Hydristor push-to-pass

[Ciro Pabón]

Checkered: better make that two weekends. I said thanks to Mr. Kasmer and asked a couple of things (he ignored my "advice" about Ferrari: on an interview made by Carshow, that you might find at http://www.hydristor.com he puts America in number 1 ) and he gave me this "second part", where he is so kind as to give us a couple of speculations on the implication of his work. I was overwhelmed by it. I can't figure out the details, but it's a personal challenge to "dig it".

I work on technology transfer for roads and I know perfectly that not until I make some sort of model I will understand it completely. Besides, I won't be able to explain it to others until that. Anyway, the basic function is clearer than six months ago. If I'm able to make a simplified model of the mode of operation, which I plan to do, I will post it.

There you go, more food for tought. I'm wondering why nobody has posted, besides you. Emphasis (bold font) is mine, as well as comments in parenthesis, in italics, mostly interrogation signs.

I was a bit worried about the "second law of thermodynamics" comments. I wonder what you can get from a Stirling Engine coupled to an hydristor: how could you possibly keep the "energy sump" at a lower temperature than air? That should be true unless you use the "deep pipe" concept that takes advantage of the difference in temperature between ocean shallow water and deep water, for example....

Anyway, who am I to criticize? There is a working prototype and that should convince a lot of people in the forum. If you wish to take a look at a real machine working with an hydristor attached, I give some publicity to a video on Mr. Kasmer site (you probably have seen it, checkered, I know, but maybe someone here would wish to check it):

http://www.hydristor.com/LasVegas_IFPE_show.wmv

Here you have the wonderful Tom Kasmer, innovator extraordinaire, on the "floor" of F1Technical:

I am striving to design, manufacture and market a retrofit kit consisting of two Hydristors packaged into the form fit factor of a typical OEM torque converter. The 4 kidney ports are shared on either side by the input Hydristor connected to the engine with the outside Hydristor connected to the driveshaft. The hydraulic accumulator tank connects via a shutoff valve (to retain pressure long term) and is switched into the hydraulic pressure line common to the suction ports which are internally connected. During braking, the suction ports become braking pressure and the front engine connected Hydristor is shifted to zero (circle) which 'disconnects' the engine from the hydraulic dynamics. The engine can be completely turned off when sufficient pressure is stored in the tank. The infinite variability of the rear Hydristor allows for matching the energy of braking at speed to the desired braking effort and the tank pressure; where the speed decreasing lowers the hydraulic transfer of energy per the desired braking effort and accounts for the growing tank pressure as the energy is stored.

Bottom line: the retrofitted vehicle will come smoothly and safely to a stop and 95+% of the previous kinetic vehicle energy at speed will have been saved in the tanks for re-use. The motor is now idling to touch up the tank pressure, or is completely off. The front Hydristor can spool the engine up to idle speed very easily by ellipticizing from a circle to create a motor torque to rev up the engine for restart and this woll be similar to 'popping a clutch from rolling momentum to start the engine, or using tank pressure stored for 6 months by a virtual zero leak shutoff valve to start the engine from cold. This will turn the electric starter into an antique piece as it will grow old with lack of use. Driving at highway speed and a fair amount of tank pressure with the engine off or idling will enable the burning of tires to rapidly pass another vehicle while the engine spools up or restarts. As far as acceleration, a Hydristor retrofit RWD or FWD car will get to 60 in about 3.5 seconds on good pavement while 4WD/AWD vehicles will get there under 3 seconds, gas or diesel and with the engine turned completely off. The use of gasoline or diesel fuel will be cut by half or more while the generation of existing vehicular CO2 will be quartered. If all the vehicles on the planet were retrofitted to the Hydristor, the 10 year dire prediction of Dr. James Hansen of NASA could be averted. Whatever I do here in upstate New York, USA will affect you in Colombia and vice-versa. (I want to add) just a couple of side comments. The engine mostly idling or turned off will typically last a half million miles. Maintenance schedules will stretch out and the noise level will reduce at highway speed. The Hydristor torque converter can be completely controlled by a pedal and brake pressure/position resistance sensor which converts pedal demand into a very low pressure like 1 psi which is then amplified by the Hydristor just like the beta gain of an electrical transistor to the range of 5,000 psi and I'm working on a 10kpsi design as well. That one will use no hydraulic reservoir. I wish I could say more here but I have to finish my patent write ups first. The latest innovations will beat the Carnot cycle by recovering heat loss and turning that into more stored pressure. (???) By retrofitting all the vehicles already out there, the need to scrap everything in favor of the ineffectual hybrids will be gone. Somebody who owns a 7,000 pound Ford Expedition doesn't want to scrap it (losing their investment) in favor of some minimally safe vehicle which contains high tech batteries or super capacitors which will be interesting in hard crashes. Those components will push huge currents into an accident-derived short circuit. (???) This kind of thing is being worked on because there is no vision. ‘They' don’t know what to do or how to fix these major and future critical issues. The Hydristor can fix it all in one fell swoop!

