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
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!
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..
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.
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!
---------------------------------------------------------------
1968 Ford Anglia 105e, 1.7 Zetec SE, Mk2 Escort Workd Cup front end, 5 link rear
Build Blog - http://Anglia1968.weebly.com
"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 no longer run Furore Products or Furore Cars Ltd, but would still highly recommend them for Acewell dashes, projector headlights, dominator
headlights, indicators, mirrors etc, best prices in the UK! Take a look at http://www.furoreproducts.co.uk/ or find more parts on Ebay, user names
furoreltd & furoreproducts, discounts available for LCB users.
Don't forget Stainless Steel Braided brake hoses, made to your exact requirements in any of around 16 colours.
http://shop.ebay.co.uk/furoreproducts/m.html?_dmd=1&_ipg=50&_sop=12&_rdc=1
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
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.
I no longer run Furore Products or Furore Cars Ltd, but would still highly recommend them for Acewell dashes, projector headlights, dominator
headlights, indicators, mirrors etc, best prices in the UK! Take a look at http://www.furoreproducts.co.uk/ or find more parts on Ebay, user names
furoreltd & furoreproducts, discounts available for LCB users.
Don't forget Stainless Steel Braided brake hoses, made to your exact requirements in any of around 16 colours.
http://shop.ebay.co.uk/furoreproducts/m.html?_dmd=1&_ipg=50&_sop=12&_rdc=1
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
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.
Photo Archive
Building: enthusiasm for getting my car back on the road!
posted on 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.
Justin
Who is this super hero? Sarge? ...No.
Rosemary, the telephone operator? ...No.
Penry, the mild-mannered janitor? ...Could be!
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.
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)
