Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

The Electrocharger...Any Day Now? 98

Posted by Cliff from the more-performance-gains dept.
bigmoosie asks: "It has been over a year since the Electrocharger was discussed on Slashdot. It appears to be almost ready for production, or is it still vaporware? Does the Slashdot community think an electric motor replacing the alternator on an internal combustion engine will add 5, 10, or even 15 mpg? How well do you think the super capacitor battery pack will hold up at -20 degrees Fahrenheit? Are there any other products out there that do the same thing? I know this is not as efficient as a hybrid car made at a factory, but it can reduce the fuel consumption and emissions for cars that are 5 or even 10 years old and still on the road. Does have the potential to be an environmental friend or disaster (how long does the battery pack last)?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Electrocharger...Any Day Now? More

The Electrocharger...Any Day Now?

Comments Filter:
  • I think that despite when the 'electrocharger' is released, it'll be a long while until it really genuinely catches on. Even Hybrid cars which increase miles per gallon haven't really caught on yet. It could make things a lot better... but we'll really just see with time, won't we?

    - dshaw
    • I don't think the concept of hybrid cars hasn't caught on, its more of a price issue.

      Hybrid cars are quite expensive. For example I drive a Chevy Cavalier. If I buy a new one, it'll cost me 16G's. If I buy a hybrid, it'll cost me at least 10G's more. The current gas prices are not that insane that I'm spending 10G's more in gas.
      • It's not that bad.

        The Insight is about 20k, and yea, who cares now. my dad bought one in the 01 model year, and it was fun then, now i see a prius every time i go out. the novelty wore off long ago.

        Anyway, the real question now is how long will they last? the car companies have pretty much nailed making the 4 stroke engine, but the hybrid powertrain is still very new. Most hybrids out there are less than 5 years old, so we don't know what happens to these battery/powertrain once they start againg.

  • Does have the potential? (Score:5, Funny)

    by evilpenguin ( 18720 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2005 @06:37PM (#13551804)
    "Does have the potential to be an environmental friend or disaster?"

    I know enough logic to know the answer to this question is definitely "yes." ;-)
  • It would be great if they gave some of the actual science behind how this works -- then I could find out if it would actually do something.

    • Re:Hey (Score:3, Interesting)

      by elmegil ( 12001 ) *
      I think the fact that they call this [sigmaautomotive.com] a simple equation gives a pretty accurate vision of the likelihood it will actually work. That definitely looks like bullshit with which to baffle.
      • So are you calling the diagram/equation bullshit? If so, I guess you should go take a look at the cited source, "COURTESY: BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE HANDBOOK, 5TH EDITION" -- I guess they could have used the latest edition [bentleypublishers.com] but it seems reputable enough to me -- and they go on to simplify it quite clearly, which seems reasonable enough as well. So, I fail to see the BS in the linked equation.
        • The equation is correct. I think the point the grandparent wanted to make was that the equation is irrelevant. I would tend to agree.
          • Not only that, but calling that equation "simple" is ludicrous to the point of stupidity.
            • Not only that, but calling that equation "simple" is ludicrous to the point of stupidity.

              I could be wrong, but I am guessing you don't spend much time around mechanical designers. I used to be an analyst at a company that makes jet engines. I was in computaional anaysis, but the old school empierical guys used equations that make that one look like 8th grade math. In my professional opinion as a mechanical engineer, that equation is simple.
              • So I suppose the question is who is the audience for that website. It looked to me like the audience was the general public, hence my reaction (well that and not being an ME). If it was simply a glorified report for class, then I'd concede that you're right.

      • Re:Hey (Score:3, Informative)

        by puppetman ( 131489 )

        They claim (which I can't verify) that the equation is from:

        "COURTESY: BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE HANDBOOK, 5TH EDITION"

        Looks like you need a degree if physics to figure it out. Also looks like a scan of a piece of paper.

  • No connection (Score:4, Interesting)

    by 1967mustangman ( 883255 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2005 @06:53PM (#13551934)
    Try as I might I can't find a connection between Sigma Automotive and Texas A&M. The only other chatter I see about this on the web are on hybrid enthusiast sites..........I smell a rat.

    • There's a connection... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Infinityis ( 807294 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @02:47AM (#13554782) Homepage
      There's no rat, but there's no Electrocharger either, and the plans to produce it are currently scrapped.

      The connection between Sigma Automotive and Texas A&M is--in a word--me.

      You can check out all this with google, here's the facts: I am a grad student at Texas A&M, and my name is David Hoelscher. I work on power electronics and motor drives under Dr. Ehsani. A year and a half ago we got a visit from a man named Michael Van Steenburg, and he had an idea to make retro-fittable hybrid electric vehicles, ala replacing the alternator. The reason he came to Texas A&M is because Ehsani specializes (or specialized?) in switched reluctance motor (SRM) drives.

      As an aside: SRM drives are basically a rugged motor drive--they don't need any magnets, so there's no demagnetization problem. Basically the idea is that when you put a paramagnetic material in a magnetic field, the material will temporarily magnetize and align with the field as much as possible (you can find more on paramagnetic at Wikipedia). To achive this, the rotor has to have salient poles--that is, it must physically have a toothed surface. And when you combine a toothed surface and large magnetic forces, you get a loud noise, which is THE biggest problem with SRM.

