Talking to a turbo expert

[WhiteBlue]

All claims and no proof. I don't believe in these claims unless you simply put up an engineering scheme that shows what you have designed.

It is not possible to use one MGU for the turbo generation and the motive power to the wheels at the same time. So please answer one simple question. How many discrete MGUs would your system have under the premise that it would recover exhaust energy from the turbine?

[autogyro]

All claims and no proof. I don't believe in these claims unless you simply put up an engineering scheme that shows what you have designed.

It is not possible to use one MGU for the turbo generation and the motive power to the wheels at the same time. So please answer one simple question. How many discrete MGUs would your system have under the premise that it would recover exhaust energy from the turbine?

Seven. Each one is also the gearset for each stepped ratio.
At a geartrain weight less than the current layshaft arrangement and less the weight of the direct engagement clutch.
The turbo generator would not be an MGU just a generator feeding any one or all seven MGU's/gearbox.
The compressor would be seperate and have a drive motor powered from stored electrical energy.

[xxChrisxx]

All claims and no proof. I don't believe in these claims unless you simply put up an engineering scheme that shows what you have designed.

It is not possible to use one MGU for the turbo generation and the motive power to the wheels at the same time. So please answer one simple question. How many discrete MGUs would your system have under the premise that it would recover exhaust energy from the turbine?

Seven. Each one is also the gearset for each stepped ratio.
At a geartrain weight less than the current layshaft arrangement and less the weight of the direct engagement clutch.
The turbo generator would not be an MGU just a generator feeding any one or all seven MGU's/gearbox.
The compressor would be seperate and have a drive motor powered from stored electrical energy.

Is your warning still in effect for mentioning 'the unmentionable'? Just post the patent application. It'll stop all the flaming.

[autogyro]

It is relevent to any discusion on split turbo technology Chris, as it allows full use of this type of technology to its ultimate benefit.
The thread debate over compound turbo systems is just as unproven IMO.

My ESERU PA is available on .pdf if asked for.
I will not join the snake oil salesmen as seen on other threads, by posting detail before there is full commercial investment.

I will drop further mention as this seems to be your wish Chris.

[WhiteBlue]

The turbo generator would not be an MGU just a generator feeding any one or all seven MGU's/gearbox.
The compressor would be seperate and have a drive motor powered from stored electrical energy.

That answers it nicely. All energy recovered by the turbine would have to pass two electromechanical conversions by one generator, one motor, two inverters plus one battery. So you have five units involved that all loose heat and the total efficiency will typically be 80%.

[xxChrisxx]

It is relevent to any discusion on split turbo technology Chris, as it allows full use of this type of technology to its ultimate benefit.

My ESERU PA is available on .pdf if asked for.
I will drop further mention as this seems to be your wish Chris.

I don't want you to drop it if its relevent. I'm just saying it may be a good idea to have a link to the patent content.

I'm not flaming you for it being a 'magic box of tricks' anymore (as I once did ) becuase it has an application for a patent, so I know it exists (which elevates it above 99.9% of ideas posted on the internet) and therefore has merit. I for one have been interested to know what it is for quite a while, purely because of the hype around it.

[ringo]

interesting info on KERS for 2013:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/88387

From what we understand, there's likely to be a much higher-power KERS system; 120 kilowatts we hear, a much higher energy storage, a much higher stored energy level – we've heard figures from 2.3 megajoules to 4 megajoules allowance," explained Head. "Whereas at the moment it's 400 kilojoules, so possibly up to a factor of 10 the amount of energy you can store.

"It would be a very different thing. You've still got to harvest that energy, so..."

"None of these figures is fixed yet. If the engine is a four-cylinder turbo engine it may well be that there's a possibility of installing the flywheel. If the design of the cars allows us to install the flywheel, we'll look at it again as a possibility for Formula 1.

120kW = 161hp

[mep]

It is relevent to any discusion on split turbo technology Chris, as it allows full use of this type of technology to its ultimate benefit.
The thread debate over compound turbo systems is just as unproven IMO.

My ESERU PA is available on .pdf if asked for.
I will not join the snake oil salesmen as seen on other threads, by posting detail before there is full commercial investment.

I will drop further mention as this seems to be your wish Chris.

Is there realy a patend application?
I asked you about it months ago in pm and you said you will send it but you never did.
You just tell around that there is a PA but you never show anyhthing.

[autogyro]

Just tried two more on your email address.

