Regenerative systems (KERS)

[WhiteBlue]

Earlier on people were discussing biofuels. Negative aspects were competition to food production, monoculture hazard, lack of water for irrigation and deterioration of soil. All of those points are valid. nevertheless there are also positive points for a certain amount of bio fuels.

there is plenty of organic waste including sewage sludge, offal, dung, restaurant waste, communal bio waste that can be converted to biogas economically. additionally there may be bio material sources that do not have the drawbacks mentioned above. checkered mentioned algae farming in salt water in dessert regions. there is another nice scheme being proposed in the USA based on bio technology pioneered in a German food science lab.

http://www.greenshift.com/media/greensh ... eactor.wmv

This idea isn't entirely new but the execution in the particular reactor is unique. the biomass to floor area ratio is staggering and exceeds anything seen so far in biofuel farming by magnitudes.

In short I believe that there will be many novel ways to tap into the solar power budget that we will need to use in the future. algae will undoubtedly play a major role in converting solar to bio and chemical energy. this is simply based on the fact that algae grow 100-1000 times faster than any other biomaterial producing organism and they need neither soil nor fresh water in the growth cycle. another reason for my confidence in this is the role algae played in building up most of the fossile enrgy that we are using currently. it is always usefull to look at the nature to see which solutions worked (bionic engineering).

[WhiteBlue]

sorry double post

[meves]

Just a quick thought which I'm sure will have been covered elsewhere but I've not seen it. Could the regenerative systems be used to slow the car down (obviously as a side affect) and so reduce the size of brakes and the unsprung weight required on a car and also could they vary the amount of energy generated at each wheel and so give the affect of a brake balancing system?

[WhiteBlue]

from autosport the latest fia road map on KERS

FIA sets out KERS plans for F1

By Simon Strang Wednesday, April 16th 2008, 16:44 GMT


The FIA is pushing ahead with plans for kinetic energy recovery systems in Formula One and has laid out a proposed timetable for the evolution of the environmentally-friendly technology over the next five years, autosport.com has learned.

In a letter to the teams, obtained by autosport.com, FIA president Max Mosley has proposed a stepped development of KERS that will allow drivers ever more access to recovered power as the technology develops in the sport between 2009 and 2013.

As has been previously indicated, Mosley has suggested that as from next season teams would be allowed to use KERS to draw 60kW of energy from one axle on the car, which would allow drivers access to 400kJ of energy per lap, to use in the form of a 'boost' button.

In the letter, however, Mosley suggests that teams consider a regulation framework which would allow that limit to be doubled by 2011, and furthermore to allow KERS to work from both axles to draw 200kW and covert it to 1.6MJ per lap from 2013.

Any such systems would coincide with the introduction of the low cost engines the FIA wants to see introduced when the homologation of the current power units runs out in 2012.

Mosley has also offered an incentive to the teams to develop KERS systems that draw energy from other heat sources on the car, suggesting that while they would not be compulsory, their stored power would be allowed to be fed straight back through the power-train rather than as a limited boost. Thus creating a competitive development environment for the technology.

"In addition to KERS, we think it would be interesting to allow the recovery of a maximum of 20kW from the cooling system from 2011," Mosley said in the letter. "The suggestion is that this power would feed continuously into the drive train. Heat recovery would be an entirely new, road-relevant technology. The idea is to allow it but not to require it.

"Then, in 2013 the new engine would also allow exhaust energy recovery."

Mosley made it clear to the teams that the framework was not intended as a statement of policy but a starting point for discussion and hoped to have a broad direction in principle to present to the World Motor Sport Council in Jun

I'd say that those issues need to be brought forward and that all converted energy should be allowed to be fed back through the drive train. there should not be a limit to energy conversion from heat or braking. let the guys who can show us they can. they should be rewarded for doing a good job.

[checkered]

Earlier on people were discussing biofuels ... checkered mentioned algae farming in salt water in dessert regions.

Sheesh, I have to re-read

this thread once again. I swear I don't remember half the stuff I've written here anymore ... I do remember about algae farming though. And an interesting link, that greenshift, thank you for that. I hope F1 will retain the "biofuels shall not come from food sources" type of clause that was suggested way back when the "discussion" documents surfaced.

