autogyro's Transmission Concept

[autogyro]

Bullshit, now there's a thing.

I was told by a number of the teams how advanced they were with KERS technology.
My electronics associate has worked for over two years sorting EV control systems.
Seems we were both correct and F1 does not have a handle on it yet.
Not like the flywheel system is it Patrick.

I wonder how long it will take before they realise the need for a better transmission system to work with it if it is to develop?
Seven speed layshaft, even if it is made smaller wont do it justice.

It is a bit like the official paper I placed before the FIA AEC on electric racing suggesting the framework for proper electric formula cars.
Mercedese Petronas went strait out and built a prototype (good luck Ross)
The powertrain is in the hands of Siemens, trouble is they cant get it to work either yet. Good time to sell off shares IMO.
I think I will put in another row of broad beans tommorow.

[McG]

Have you approached Ricardo. I gather they are supporting the develpoment of a drive train for a certain bronze super car. That could be more viable than trying to get F1 to change its rules. They've also worked on the current F1 Xtrac box.

Excellent idea, this could help McLaren!

[autogyro]

Just thought that one of the many benefits of my ESERU over the current seven speed F1 layshaft gearbox's would be worth a post.
Under braking (reference the thread on balanced brakeing) the conventional layshaft box automaticaly shifts down placing a percentage of brakeing on the engine as an air pump. The current KERS generator captures a small percentage of this with a very difficult electronic control system as the brakes balance front to rear.
ESERU disengages from engine which can tick over or even shut off during deceleration. All electricity capture is achieved using the ESERU without the added problem of the engine air pump. It replaces engine braking.

Sorry this thread is in the off topic area by the way.
With the teams having major problems with KERS, it should be right up there.
Back to my allotment I think.

[autogyro]

Get the broad beans in the ground first, a spot of horticulture is good therapy for the brain.

I see your point about F1, but its not going to go away, so not worth burning effort tackling that one.

Better to get the box built and used by someone than to let the idea go to waste?

Anyway, uni students are the best route to try out new ideas and have someone throw some numbers at it. Also, do you know about the EngD scheme? It is a work based doctorate, usually costs the sponsoring company roughly £5k per year for 3 years. I'd have thought your box is perfect for that sort of investigation, or a final year dissertation for a masters student as noted before.

Just need to find a Uni who are interested, put together an EngD proposal then tout it to find a manufacturer willing to gamble £15k on an idea, relatively small for manufacturer with turnover in tens of millions. The £15k can be offset against tax as an R&D expense.

The uni will do the touting, they just need your credibility to support them. Rummaging on google brought up a prof who used to be at Leeds Uni who ran EngD schemes with Ricardo. He also mentions hybrid power trains and gearboxes, and lectures at Cranfield. He'll know someone who'll knows someone who'll be interested. Have a read of his CV here
http://www.cet.sunderland.ac.uk/~cs0dcr/

There'll be others

Get the broad beans out and then Google automotive "engineering doctorate"

Have fun!

I have contacted Ricardo again with some more detail, no response as yet.
Still waiting for other responses from industry.
F1 does not have the money, sounds strange but true.
I need a sponsor to pay a university for a doctorate on the project.
Unfortunately, I no longer feel up to traveling all over the place at my own expense to promote my ESERU. I have wasted years in the past doing this for an industry that treats innovaters and ideas people almost with contempt and rewards key pushers with degrees in basket weaving and model aeroplane CFD.

[autogyro]

Talking to investors today.

[Muulka]

I wish you luck with this! We as humans need to move forward and develop ideas.

[machin]

Sorry Machin, I just noticed that you are not fully aware of how my geartrain design works. I did not wish to bring it up and risk another ban, so I will be brief.

I think what got people annoyed before was that you tried to turn every thread into a sales pitch for your gearbox concept... but you would never really go into any detail... just said "mine is better"... you seem more willing to discuss technical details now and that's what we're here for (well, most of us... there seems to be lots of driver related threads these days!)

I might be wrong about your gearbox... so I'll try and say how I think you intend for it to work as best I can by considering a simple 2 gear ratio (single epicyclic) version:-


In top gear the whole thing is locked together as one big mass, so one turn of the input equals one turn of the output, 1:1, and the outer ring gear part (red) forms the core of an electric motor, and so can be driven around adding torque (i.e. the KERS input). We can also see here why it looks to have more inertia than a normal gearbox -there is a lot of material which is far from the axis of rotation, whereas the gears in a normal gearbox rotate about their own centres.

