working life around gas turbine engines, including test facilities for overhaul and repair of these engines, as well as a 400 Hz aircraft generators and the ancillary control electronics. So I am not a total noob...

The things you are saying are not exactly wrong. They are "rules of thumb", used by engineers when discussing certain types of systems with fairly well-known dimensions and constraints. What I am discussing is a fairly novel development, and the assumptions behind these rules of thumb really are somewhat irrelevant. These ideas and rules of thumb were developed for multi megawatt generating plants, not a small mobile power system. The diesel-electric traction motor as used in the trains used the output of the generator directly to drive the motor. There was no energy storage involved. It is easy to see why that worked out to pretty bad efficiency. I am also not married to the idea of a gas turbine to do the job, but they come with several really compelling advantages in a system like what I am describing. Namely a single moving part, and the ability to function properly using a WIDE range of fuel types.

A 50 kW gas turbine, such as the one I cribbed the picture of consumes probably about 25 lb/hr of fuel at full output. This wrangles out to about 3.65 gallons per hour of a typical petroleum-based fuel (assumed density of 6.71 lb/gallon). Assuming a 19 gallon tank, this works out to a run-time of 5.2 hours. The way this system works, to propel the vehicle at 60 mph constant speed, the turbine would only need to run at full output approximately 50% of the time (assuming 20 to 30 kW to overcome rolling and aerodynamic friction), just to keep the battery topped off, so we are looking at (about) 10 hours or so on one tank of gas. At 60 mph, that's a range of 600 miles, and an equivalent gas mileage of about 32 miles per gallon. Not too bad. Especially since, most of the assumptions used are highly conservative, and would likely work out even better once the engineers start fiddling around with battery and motor sizes, etc.

If you want to see some numbers, I based my calculations on data I found in the following paper:
Design and Aerodynamic Analysis of a 50 kW CCHP Micro-Gas Turbine Plant

Basic data (given in above cited paper):
Actual Air/Fuel Ratio: 0.010306:1
Mass Flow: 0.3 kg/sec

Calculated data:
Fuel Flow: 0.0030918 kg/sec = 11.13 kg/hr = 24.5 lb/hr
Fuel density (variable / assumed to be): 6.71 lb/gal
Volumetric fuel flow rate = 3.65 gal/hr

Sponsored

 

[Todd Chapin]

I will stick to living out in the country since I prefer small town living over any big city. And the feds can take their EV mandates and stick them in their fourth point of contact.

But use your tax money to pick winners and losers .

 

[12Bravo20]

Here is my experience with turbine and turboshaft engines. They are big and very inefficient. Both will suck down the fuel like an alcoholic sucks down beer. Now most of my experiences is with dealing with helicopters and the M1 Series Main Battle Tanks. Both suck down the fuel fast.

I would be curious to see if small turbines and turboshaft engines are any more fuel efficient along with how much power they actually produce. The M1 engine produces 1500 HP to propel a 72 ton tank to a max speed of 42 MPH on flat smooth ground. You will aways get some variances in top speed between vehicles but the faster I have seen an M1 go was 45 MPH

 

[MrBirdman330]

Brilliant "analysis"... I'm not going to be rude, because I know very well you didn't actually do any calculations to make these statements. But I will go so far as to assume you didn't really understand the system I was envisioning. I am very familiar with the Chrysler Turbine car. I have spent the greater majority of my working life around gas turbine engines, including test facilities for overhaul and repair of these engines, as well as a 400 Hz aircraft generators and the ancillary control electronics. So I am not a total noob...

The things you are saying are not exactly wrong. They are "rules of thumb", used by engineers when discussing certain types of systems with fairly well-known dimensions and constraints. What I am discussing is a fairly novel development, and the assumptions behind these rules of thumb really are somewhat irrelevant. These ideas and rules of thumb were developed for multi megawatt generating plants, not a small mobile power system. The diesel-electric traction motor as used in the trains used the output of the generator directly to drive the motor. There was no energy storage involved. It is easy to see why that worked out to pretty bad efficiency. I am also not married to the idea of a gas turbine to do the job, but they come with several really compelling advantages in a system like what I am describing. Namely a single moving part, and the ability to function properly using a WIDE range of fuel types.