Meanwhile, as many have probably already noted on Autosport, we now have a proposed "roadmap" for KERS - and apparently "HERS" & "EERS" (as in "heat" and "exhaust") as well - put forward by our very own embattled FIA president. Good to see that distractions from distractions can come in constructive forms as well. I thought it worthwhile to make a note of this development here, as a matter of historical reference in F1's efficiency drive. Something we can return to as the thing of shapes evolve into existence.

The platform concerns the immediate future, years 2009 through 2013. That would see next year's rather measly device (I've seen calculations that indicate a recovery rate roughly equivalent of 0.4 l - potentially a 10% saving or so - of fuel per lap, not considering the effect of unfavourably placed/added weight should the teams not opt for ultracaps doubling as ballast ... have not run these numbers myself as of yet) being developed into a dual axle 200 kW input, 1.6MJ/lap system.

The applications of heat recovery will be very interesting, if at all feasible on this timescale. The current top of the line exhaust energy recovery system is a VVT, I presume ... this alone would warrant radical changes to the engine itself, to keep performance at realistic levels. FIA's/Mosley's platform is rather complicated and I won't make direct value judgements of it yet.

Edit: I see WhiteBlue beat me to this, but I'm too lazy to rephrase this post atm.

Just a quick thought which I'm sure will have been covered elsewhere but I've not seen it. Could the regenerative systems be used to slow the car down (obviously as a side affect) and so reduce the size of brakes and the unsprung weight required on a car and also could they vary the amount of energy generated at each wheel and so give the affect of a brake balancing system?

It might be very complicated to stop this from happening, common ECU or not. If it is attempted, poor us at F1T trying to make sense of all the aspects that have to be governed. Some "regenerative" systems could also serve such goals (control) as their primary functions, should energy flow limits/budgets not shift focus adequately towards the devices' desired purpose.

[meves]

It's interesting that Honda has just shown this, which I guess is on the same lines as BMW were talking about as early as Dec 2005

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/02 ... .html#more

If anyone wants to splash the cash on the paper itself then here's the link

http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/2008-01-0310

[WhiteBlue]

This is a pretty specific description of the system and it tells a lot better how things are actually done than in the BMW steamer publication.

The choice of a variable volume radial piston motor tells us a lot about possible improvements in the mechanical efficiency. I have used such designs as pumps in hydraulic systems and they have some considerable losses next to being quite noisy.

Perhaps this is an opportunity for our friend with the HYDRISTOR to demonstrate his efficiency claim on that pump/motor design. He may have a problem with lubrication in a steam application. In small scale co-generation power plants using the organic Rankine cycle twin screw expanders are used. those are essentially inverted screw compressors.

Honda and BMW stand to profit in the power stakes if the FIA scheme is implemented. watch Ferrari and McLaren fight it like hell.

I still think this should be pushed 100% and any gains by such technology be immediately legalised from 2010.

[axle]

I don't know why they are limiting KERS, HERS and EERS....I'd just make all the teams weapons free Let them focus on what they think will give them the biggest bang and see what happens...this would shake up the whole grid, introduce lots of innovation, rapidly realise which technologies should or shouldn't be developed further and benefit the average car owner much faster than any stupidly restricted setup...

Yes it would involve lots of money...but who cares...F1 is the biggest playpit going in motoring. And if it's truely focussing on technologies that will benefit the globe let them get on with it I say...

[WhiteBlue]

Yes, wouldn't that be nice?

but then the ugly politicking comes into play and Merc can't let Honda run away with it (replace manufacturers names at your convenience).

[Conceptual]

Yes, wouldn't that be nice?

but then the ugly politicking comes into play and Merc can't let Honda run away with it (replace manufacturers names at your convenience).

Yes,

Those with power tend to defend it to the death.

I would personally like to see a fuel-less formula. Maybe something as simple as compressed air, or ducted wind turbines in the bodywork producing electricity.

I am working on something similar, and will have a prototype before December. We will see what comes of that!