And, the Hydristor Super Freon Heat Pump/Stirling generator can harvest the solar heat from the air and water to make free, true zero emission electricity. (???) I will build my car as soon as I finish a negotiation with investors. My car of the future will 'just run', trashing the so-called second law of thermodynamics which says I can't make a machine which absorbs heat from the air and produces some of that energy while being self sustaining. (???) What did they know in the 1800s when some of these 'rules' were coined by the experts in physics? I am working toward the future world and I hope you all will join me. I see a future where everybody has free energy and the energy generation fits the natural environment of the creator.

I thank you for the interest and for motivating me anew. (Best) regards.

Tom Kasmer

[tkasmer]

Hi Ciro and Checkered. I would like to entertain several specific questions about the Hydristor at a time. The reason I am willing to take the time and effort to explain and answer questions are several. First, I want to proliferate the technology while I am still on this earth. Second, I believe this device can really change the future in numerous ways and many have
to know how it works in that regard.

The rotor, vanes and rotating belt are always fully immersed in the oil. Lets
consider the 'neutral' case where all 4 control pistons are located equidistant to the axis of rotation. If there are 10 vanes, then there are 10
wedge shaped cavities located between the adjacent pairs of vanes, the rotor outside diameter segment between the adjacent vanes, the underside of the rotating belt segment between the vanes and finally the
two axial ends of this cavity at the rotational sealing closures positioned between the open kidney ports and located at the 4 points of a compass
or the 12,3,6,9 O'clock points of a clock face. This sealing rotational axial
area is item number 30 in US patent 6022201 drawing. When the 'wedge
shaped box' of oil rotates through a sealing area (30), this 'wedge' volume of oil is hydromechanically moved from a given Hydristor chamber to the next chamber in the clockwise rotation sense (a chamber is located in the open kidney port areas and there are 4 in this discussion case). When the wedge shaped box rotates into the next chamber in line, the exact volume
of oil lost in the previous chamber is simultaneously replaced by a similar
wedge of oil rotating into the first chamber of mention and that oil comes from a yet previous chamber. The bottom line is that there is a continuous
rotation of the combined total of all the wedges in a circle and no oil flows
out of or into any chamber. This is 'neutral' or also is a neat hydraulic shutoff valve. If an engine were directly connected to the rotor of this discussion, the engine could be started or stopped without any connection
to the hydraulic system. Remember this point N.B. (Nota Bene from the Latin).

An important point here is that the equal distance of the 4 control pistons
must be such that there is a 'slight' deflection of the circular rotational shape of the belt as it rotates. Each piston has a complex concave surface
in intimate contact with the rotating belt. Since the belt is always immersed in oil, a film of oil is dragged into the contect interface between piston and belt and is squeezed to a minimum by the various forces, pressures, etc such that a self repleneshing hydrodynamic bearing is created (like that of an engine crankshaft bearing). This eliminates any direct contact, wear and mechanical friction. There is another effect here
in that the very minimal thickness of hydrodynamic bearing also forms
(again) a self repleneshing oil seal preventing the bypass of oil under pressure from one chamber to the next and this results in extreemly high
volumetric efficiency. The very first Hydristor was tested at Tecumseh test lab in Michigan and achieved a 94.7% overall efficiency; fully several points better than refined axial piston units. Current designs are pushing
the 98-99% overall range per stage.

Another feature is the rotating belt which served to eliminate vane tip contact friction. The vane tip centrifugal force is speed squared dependent.
That severely limited the upper speed range of vane units. Historical units
are limited to 4-6,000 Rpm for pump/motors ranging from big to small.
Similarly, axial piston units throw the axial pistons against the rotating barrel bore diameter and are similarly speed limited. The rotating belt simultaneously encircles the vane tips and the combined centrifugal force
is fully contained and therefore cancelled.