A 50 kW gas turbine, such as the one I cribbed the picture of consumes probably about 25 lb/hr of fuel at full output. This wrangles out to about 3.65 gallons per hour of a typical petroleum-based fuel (assumed density of 6.71 lb/gallon). Assuming a 19 gallon tank, this works out to a run-time of 5.2 hours. The way this system works, to propel the vehicle at 60 mph constant speed, the turbine would only need to run at full output approximately 50% of the time (assuming 20 to 30 kW to overcome rolling and aerodynamic friction), just to keep the battery topped off, so we are looking at (about) 10 hours or so on one tank of gas. At 60 mph, that's a range of 600 miles, and an equivalent gas mileage of about 32 miles per gallon. Not too bad. Especially since, most of the assumptions used are highly conservative, and would likely work out even better once the engineers start fiddling around with battery and motor sizes, etc.

If you want to see some numbers, I based my calculations on data I found in the following paper:
Design and Aerodynamic Analysis of a 50 kW CCHP Micro-Gas Turbine Plant

Basic data (given in above cited paper):
Actual Air/Fuel Ratio: 0.010306:1
Mass Flow: 0.3 kg/sec

Calculated data:
Fuel Flow: 0.0030918 kg/sec = 11.13 kg/hr = 24.5 lb/hr
Fuel density (variable / assumed to be): 6.71 lb/gal
Volumetric fuel flow rate = 3.65 gal/hr

And you've proven why it's a basic failure and the fact again Turbines are not practical. I had a 16' Camry non hybrid, my economy average was 39mpgs on the highway at 75mph. Probably 28mpgs with a Turbine at 75mph which my Ranger gets 27.7mpgs at 75mph or one non Hybrid Toyota Camry at 39mpgs. Look there's a reason these applications are not used, the math shows it's anything but cost efficient. History has shown that Turbines outside of power generation are not efficient for transportation in a cost effective manner. Airliners, fighter jets are still hogs. If we tried to put all jets on E100 fuel, there is not enough farmland on this planet to sustain. It isn't practical, I would be willing to even say somebody tried it and it just didn't work.

 

[MrBirdman330]

This isnt really the same thing, but the gas turbine on the M1 Abrams is considerably quieter than its diesel contemporaries, theyre also decently efficient once moving, just horrible when stopped.

It's why the Turbines for Union Pacific were fitted with small Diesels to move them around the yard because Turbines have to spin at one speed at all times. It wasn't until the Big Boys were being retired and their extended Range Water Tenders were refitted to hold additional Bunker Fuel Oil that the Turbines could travel outside their intended route. They were left only working in the Western States due to their loudness, they were limited to being outside Los Angeles for the same reasons. Story has it that one Turbine was parked under the overpass bridge at the Laramie Railyard and it melted the asphalt making a hole.

 

[D Fresh]

History has shown that Turbines outside of power generation are not efficient for transportation in a cost effective manner.

Turbines were only brought up in this thread in regards to power generation for a hybrid set up.

The only person talking about propelling a vehicle direct with turbine power here is you.

 

[MrBirdman330]

Turbines were only brought up in this thread in regards to power generation for a hybrid set up.

The only person talking about propelling a vehicle direct with turbine power here is you.

How do you think a Hybrid works? You need a power source to charge the batteries and propel the vehicle forward. The Volt is a Hybrid and uses the exact same technology used on a smaller scale as a Diesel Electric Locomotive. Combustion engine powers electrical generators/traction motors to propel said vehicle forward and backward, hell of a damn concept been around since 1903. Now replace said gas or diesel motor with loud noisy turbine to be the combustion engine source and you have the same application so guess what same situation, to produce said power for said electricity requires a high speed turbine. Same thing with a PHEV, where you can just use a plug in and straight battery for short trips or hybrid mode which oooh requires a combustion engine running. The combustion again combustion engine is a requirement for a Gas/Diesel electric hybrid. So what is it you don't get, these ideas were tried they were deemed not efficient.

