[Gasification] ...a question about hybrids

[Mike Redler]

Max,

Re: "defendable"

As for "defending" one idea or the other, I get the impression that you 
think I'm encouraging more than just a little brainstorming here. Before 
fully understanding what I'm suggesting, my posts are immediately met 
with an abundance of negativity from you. Although I never meant to make 
a serious defense of the ideas I proposed, I'd be willing to debate with 
you on some of the concepts in this thread - not because I think I 
exhibit some kind of brilliance or genius but, because much of what I'm 
suggesting has been done before, in a slightly different application.

I'm wondering what I did or said which makes you respond in such a way. 
The only attribute which really describes you in this thread is 
negativity. This forum is supposed to be an open exchange of ideas. So 
let's see some. Offer an alternative.

Even if I was dead wrong in every way, some of history's greatest 
inventors were able to find innovation in other people's failures. Maybe 
you're one of those inventors and don't know it yet.

Give it a try.

Now, I had no intentions to "defend" anything, only to encourage a 
conversation. Since I'm told that my suggestion can't be "defended", I 
thought I should put that to the test. So, here goes...

I noticed you emphasized the word "VERY" when describing how 
uneconomical and inefficient it would be to convert kinetic energy 
during deceleration into electric energy for the batteries from the 
trailer. How much is "VERY"? Uneconomical and inefficient compared to 
what - trailer brakes? Would you prefer to integrate and match 
regenerative braking and conventional brakes on the driving vehicle? Go 
for it! It's certainly possible but, what would your costs be compared 
to a simple load sensor used to match deceleration of the driving vehicle?

You mentioned "added weight". Again, compared to what? The weight of an 
alternator added to a trailer of batteries is going to raise weight 
issues? By the way, do you know where the kinetic energy during 
regenerative braking comes from? It originates from (recycled from) the 
acceleration of mass. Although no system is 100% efficient, weight 
becomes a less significant issue when using regenerative breaking.

You mentioned "drag force". If the small amount of drag is significant 
when the alternator has zero excitation, then there are ways to 
disengage that shaft. I would have expected you to point that out if you 
had an interest.

Anyone can tell the world how wrong everything is. The people I admire 
are the ones who stick their neck out and try something different. Make 
a contribution and tell me/us how to improve on current design 
philosophies. I didn't join this forum to have repeated and 
unsubstantiated criticism defeat the purpose of such a forum.


Mike


gasman wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Hi Max, et al
>
> I meant a separate alternator coupled to the trailer
>
> axle which could be controlled by a load cell attached
>
> to the trailer hitch. When it sees a load, it assists in
>
> slowing the vehicle down by increasing field excitation
>
> and converts mechanical energy back to electrical
>
> energy.
>
>
>
> ¤¤¤ If this wheel-driven alternator is used only to
>
> produce battery charge current at braking, it is VERY
>
> uneconomical and inefficient, compared to the added
>
> weight. If it functioned as a motor as well, keeping
>
> the drag-force near zero it could be defendable.
>
> ¤¤¤
>
>
> Re: Harmon's bus + trailer
>
> I don't see a difference. He would just need longer
>
> cables to get electrical power to the electric motor
>
> (presumably at the front of the bus). If it's big,
>
> like a school bus, the motor controls might need to
>
> be a little more sophisticated and of course, the
>
> wire gage and batteries would be scaled up as well.
>
> When all is said and done, I'm not sure an
>
> arrangement that size would be cost effective.
>
> ...then again, this is all speculation - isn't it?
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> ¤¤¤
>
> "And I was talking about Harmon's Bus + trailer!"
>
>
>
> Pointed back on my first mail in this thread,
>
> commenting the woodgas system on the bus
>
> and trailer, driven directly by woodgas using
>
> the bus's original motor!
>
>
>
> Max
>
> ¤¤¤
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
>
> gasman wrote:
>>
>> Hello Mike and All!
>>
>>
>> What would that do?
>>
>> Increasing exitation on the alternator driven by
>> the woodgas motor? You hardly ment that!
>>
>> Perhaps increasing the exitation on the electric
>> motors driving the VECHICLE, when they are in
>> BRAKING MODE?
>>
>> And I was talking about Harmon's Bus + trailer!
>>
>> Max
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Redler"
>> <redlerm at yahoo.com>
>> To: <GASIFICATION at listserv.repp.org>
>> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 7:25 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Gasification] ...a question about hybrids
>>
>>
>>> Hey Max.
>>>
>>> Those are good reasons. But, I was imagining
>>> the gassifier, generator and batteries right next
>>> to each other on the trailer. The only thing going
>>> to the car/truck would be wires. If you were
>>> really ambitious, you could control the excitation
>>> field of an alternator (for example) with a load
>>> cell at the trailer hitch  and induce regenerative
>>> breaking.
>>>
>>> Re: Honda Civic - That was an awful example so,
>>> please disregard. :-)
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>> gasman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello, Harmon and All!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Some reason for opposing this idea...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Although I guess if I was pulling
>>>>> the gasifier behind the bus, that long tube
>>>>> carrying the woodgas to the front would be
>>>>> cooling it more than enough.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A long, constantly cooling line going below
>>>> the dew point will make a heck of trouble!
>>>> It collects a lot of sludge containing condense
>>>> and FT waxes + everything "microscopic"
>>>> that may pass the filters! There you have
>>>>
>>>> a never ending cleaning job guaranteed...
>>>>
>>>> Not to speak of how to avoid getting it in
>>>> the motor.
>>>>
>>>> In winter conditions this is hopeless.
>>>>
>>>> Instead, the trailer should include all the
>>>> needed stages of cleaning and cooling and
>>>> put a ready made gas, clean and DRY along
>>>> the line to the mixer near the intake manifold.
>>>>
>>>> This includes: Cyclone, glasfibre filter, cooler
>>>> (as a tube fence on each side of the trailer,
>>>> where the "speed wind" is ample), re-heating
>>>> in a mantle welded on the cyclone (with a shunt
>>>> tube having a butterfly valve to trim the
>>>> re-heating), truck-size paperfilter.
>>>>
>>>> The re-heated and DRY gas uses the cheap
>>>> and effective paperfilter. Then the delivery
>>>> line needs to be WELL INSULATED, to keep
>>>> the gas ABOVE the dew point all the way
>>>> to the motor.
>>>>
>>>> The resulting reheating temperature needs
>>>> to be about 10 to 20 degrees warmer at the
>>>> mixer, than at the cooler output. That is a
>>>> very small PRICE in filling volume for the
>>>> motor, to have trouble free start
>>>> and running!
>>>>
>>>> Max
>>>>
>>
>
>
>
>