Board logo

New 1200bhp Atom
coozer - 7/10/17 at 05:48 PM

What do we think about the new electric Atom?

1200bhp in 4wd form..

Im interested in the range extender, basically a small turbine driving a generator..


coyoteboy - 7/10/17 at 09:10 PM

Jag CX75 used microturbines.

craigdiver - 7/10/17 at 09:56 PM

quote:
Originally posted by coozer
What do we think about the new electric Atom?

1200bhp in 4wd form..

Im interested in the range extender, basically a small turbine driving a generator..




Not sure what it is or what it does but my man-senses are tingling - I want one!

pekwah1 - 7/10/17 at 10:44 PM

The idea of the range extender is basically just a small Jenny that makes electricity as you drive to charge the batteries. So a combustion engine in an electric car, sounds like it's going against the point but actually use bigger all fuel in comparison

Simon - 7/10/17 at 10:48 PM

The Jaguar CX 75 turbines were made by a company called Bladon from IoM - used to know one of the investors who also worked in the company. No idea what make the atom one is though.

As the old top gear team found out, you can build an electrically DRIVEN car, powered by a smelly diesel and it counts as environmentally friendly!

[Edited on 7/10/17 by Simon]

pekwah1 - 7/10/17 at 11:01 PM

I actually used to work Ina magazine called electric &a hybrid vehicle technology international so got to learn a fair bit and speak to a lot of the guys behind the tech (including the guys at bladon jet)...

So very very interesting stuff going on!!

There's a good expo that runs in the Uk at milbrook which is quite cool but more a trade affair..

coyoteboy - 7/10/17 at 11:09 PM

quote:
Originally posted by pekwah1
The idea of the range extender is basically just a small Jenny that makes electricity as you drive to charge the batteries. So a combustion engine in an electric car, sounds like it's going against the point but actually use bigger all fuel in comparison


Electric cars use batteries to be the primary power store. They can deliver huge doses for short times, and between times you need to recharge it. IF you use a normal piston engine you are a) using a fairly inefficient engine type and b) probably going to keep it within a set rev range to make it super-efficient.

Better to use a jet turbine, as they're notably more efficient at fairly constant speeds and can kick out vast power in a small light package.

Ugg10 - 8/10/17 at 08:38 AM

Always liked the idea of a range extender/plug in hybrid.

If you work it out most journals need an average of about 40hp for a family car, sometimes it may be 100hp whilst accelerating, sometime almost zero whilst coasting down hill. The idea of using a constant speed (most efficient) IC engine with either batteries or capacitors to act as a reservoir running the electric motor seems to me to be a sensible stop gap until battery technology can provide a reliable 400mile range and be charged in 5 minutes using renewable electricity.

But then again, just put the turbine in a bike and off you go!

http://marineturbine.com/motorcycles/

russbost - 8/10/17 at 09:11 AM

"Better to use a jet turbine, as they're notably more efficient at fairly constant speeds and can kick out vast power in a small light package" - Is this right? I've always thought jet turbines were horrifically inefficient, don't you finish up chucking half your fuel straight out of the exhaust.

The little ones they use in the large model aircraft use vast amounts of fuel to not go very far, or are they just a very bad example?

ste - 8/10/17 at 05:58 PM

a car engine is about 20% efficient whereas a jet engine is 70% efficient so it makes lots of sense

russbost - 8/10/17 at 06:35 PM

quote:
Originally posted by ste
a car engine is about 20% efficient whereas a jet engine is 70% efficient so it makes lots of sense


If that's true I am somewhat staggered that no one has used a turbine as a range extender in electric cars b4. It would seem obvious that if you can use battery power alone recharged from mains (preferably solar or wind) for the round town motoring (say 30/40 miles), & have a range extender when you do need to make longer journeys that solves a large part of the lack of range/cost problems of the current electric vehicles, surely if mass produced turbines could be made relatively cheaply, they have a lot less moving parts??? Plus you can top up your battery power again from mains when you reach your destination, or indeed at motorway services etc on route, thus increasing efficiency.

Sam_68 - 8/10/17 at 06:51 PM

quote:
Originally posted by russbost
"Better to use a jet turbine, as they're notably more efficient at fairly constant speeds and can kick out vast power in a small light package" - Is this right? I've always thought jet turbines were horrifically inefficient, don't you finish up chucking half your fuel straight out of the exhaust.

The little ones they use in the large model aircraft use vast amounts of fuel to not go very far, or are they just a very bad example?


I'm interested to see how this project develops, because I'm of the same understanding as you.

One of my good friends worked on engine design for DeHavillands, back in the 1950's: his most significant project was the Spectre rocket engine that powered the Saunders Roe SR53/SR177, but he worked on turbojets like the Gyron Junior too.

Now obviously things have come along a long way since the 1950's, but he remains very scathing about anyone 'stupid' enough to ever dream of automotive applications and microturbines: according to him the basic materials limitations mean that you end up with all turbine blade and boundary layer, and naff all gas flow - so lousy efficiency - when you try to go too small.

Call me cynical, but this seems like yet another attempt by Aerial to extract funding from the UK government: they're there every year at the Niche Vehicle Networks funding presentations, but strangely nothing ever makes production.

JAG - 8/10/17 at 08:18 PM

An interesting car (the Atom) but not unique. I also doubt very much that the turbine powered range extender will be either reliable or maybe not even put into production.

A couple of things that need correcting....

1) Turbines are NOT 70% efficient more like 40-50% and modern piston engines are between 30-35%

2) Jaguar CX-75 'show-car' had gas turbines for power generation but they were never going to make it into production. The finished car, intended for sale to the public, had a small (1.6L) 4 cylinder piston engine and some batteries and a couple of electric motors.

jeffw - 8/10/17 at 08:26 PM

Also people tend not to be able to live with the noise from Gas Turbine engines. They have a habit of being bitches to start if my experience of the Rover Gas Turbine is anything to go by.

Spend many hours trying to start these fire pumps





[Edited on 8/10/17 by jeffw]

coyoteboy - 8/10/17 at 10:29 PM

Yeah gas turbines can't exceed the Carnot efficiency, but they're more like 50% vs the 35% of the best piston engines.

Model ones are not optimally designed, and they're designed for thrust, not shaft power. Totally different goals.

And as for noise, they can be easily quietened when they're not used for thrust. Check out the bladon engines designed for micro CHP, 54db output is quieter than pretty much any car.

As for the cx75, of course is a concept, but still one that has been in the making since about 2004, even back then jaguar were playing with the idea (as I'd been considering doing a research project on it)