 

[D Fresh]

How do you think a Hybrid works? You need a power source to charge the batteries and propel the vehicle forward. The Volt is a Hybrid and uses the exact same technology used on a smaller scale as a Diesel Electric Locomotive. Combustion engine powers electrical generators/traction motors to propel said vehicle forward and backward, hell of a damn concept been around since 1903. Now replace said gas or diesel motor with loud noisy turbine to be the combustion engine source and you have the same application so guess what same situation, to produce said power for said electricity requires a high speed turbine. Same thing with a PHEV, where you can just use a plug in and straight battery for short trips or hybrid mode which oooh requires a combustion engine running. The combustion again combustion engine is a requirement for a Gas/Diesel electric hybrid. So what is it you don't get, these ideas were tried they were deemed not efficient.

A vehicle powered by electric motors only with an on board generator is also a hybrid.

A locomotive is a deisel/electric hybrid and it's deisel motors NEVER propel the train. Think BMW i3 range extender.

You yourself admit that turbines ARE efficient at generating power.

 

[MrBirdman330]

A vehicle powered by electric motors only with an on board generator is also a hybrid.

A locomotive is a deisel/electric hybrid and it's deisel motors NEVER propel the train. Think BMW i3 range extender.

You yourself admit that turbines ARE efficient at generating power.

Without the Diesel Engine to power the Electric Traction motors that locomotive isn't going anywhere so yes the Diesel Engine does propel the train. Same technology is used on the Volt and i3 you can't go without the motor. There are "Experimental" true Hybrids IE Union Pacifics GOATS and a BEV locomotive engine which both are being tested but the only reason the BEV locomotive actually works because it's all down hill for the 100 miles it travels loaded allowing dynamic braking to charge the batteries. Then it uses Electric Power to travel back up hill empty.

 

[SigOris]

Without the Diesel Engine to power the Electric Traction motors that locomotive isn't going anywhere so yes the Diesel Engine does propel the train. Same technology is used on the Volt and i3 you can't go without the motor. There are "Experimental" true Hybrids IE Union Pacifics GOATS and a BEV locomotive engine which both are being tested but the only reason the BEV locomotive actually works because it's all down hill for the 100 miles it travels loaded allowing dynamic braking to charge the batteries. Then it uses Electric Power to travel back up hill empty.

i‘ve read the banter and have come to the conclusion below as to what is going on

 

[D Fresh]

Without the Diesel Engine to power the Electric Traction motors that locomotive isn't going anywhere so yes the Diesel Engine does propel the train. Same technology is used on the Volt and i3 you can't go without the motor. There are "Experimental" true Hybrids IE Union Pacifics GOATS and a BEV locomotive engine which both are being tested but the only reason the BEV locomotive actually works because it's all down hill for the 100 miles it travels loaded allowing dynamic braking to charge the batteries. Then it uses Electric Power to travel back up hill empty.

The I3 does indeed have batteries, and not only can operate without the range extender but was mostly sold without it.

You're arguing for no reason here. And copy/pasting some irrelevant information from Wikipedia is not helping you.

It is a FACT that gas turbine engines are being used to generate electricity.

It is a FACT that the scale of these turbines is becoming so small you can literarally carry them around.

It is a FACT that many of these micro turbine generators are quite quiet.

It is a FACT that many EV manufacturers and suppliers are expirementing with small range extending generators.


And lastly is is a FACT that in personal transportation the cutting edge deisel tech in the US is some redneck trying to figure out how to delete his Cummins.

 

[MrBirdman330]

No I'm stating the fact that Turbines are not practical for such applications they've been tried and simply don't work as an ICE generator. Get mad I don't care, and if you have to resort to "Wikipedia" as an "insult" when you know nothing of me. When you start slinging mud like a child you lost the argument.