Chris

[WhiteBlue]

...
I would personally like to see a fuel-less formula. Maybe something as simple as compressed air, or ducted wind turbines in the bodywork producing electricity.

I am working on something similar, and will have a prototype before December. We will see what comes of that!

Chris

let me make a suggestion in case you settle on the wind powered version. add some pedals or you may not be able to negotiate a complete lap in forward motion. I don't want to go into the thermodynamics because you are probably capable of figuring it yourself.

the pneumatic version is also very straitforward to calculate in its performance envelope. take 25% of the chemical energy of 100kg of petrol. figure out what kind of volume of compressed air you need at say 300 bar. I promise you, you will be surprised.

[Conceptual]

...
I would personally like to see a fuel-less formula. Maybe something as simple as compressed air, or ducted wind turbines in the bodywork producing electricity.

I am working on something similar, and will have a prototype before December. We will see what comes of that!

Chris

let me make a suggestion in case you settle on the wind powered version. add some pedals or you may not be able to negotiate a complete lap in forward motion. I don't want to go into the thermodynamics because you are probably capable of figuring it yourself.

the pneumatic version is also very straitforward to calculate in its performance envelope. take 25% of the chemical energy of 100kg of petrol. figure out what kind of volume of compressed air you need at say 300 bar. I promise you, you will be surprised.

There are already car prototypes that run off of compressed air, and actually can compress more than it uses. I'll try and dig up the link and get back to you...

Chris

http://www.theaircar.com/acf/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automot ... 17016.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4 <---VIDEO

I don't see why this couldn't be implemented. Imagine the level the technology would reach in 3 years of F1 development!

[WhiteBlue]

don't forget that a pneumatic storage device can never be fully unloaded. You typically operate between 50-100% pressure to keep a usefull torque range even with a CVT (which kills some efficiency).

[Conceptual]

don't forget that a pneumatic storage device can never be fully unloaded. You typically operate between 50-100% pressure to keep a usefull torque range even with a CVT (which kills some efficiency).

I understand what you are saying, and I don't disagree.

I want to know what you think would happen if F1 were to focus their combined $10Bil/year budgets into improving this design for racing purposes?

And my personal project does not use air power at all... Well it takes some tech from wind power, but that is about as far as it goes...

Chris

[Ciro Pabón]

Can you put some numbers into it? I mean, how large would be the volume? I remember vaguely that Pressure*Volume = Energy. You ask for the energy in 100 kg of gas, but that's too much for a car. I'd start with, I don't know 40 liters, enough for a small car. Gasoline has around 35 MJoules/liter, so 40 liters have around 1400 MJoules.

Now,

V=1400 MJoules/300 bars

V= 1.4*10^9 Newtons*m/3*10^7 Newtons/m2 = 47 m3

Multiplied by 2, because of the "minimum pressure" WhiteBlue mentions, that's 94 m3. Wow. No way, Jose, WhiteBlue is right (or my numbers are wrong).

If the numbers I give are true, there's no amount of development that can overcome the problem: the energy density is simply too low. Thanks, WhiteBlue.

Are my numbers OK? Well, it's simplicity itself, but... WhiteBlue, Miguel, CMSMJ1, help me again to "confirm or deny".

I have some questions:

Then, how do they manage at the AirCar company to offer an aero car? If you design, I don't know, a 3 m3 deposit (huge) and you duplicate the pressure (I'm guessing here, I don't know if it's economically feasible) you only have the equivalent of 2 liters of gas, enough for 100 kilometers or so, tops.

Then, why there are some old tramways that worked with compressed air? At least I remember I posted some time ago on this subject and I (vaguely, again) remember a swiss (french?) tramway, early XXth century or so.

Could you use liquid air? What's the amount of energy in liquid air, btw?

I've also read that a mini-turbine could be used to compress the air, "supersizing" the compressor intake that, anyway, all turbines have. I wonder if that's efficient or not, but this could be a nice combination.

The turbine could be really small and work to store enough energy for 100 km trips in the compressed air tank during the night: it doesn't have to have enough power to drive the car. You have to keep the turbine working all day, while you are at your workplace, to be able to use the compressed air to commute back home.

Look, mom, no batteries! And a really tiny engine!