Lets consider a 4 chamber Hydristor with clockwise rotation, having pistons
located at 12,3,6 and 9 O'clock. The sealing areas (30) are at those same 4 positions. The 4 chamber kidney ports are locate between the 4 sealing positions. The rotational arc (30) is slightly longer than the arc between any two adjacent vanes. Thus as the rotor and vanes rotate, there is always one single vane or two adjacent vanes in any sealing area and the
oil cannot get from one chamber to any adjacent chamber without being
directly tied to the rotation. To recap, the neutral position results in the
wedge total volume of oil merely running in a circle as a 'rotational reservoir' if you will.

Now, lets move the 12 and 6 pistons out by .001 inch and simultaneously move the 3 and 9 pistons in by .001 inch. The amount of oil passing 12 and
entering chamber is increased by .001 times the rotor axial length and at the same time, the amount of oil moving from chamber 1 to chamber 2
passing by piston/sealing area 3 O'Clock is reduced by .001 times rotor
length. So a small amount is moved into chamber 1 and the exact same amount is being retained in chamber 1 for a total of .002L. This oil MUST go out the chamber 1 to a hydraulic load. Chamber 3 has exactly the same thing going on and it too expels to a Y-combined hydraulic load. The
developed pressure in both chambers 1 and 3 create an equal and opposite
cancelling side load force across the rotor and vanes and applied to the rotor bearings. In the Hydristor, these forces cancel and thus the name
'pressure balanced' is maintained.

Assume the existence of a gear mechanism connecting the motion of the 4 control pistons to guarantee that 12 and 6 will simultaneously move opposite and equal to pistons 3 and 9 with respect to the rotor axis. Now,
lets apply a control pressure simultaneously to the back chambers of both
pistons 3 and 9. The rotor is turning during this exercise. The control pressure (say 1,000 psi) causes both 3 and 9 to push in while extracting 12 and 6. Chambers 1 and 3 see a growing operating pressure and this
is presented to the load. If the load has not yet started to move, the pistons 3 and 9 dont move very much and the chamber pressure creates a back force trying th push the pistons back. The result is a hydro-balance
and initially there is a very small torque load on the rotor input. As the hydraulic load starts to move, chamber fluid starts to move to the load and the control pistons 'inch' inward to maintain the control piston hydro-balance. Think of a lever and fulcrum where the initial fulcrum point is at the load and moves toward the drive end as the load begins to move.

This is the 'transistor' function I speak about. Enough for now. regards Tom

[checkered]

Hi, Tom,

a pleasant surprise to read directly from you here. I'm currently faced with a few rather less inspiring design problems of my own (far removed from hydrodynamics) so for the moment I haven't been able to be as liberal with my time as to try and understand the Hydristor on a detailed level. Ciro, however, has managed to drive home the main points and I believe I understand the basic ideas of the device. I have yet to even consider the functioning of two adjoining Hydristors as a CVT, or the thermodynamical uses of the device (though the latter use I can well imagine without going through the technical concepts).

To state that hydrodynamics isn't my field is a bit of an understatement, so to be able to visualize a largely frictionless, incompressible and inviscid medium interacting with mechanical structures is, at times, a stretch of my imagination. Some questions arise, still (and I trust Ciro to come up with more pertinent ones) ... for example, even if I can imagine a closed circuit homogenous medium hydrodynamical system, the flow (when induced by the control pistons) of the oil through the vanes and kidney openings is a bit twisty. Is there any imaginable inefficiency associated in that, beyond the obvious volumetric pressure-balanced absolutes of the hydrodynamics? Is there a small deformation of the steel belt associated in the amount of oil between the vane partitions that are momentarily closed off from any kidney ports? Details, I know, but ones that just spring to mind in no particular order.

Speaking of the belt, is the hydrodynamical seal of the steel belt's edges toward the side walls maintained by extremely accurate dimensions alone? I'm also wondering about RPM; have you encountered instances where going beyond 6000 has a merit to it (considering that when a device as such is already a little or considerably, depending on the case, efficient than the previous one, one might imagine there'd be less incentive to go for the extremes)?

