[ExI] Electric cars without batteries

[Keith Henson]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Turbine_Car

The fourth-generation Chrysler turbine engine ran at up to 44,500
Revolutions per minute (rpm), according to the owner's manual[1], and
could use diesel fuel, unleaded gasoline, kerosene, JP-4 jet fuel, and
even vegetable oil. The engine would run on virtually anything and the
president of Mexico tested this theory by running one of the first
cars—successfully—on tequila. Air/fuel adjustments were required to
switch from one to another, and the only evidence of what fuel was
being used was the odor of the exhaust.

The engine[2] had a fifth as many moving parts as a piston unit (60
rather than 300). The turbine was spinning on simple sleeve bearings
for vibration-free running. Its simplicity offered the potential for
long life, and because no combustion contaminants enter engine oil, no
oil changes were considered necessary. The 1963 Turbine's engine
generated 130 brake horsepower (97 kW) and an instant 425 pound-feet
(576 N·m) of torque at stall speed, making it good for 0-60 mph in 12
seconds at an ambient temperature of 85 °F (29 °C)—it would sprint
quicker if the air was cooler and denser.

snip

Its power turbine was connected, without a torque converter, through a
gear reduction unit to an otherwise ordinary TorqueFlite automatic
transmission. The flow of the combustion gases between the gas
generator and free power turbine provided the same functionality as a
torque converter but without using a conventional liquid medium.

On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 10:36 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
>
>> ...On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty
>> ...
>> >> Since when?
>> >
>> > Since always.  The turbines aren't necessarily noisy but the gear
>> > trains are.  For a gas turbine to be efficient it must spin like all
>> > hell, which makes them inherently challenging for mechanical
>> > engineers.  If you know a practical way to quiet those gear trains and
>> > deal with the lubrication and wear problems, do share, so we can be
>> > rich and famous (you famous, me rich.)
>>
>> Sorry for the confusion - I was commenting on John's
>> statement that he didn't want to discourage anybody.  :)
>
> OK cool.  I have been thinking of this and reviewing my mechanical
> engineering textbooks from college, the ones which give off the distinctive
> odor of age-decaying paper when opened.  {8-[
>
> BOTECs show that the small turbines (20-ish kw) that would be appropriate
> for use in our detroits need to spin in the thirty to eighty thousand RPM
> range.  That limits the diameter of a generator because the enormous
> centrifugal force.  A very small diameter generator introduces heat transfer
> challenges.
>
> Assuming the class of generator in which the copper windings are stationary
> (in the stator) and the rotor is a permanent magnet, the engineering
> challenges would be in material strength and heat dissipation capacity.  I
> could either calculate or I could just google and find the fastest-spinning
> generator on the market and the slowest spinning small gas generator, and
> see if the speeds will even wave at each other.
>
> I have also been trying to imagine a planetary gear train in order to gear
> that turbine speed down without big side loads on the turbine shaft
> bearings.  So far this looks like a damn hard problem.
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>