One nobody said manufacturers were not using EV range extenders that was called the Chevrolet Volt. Two, yes there are combustion Turbine Generators but not used mainstream. Nobody cares you can carry a Turbine around I can carry a working ICE V8 around in a small bag, it's anything but newsworthy ground breaking this is gonna revolutionize the world technology. So get over it. You want to sling the mud go ahead only one quote sums it up “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” because it's exactly what you're now trying.

 

[FunInTheSun]

It's why the Turbines for Union Pacific were fitted with small Diesels to move them around the yard because Turbines have to spin at one speed at all times. It wasn't until the Big Boys were being retired and their extended Range Water Tenders were refitted to hold additional Bunker Fuel Oil that the Turbines could travel outside their intended route. They were left only working in the Western States due to their loudness, they were limited to being outside Los Angeles for the same reasons. Story has it that one Turbine was parked under the overpass bridge at the Laramie Railyard and it melted the asphalt making a hole.

Probably true.
They blame the Forrestal fire on a starter turbine parked under a live rocket pod. Heated them up to ignition temp and started shooting out all over the flight deck, hitting other armed aircraft. The resulting mess nearly sank the ship.

 

[FunInTheSun]

And you've proven why it's a basic failure and the fact again Turbines are not practical. I had a 16' Camry non hybrid, my economy average was 39mpgs on the highway at 75mph. Probably 28mpgs with a Turbine at 75mph which my Ranger gets 27.7mpgs at 75mph or one non Hybrid Toyota Camry at 39mpgs. Look there's a reason these applications are not used, the math shows it's anything but cost efficient. History has shown that Turbines outside of power generation are not efficient for transportation in a cost effective manner. Airliners, fighter jets are still hogs. If we tried to put all jets on E100 fuel, there is not enough farmland on this planet to sustain. It isn't practical, I would be willing to even say somebody tried it and it just didn't work.

Well, I disagree, for the reasons I mentioned. Efficiency is relative to the other parameters of importance. You are comparing the 50 kW turbine hybrid I envisioned to a mid-size economy car, the Camry. 50 kW is probably overkill for such a vehicle. the 50 kW is probably sufficient power for an F250 pickup to cruise. The fuel efficiency numbers would look pretty good in that application, and the 10 hour run time would be pretty sweet. And if you are on a farm or something, with a biomass plant that makes a suitable fuel, you might think the flexible fuel ability of a gas turbine is also a pretty significant advantage. Turbines don't suck if they are applied properly. They do require some different engineering than a recip ICE to achieve it.

But listen. My point was never that turbines are the best, or that reciprocating engines suck. My entire point was to do a little out of the box thinking. You can pooh-pooh my idea all you like. I'm not an automotive engineer. But your comparisons are all misaligned with the thrust of my admittedly sketchy plan. I thought it came within a couple of percentage points of the best ICE technology on both mileage AND range, and that's with just a back of the envelope calculation by a noob with a calculator and a brain. If the thing was massaged by a team of engineers, they could probably do a LOT better by fooling around with battery size, motor technology, and the controls of the turbine, etc.

You might even be able to do better with a micro-V8 or some other type of engine. Hell, what do I know. You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't feel you've engaged with actual data here. You are just throwing out inapplicable old tropes.

We aren't trying to make 1500 HP. All you need to have is enough power to keep up with AVERAGE power consumption, and the battery allows you to spread out the power output between moments of high demand and recharge during periods of low demand. How many HP does the Camry require to cruise at 60 mph.? 20? 15? 12? I don't know, but it probably is a lot less than 65, which is the HP of the little turbine I used for my back-of-the-envelope calcs. If you could get away with a 25 HP turbine, the fuel consumption would be less than half of the 50 kW (65 HP) turbine.

Power always costs something, and 1500 HP will ALWAYS suck gigantic quantities of fuel. Try to keep an open mind and engage with thoughtful consideration, and don't just dismiss a new idea as if someone had already done it. Nobody has ever done this because nobody ever made turbines this small before.

 

[9zero1790]

so heres a thought that may get me tomatoes to the face but -
regardless what setup is more efficient or powerful etc. the choices in the automotive world for consumers are being made to satisfy political issues as much if not more than mechanical basis... and now we return to the normal programming.

Sponsored