Regards,
Checkered

[Carlos]

Interestingly; our forum member, ss_collins, who is a writer and I believe an editor at Racecar Engineering magazine, mentioned in the thread "Regenerative Systems" that several F1 teams had bought hydraulic components from Parker-Hannifin, elements started to fall into place. There is an item in the PH inventory called the Gerotor - which is a compressor/pump/motor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerotor Could this be the hydraulic device that is being tested by several F1 teams ?
It raises a question - Is the F1 engineering community aware of the Hydristor? The Hydristor seems a more capable, versatile device than the Gerotor - although more complex.
Another link http://www.vianenterprises.com/Gerotor.htm
Vian Enterprises is owned by Parker-Hannifin.

[Ciro Pabón]

Mr. Kasmer will be interviewed this Saturday on satellite radio, XM166 from 12:00M to 2:00PM, New York time (GMT-5).

If you want to make any questions to him, mail them in advance to Tom Torbjornsen. tom@americascarshow.com

I'll send Carlos's question about "if the F1 community is aware of the hydristor"...

I'll ask Mr. Kasmer if any part of the interview will be available on line.

[checkered]

Seems that at

least some of the interviews are downloadable at http://www.americascarshow.com/ ... as to the questions, I'll leave it to Ciro. You'll be able to ask the most accurate and pertinent questions about this one on behalf of F1T, I believe. I haven't managed to devote the kind of time to the hydristor it deserves - yet - I still think it's an idea with potential and haven't yet come to a conclusion whether there's any sense in me trying to understand the finer niceties and remaining problems of the device, or should I just be content with understanding the basic principle. Who knows, if diesels are on their way to F1 and the revs are significantly lower, the hydristor might emerge a very worthwhile option as a substitute to the current transmission.

[Carlos]

An article from Racecar Engineering - Hydrostatic FSAE car
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/arti ... racer.html

[Conceptual]

I have personally put several hundred hours into research for hydraulic drive systems for street and race cars. I am very impressed with the Hydristor, and with some other technology that I have found, I believe that it could realistically push efficiency to the 99.xxxxxxxx degree.

I dont fully believe in perpetual motion, or 100+% efficiency, but I believe that you can get extremely close, like 99.9999999999%, so after all of my invested time the only solid conclusion that I have come to is that we as a race are NOT even close to perfection. We shouldn't be wasting our engineers time trying to find perpetual drive, but "near perpetual" drive instead.

My $.02 on the matter.

[Ciro Pabón]

Well, engineers, unlike scientists, think that perpetual motion can exist. Allow me to tell a joke, illustrating the difference Conceptual is trying to explain:

At the college field, all girls were aligned at one side of it, and all boys were aligned in the same way at the other side, confronting each other.

A mathematician, a physicist and an engineer were given the task of solving this problem:

"If every minute the girls and boys travel half of the distance that separates them... when will they encounter each other?"

The mathematician answers quickly and emphatically: "Never!"

The judges of the competition agree he is right.

The physicist think for a moment before answering: "Well, in an infinite time..."

The judges, again, agree that he is right.

The engineer takes out his calculator, pencil and paper and scribbles furiously for a while. Then, he says:

"Well, after 13 minutes and 45 seconds they are at ten centimeters and, for 99% of the kids, such a distance is short enough for any practical purpose I can think of..."

So, if you devise a machine that doesn't stop for, I don't know, 100 years, I'm sure people will say that you have invented a "perpetual motion" machine.

Now, if you like poetry a little, you could say that, for any practical purpose I can think of, the World is such a machine, and thus, they exist. For example, read this: "Top 10 ways to destroy the Earth"

[riff_raff]

I dont fully believe in perpetual motion, or 100+% efficiency, but I believe that you can get extremely close, like 99.9999999999%...

The "hydristor" is just another type of hydrostatic transmission. While it does have some novel aspects, it still suffers from the basic issues that hurt the efficiency of all hydrostatic devices: leakage and friction. Even the best hydrostatic devices, manufactured to microscopic tolerances and fits, and using no efficiency-robbing seals, typically can only achieve input-to-output efficiencies of about 90%. And that's when new, operating under ideal conditions. After a few hundred hours of operation, and a bit of fluid contamination, that efficiency number will fall off pretty fast.