In the bottom gear arrangement the ring gear (red) is held stationary. The planet carrier (grey) turns with the input causing the planets (green) to proceed around the sun gear (blue) causing it to rotate at some lower speed depending on the respective sizes of the gears (say 2:1). Because the ring gear is held stationary we can't use the motor to add torque to the output....


To solve this we could add another KERS motor to the transission... (addig additional weight)...

...or we could add another epicyclic to the arrangement, giving 4 gears (both ring gears locked, ring gear 1 locked, ring gear 2 locked or neither of them locked)...



In the both ring-gears locked scenario ("gear 1") we still can't use either of the motors (since both ring gears are locked).

In "gear 2" we can only use the second ring gear's motor (since the first is locked), so it must be sized for the full KERS output.

In "gear 3" we can only use the first ring gear's motor (since the second is locked), so it also must be sized for the full KERS output.

In "top gear" we can use both motors, but now we have potentially "too much" capability (i.e. more power than the rules allow, or more power than the rest of the KERS system can cope with since each motor is sized for 100% of the allowed output)....

So to my mind it appears that by linking the motors to the epicyclic ring gears it means we can't use all of them all the time, so we're carrying around dead weight..

Or maybe I've missed something/got something wrong?

[autogyro]

Close but missing much of the operation.

To start with.

The over all diameter of the ring gears in the KERS application for F1 is 84mm. The whole geartrain goes into a box no bigger than 120mm. This is no bigger than an electric motor/generator in the first place.

F1 cars seem to accept these motor generators for KERS, PLUS all the EXTRA gearing.
So radial moment of inertia has got to be way lower than a current F1 powertrain, even without KERS. Let alone the ESERU needs NO clutch, pumps or selector mechanism at all and barely any lubrication.

For 2014 the ESERU would have 7 planetary sets, each one also a segment of the energy recovery application system kinetic. It would give 8 stepped ratios mechanicaly.

Each planetary forms one distinct stepped ratio for the ic engine to drive through.
Although combinations are possible.

Shifts use electrical energy through induction to speed up, slow down and balance the shift over lap between gear sets, from one fixed ratio to another.

There is no loss of torque transfer during shifting, induced energy applied adds to through torque at the disengageing and locking gear set's ring gear as does the slowing down of the unlocking gear set through torque reaction as it slows to stationary. Torque is fully balanced at shift over lap.

At any one time in the on road use of the system, only one gear set ring gear is stationary and unavailable to apply or harvest drive energy.

Unlocked ring gears are also available for many other functions. Engine start, direct drive with the ic engine disengaged, reverse gear electric or manual among others.

As to carrying around dead weight, have you looked at a layshaft gearbox lately?
Not only dead weight and high rotational inertia but also oil windage worse than a washing machine.

[machin]

The over all diameter of the ring gears in the KERS application for F1 is 84mm. The whole geartrain goes into a box no bigger than 120mm. This is no bigger than an electric motor/generator in the first place.

So you're basically suggesting that the rotor of the current motors used for KERS are over-sized (they must be if you think you can squeeze the gears in without increasing the size)... do you really believe this?

[machin]

Shifts use electrical energy through induction to speed up, slow down and balance the shift over lap between gear sets, from one fixed ratio to another.

There is no loss of torque transfer during shifting, induced energy applied adds to through torque at the disengageing and locking gear set's ring gear as does the slowing down of the unlocking gear set through torque reaction as it slows to stationary. Torque is fully balanced at shift over lap.

Have you calculated the holding torque required on each ring gear to provide this capability? What does this tell you about the size/weight of the motor on each ring gear...?

Have you also considered that half of the time the KERS motors in your transmission are on "the wrong side" of the gear ratio (i.e. on the output side where the rotational speed is lower). This means in order to provide "X" amount of power they need to provide more torque than a motor situated on the engine side.. again increasing weight and size of these motors compared to a tranmission system where the motor is always on the input side as it is with the current transmissions.

What are your thoughts on those issues?

[autogyro]

Shifts use electrical energy through induction to speed up, slow down and balance the shift over lap between gear sets, from one fixed ratio to another.

There is no loss of torque transfer during shifting, induced energy applied adds to through torque at the disengageing and locking gear set's ring gear as does the slowing down of the unlocking gear set through torque reaction as it slows to stationary. Torque is fully balanced at shift over lap.

Have you calculated the holding torque required on each ring gear to provide this capability? What does this tell you about the size/weight of the motor on each ring gear...?

Have you also considered that half of the time the KERS motors in your transmission are on "the wrong side" of the gear ratio (i.e. on the output side where the rotational speed is lower). This means in order to provide "X" amount of power they need to provide more torque than a motor situated on the engine side.. again increasing weight and size of these motors compared to a tranmission system where the motor is always on the input side as it is with the current transmissions.