[WhiteBlue]

Source
Re: Your information on 2013 turbo engines mandated by the FiA.
It kick started interesting discussions on F1tech and Autosport BBs. Fuel mass flow should create a strong peak power restriction @ appr. 573 hp. What do you think it implies for HERS (turbo compounding?) and KERS (AWKERS?).

Source
December 2, 2010 at 10:52 pm
Reply
I think the 500-600hp mark is what the FIA were aimiing for. I’ve heard that utrbo compounding is allowed and a significant boost will come from KERS (front and rear) and TERS. We’ll end up with the same peak power, when the KERS boost comes in. The engines will be sophisticated bits of kit, certainly compared the the the highly developed but intrinsically simple NA V8s.
scarbsf1

According to ScarbsF1 we will have turbo compounding in 2013!!! That is great news IMO. We would need 77 hp up from 573 hp by the engine to get us to the 650 hp total target that the EWG was talking about.

If we consider the Torotrack efficiency of 89% we would need 88 hp from the turbine for compounding which does not sound very challenging. What do our turbine experts think about that target?

[FW17]

What is TERS

[mx_tifoso]

Is that a Jeopardy style answer or a question? If a question; TERS is an acronym for Thermal Energy Recovery System.

[ringo]

@white blue, TERS is a broad area, there's more than one way to do it.
I'm still skeptical about it anyway. 2013 is pretty close; developement costs will be through the roof.
I would like to see it, and it may well tempt BMW and Toyota, but it's hard imagining all teams benefiting from these regulations.

I gotta go look back in this thread for the numbers. But since the fuel flow is so limited i think the recovery will be smaller than we first speculated.

some good reading:
http://www.heat2power.net/en__benchmark.php

[WhiteBlue]

@white blue, TERS is a broad area, there's more than one way to do it.
I'm still skeptical about it anyway. 2013 is pretty close; developement costs will be through the roof.
I would like to see it, and it may well tempt BMW and Toyota, but it's hard imagining all teams benefiting from these regulations.

I gotta go look back in this thread for the numbers. But since the fuel flow is so limited i think the recovery will be smaller than we first speculated.

One thing we can now take for certain and it is that we will get turbo compounding. I concider the Torotrack method more
efficient than splitting the electric motor and generator as autogyro proposed. A simple over sized turbo with added MGU is another option which I consider relatively efficient. Both compressor and turbine units can be calculated with your program if we re adjust the fuel flow.

In my example we were using 32 g/s. Realistically we get only 27.8 g/s. Our base engine fuel level is 13% lower than we thought. Does that mean we can reduce our turbine and compressor figures proportionally? If that is true the figures would still look fine for our turbo compounded engine to meet the target.

Atm I would not look too much at other TERS methods beyond TC. There is a pretty good chance that they will use some standard spec unit to keep cost low initially while every manufacturer is busy with the engine.

[ringo]

163kW will be available for TERS, with the 27.78g/s fuel flow rate.
That's now 219hp.

When the engine was making 650hp, 265hp could be scavenged.

Keep in mind this 219hp cannot be fully converted, the scavenging turbine will have it's efficiency (if used) and generator attached to that will have an efficiency of 80% max and then there is the inverter at peak 94% or so.

Just counting the generator and inverter ignoring the turbine, as other means could be used to collect the engery 0.8*0.94 * 163 = 122.576kW

Coincidentally, it seems to be in the 120kW ball park. It's possible that TERS can provide the power that the EWG are contemplating with 120kW KERS.

It's a 17.8% improvement in specific fuel consumption, using my engine output of 585hp; note that these numbers are theortical.

Now i see why these companies make these claims:

* Electrical Turbo-Compounding (Caterpillar) : 3 to 10% announced fuel economy
* Mechanical Turbo-Compounding : 5 to 10% announced fuel economy
* TIGERS : Turbo-generator Integrated Gas Energy Recovery System : 6% announced fuel economy
* Thermo-electricity : 20% announced fuel economy
* Stirling Cycle in co-generation : up to 40% announced fuel economy but a too low specific power
* Rankine Cycle : Turbosteamer : 17% announced fuel economy
* Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) : up to 60% announced fuel economy
* Thermo-acoustics : low specific power

585hp engine + 164hp TERS = 749hp , things are getting a little too coincidental here.

I have a feeling the EWG are shaping up the engine regulations to land the overall power in the 750hp range.
At first i was wondering why the weak 585hp, now i see what they are doing.

Anyhow, i still don't like this green thing; it's very artificial.