On the other hand, a well designed and manufactured gear mesh can easily achieve efficiencies of 99% input-to-output, and will last thousands of hours, even in marginal operating conditions. That is why the geared manual transmission is still the mechanism of choice when it comes to drivetrains for fuel efficient vehicles.

I enjoyed Ciro's joke. I wish I could remember Ronald Reagan's wonderful joke about perpetual motion and government programs......

[Conceptual]

I used to believe in perpetual motion, until I finally agreed that no matter what environment you are in, you will ALWAYS have parasitic loss if there are more than one component in the system.

But, I firmly believe that we can get ALOT closer than we have so far!

Chris

[Belatti]

I think its pointless to look for that 99.99999999999% efficiency you want to get.

I wouldn´t mind with transmissions, cause, like riff-raff said, they can be already good.

Spending resources to achieve 99.9999999% eff. in a transmission is not too smart when you have got an engine with 30% efficiency. I would focus in the engine. Believe me its more difficult to go from 30% to 35% in an engine than going from 90% to 95% in a transm.

Remember that engine gives you torque (force) to accelerate a mass and then you get speed. The easiest thing to do is to reduce mass (in a production car, not too easy in F1). Then increase engine efficiency (it improved like 20% in a hundred years!!!) and at last I would care about transmission.

[Ciro Pabón]

I'm no mechanical engineering, perhaps that's why I find it so fascinating.

I was trying to agree with Belatti and googling around for the Reason of Transmissions. I mean, why do we use them?

After all, the efficency you expect from a system is not arbitrarily high: that's not good engineering. I try to translate Belatti's signature: "You have to win by the least possible margin". If you follow that way of thinking, you should design looking for the most economic design, and energy efficiency is included as another variable.

I would add to that signature "... and in the most elegant way you can invent.", so I would say you look not only for the most economic, but the most user-friendly possible design.

On the other hand, as Conceptual points out, every time you get a better efficiency of a machine, the World (with capital W) changes a little. I would add to Conceptual posts that there is no need to "believe" in perpetual motion, but I won't press the point, it's enough to say that the laws of thermodinamics are good for me.

Anyway, I stumbled upon the aptly named "Center for Power Transmission and Motion Control" of the University of Bath (my italics). http://www.bath.ac.uk/ptmc/

I read for half an hour before coming back here.

First thing you could give relevance after browsing the site: motion control is strongly related to transmissions.

A transmission it's not only a box to change the relation between power and movement. We might be blinded by the fact that active suspensions are forbidden in F1, but the guys at Bath aren't. Look at the bridge they helped to design:

Talking about hydraulic movement control, this bridge moves and flexes. Is there a way to achieve this by other means with the same cost?


Secondly, after a little browsing of the site, I have the impression that hydraulics are one of the most potent accumulator of energy we have, besides fossil fuels, explosives and atomic weapons. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that the energy accumulating capacity of electrical and flywheel-based systems pale in comparison. And that's what Mr. Kasmer points out, or so I believe.

Both points show that efficiency must be designed, not sought as a goal in itself: if you move enormous things, efficiency is a plus. If you want almost infinite energy accumulators, use a pressure tank: it will come back with little loss.

Anyway, the hydristor, in its role of distributor of hydraulic power, seems a strong competitor against other technologies.

[riff_raff]

Belatti:

"Spending resources to achieve 99.9999999% eff. in a transmission is not too smart"

I would disagree. In fact, the biggest problem with current CVT designs (belt or toroidal)is the parasitic losses due to the hydraulic pump for their control/clamping systems.

Consider this: a typical hydraulic pump in a CVT is constantly sucking up at least 2 HP. If the car is using, say 20HP, to cruise down the road at 60mph, that amounts to a 10% loss just for the hydraulic control pump in that CVT. Add to that another 5% loss for the variator.

Compare that to a 3% total loss for the typical (and much less expensive) manual transmission. You can see why most manufacturers are going with AMT or DCT designs when they care about fuel economy, and why the CVT likely has no real future for automotive applications.

[Belatti]

riff_raff,
you definitively didn´t get my point.

In fact, you are saying the same that I wanted to point out!

Then, why spending millions in R+D for a 99.9% eff. transmission when you have a 95% eff. one? I would spend to improve a system with 30% eff. not a onw with 95%.
And the system in a car that has got 30%eff. is, yeah you guessed it, THE ENGINE!