What are your thoughts on those issues?

'Holding' torque is balanced to the torque being transfered from input to output when the planetaries are unlocked. It need be no more than enough for component positioning during some shifts.
There is no need for 'holding' torque other than during shift over lap.
Low speed electric M/G technology is available for the output stage capable of easily covering the rpm range from stationary to max output rpm.
In fact M/G units are available to cover the FULL range of input and output rpm.
The only weight of M/G components rotating are embedded in the ring gear.
The windings are in the static gearbox caseing.
Size of the ring gear is dictated by the mechanical requirements and the regulations not the electrical potential.
The gear caseing is far stronger than an offset torque path layshaft caseing.
It is also much lighter than a layshaft caseing plus the 'extra' M/G units with all their additional gearing and packaging problems.

[machin]

It need be no more than enough for component positioning during some shifts.
There is no need for 'holding' torque other than during shift over lap.

exactly... during your seamless shift operation the ring gear motor must control the speed of the ring gear to stop it simply accelerating away... given the current V8's approx 250lbft of torque have you calculated the holding torque required to control the ring gear speed just above stationary on say an epicyclic stage providing a 2:1 ratio and compared it to the torque from a current KERS motor?

Low speed electric M/G technology is available for the output stage capable of easily covering the rpm range from stationary to max output rpm.
In fact M/G units are available to cover the FULL range of input and output rpm.

I would be interested to see the torque vs speed curve for your proposed ring gear motors bearing in mind it must be capable of maintaining the required KERS power output when it is on the output side of the step down...?

Size of the ring gear is dictated by the mechanical requirements and the regulations not the electrical potential.

So you think that the electrical components for your 8 motors can be fitted into the gearbox without any increase in size over the mechanical component requirements alone...?

[autogyro]

Looks like somebody found the 'gap' in the zeroshift system.
My ESERU doesnt have one, nor does it need to have a holding torque capable of holding the full torque of an F1 engine.
Sorry Machin it doesnt work like that.
I am still looking for investment.
I might even set up a web site soon, if I can find time after digging my garden.
Not sure If I need the usual grief that pushing new ideas in the UK always results in.
Life is to short to be messed around by moron bankers and Johny come lately marketing goons.

I am only bothering to post further because Zeroshift has now been proven to be a scam, which I noted over 12 Months ago.
Gearbox technology has been stuck in the 19th century with layshaft concept 'trick' shift gearboxes holding things up.
They all churn oil like washing machines and are IMO the main problem for any future vehicle development with energy saving and efficiency in mind.

[autogyro]

The over all diameter of the ring gears in the KERS application for F1 is 84mm. The whole geartrain goes into a box no bigger than 120mm. This is no bigger than an electric motor/generator in the first place.

So you're basically suggesting that the rotor of the current motors used for KERS are over-sized (they must be if you think you can squeeze the gears in without increasing the size)... do you really believe this?

The ESERU replaces the motor generator unit.
The ESERU is also a 7 (or speed stepped gearbox (F1 application).
The casing of the m/g unit is replaced by the 'gearbox' casing of the ESERU, which contains all the windings and stationary components.
The annuli of the gear sets in the ESERU double as armatures of a multi stage m/g unit, not the complete m/g unit.
84 mm is the regulated minimum between shaft centers in a current stepped (torque gaped) layshaft trick shift F1 gearbox.
My ESERU only has one shaft, so there is no regulation applicable to gearset size.
The burst load capability in an epicyclic gear set is far higher than in a gear pair, so the gear size can be comparatively smaller and there is no lubrication needed for the gear contact other than in each gearset engagement.

[IanLep]

AUTOGYRO you are clearly 'desparate to get you technology taken up by somebody... anybody.

I've already responded on an other thread that using multiple planetary sets, each with motors etc is covered by numeroius prior patents.

And in response to your comment that the Zeroshift Technology was a scam..... it was NOT!

The original 2004 technology used flexible arms fitted into slots in the top of each bullet. This was later replaced in 2006/2007 with the bullets fixed to the Underside of each Actuator ring.

The technology would work but suffers from some engineering issues which I pointed out to them in 2004. Namely forces acting against the bullets and their slide channels etc.

There was also no hope whatsoever that the ZSL technology could possibly reduce the size of the gearbox which was their original claims.

The problem with Zeroshift was that I showed them numerous layouts and mechanisms that would hae aload them to circumvent issues with their previous mechanisms. However it's clear that William Martin was obsessed with getting 'his' invention recognised. In this he failed from a Business objective and didn't recognise a Gift Horse when it was shown to him.