      Back to the subject at hand though...so Mike wanted to use SRM motors because the alternator is near the engine (which is hot) and there's nothing to demagnetize. Ehsani knows motors, but he doesn't manufacture them. In fact, not many companies manufacture them. In this case, he found an company, International USA, who could manufacture them. So things are looking good.

      Summer 2004, I take off a summer to work with them, specifically sizing the battery/ultracapacitor pack and determining the best type of battery to use, etc. But every step of the way, the delivery date for the test motor drives is pushed back. The work by International was unfunded, as the company was incredibly small and funding was tight (you can see how small by checking out the contact page: http://www.ecolectrictechnology.com/contactus.htm [ecolectrictechnology.com] and yes, I'm the Dave).

      At some point, the web page information showed up on Sigma Automotive, and then on Slashdot--I admit, I was surprised when a lab mate told me he read about it in a major news outlet (I hadn't checked Slashdot yet on that day). FYI, the actual webpage for the company is www.ecolectrictechnology.com

      We also went out to the SEMA show in Las Vegas, but the most we had to show was a mock-up on an engine--at this point, I had been back at school a few months and just answered questions here and there, maintained contacts, but was largely out of the day-to-day business.

      About the start of 2005, key personnel for our product at International had left the company, so there was no one left to work on it, and even if there was, there still wasn't money to pay them.

      Since then, the project has been dead in the water. As for me, I'm finishing up my research at A&M and starting the job hunt. If anyone's looking to hire a Masters EE with a power electronics/motor drives background, 5 years of experience building solar cars, and 6 years experience software development, feel free to email me at david dot hoelscher at gmail dot com

      The original idea is still a good one, albeit a bit complicated. For example, to add much torque to the driveshaft, there needs to be a significant upgrade to the belt that used to run the alternator, which in turn (likely) requires a new pully, and changing out a lot of belts. The motor drive itself has to fit in the place of the old alternator, so there are size restrictions there. Also, the motor controller needs to go SOMEWHERE, preferably close to the motor but not in the engine compartment. Finally, a mass air flow sensor (or something) needs to be used to determine when to run the motor and when to regenerate. All that while keeping the costs reasonable.

      If you factor in that t
  • That's what I was asking about in the other thread. I don't see what this wouldn't work.
  • Ask Slashdot: The Electrocharger...Any Day Now? (-5, Troll)

    This is complete bullshit. Much like those "Tornado Air Chargers," but for the idiot with deep pockets.

    If you want good gas mileage, convince someone to release a decent diesel-electric hybrid car.

    Alternatively, take that $3000 and find yourself a used Geo Metro in decent condition and you'll be right at 50mpg with cash to spare.

  • Replace the alternator? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by i.r.id10t ( 595143 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2005 @07:33PM (#13552285)
    Heck, some of us don't even have alternators.

    I guess I could replace the generator and regulator, maybe upgrade from 6v to 12v (or more?) at the same time...
  • The ElectrochargerTM replaces the vehicle's alternator and battery charging system and gets most of its energy during vehicle braking, while additional energy comes from the engine while the vehicle is at cruising speed.

    It's certainly an interesting concept. I suppose it's wired up somehow to know when you press on the brake pedal, and energize the stator to start charging. Of course your brakes are still probably doing most of the work.

    Who knows, maybe it could be workable. If only the site designing th
    • I don't think it's possible to get regenerative braking with this device. To do that, you would have to decouple the gas engine from the rest of the system. Since this system attaches to the crankshaft, it won't be able to extract any energy from braking because either the transmission will disengage the engine from the wheels or you will get regular engine braking. In either case, the electric motor won't extract any power.
      • It's not using regenerative breaking. It's capturing the wasted energy the engine create while you are breaking. Unless you are power breaking any energy the engine creates is lost. Same with idling, the engine continues to run even though you are not using that energy.

        -Rick
        • When the engine is idling, it uses up just enough fuel to overcome the internal friction and keep running at a certain RPM. If you load it down with a generator, it will use proportionally more fuel, and you won't gain any fuel efficiency.
          • That's not exactly accurate. If that where true, an engie would put out 0ft/lbs of torque at it's idle rpm (~800rpm). You know this is false because if you put your car in drive/first and leave you foot off the gas, (slow clutch release on manuals), the car will move, usually at about 3-5mph. If an auto tranny loses anywheres from 10%-40% efficiency, you are looking at a significant amount of energy.

            -Rick
            • The engine is generating 0ft/lbs of available torque at idle. If it wasn't the rpm would be increasing. On older cars, when you put it into gear, the rpm dropped to about 650. The difference in rpm represents the energy required by the extra loading. Modern cars maintain the 800 rpm because the computer opens the air bypass valve in the throttle body to increase the amount of power the engine is generating.
              • Uh, having torque does not make an engine accelerate. In order for a gas engine to accelerate the spark needs to advance. When the spark advances the combustion starts earlier bringing more force to the piston which makes then engine turn faster which sucks in more air, which makes for a larger explosion which gives you more torque, etc...

                An engine puts out torque at idle, it's that simple. If not, how would it turn the water pump? the altinator? the torque converter? If including those things is still n
                • Uh, having torque does not make an engine accelerate. In order for a gas engine to accelerate the spark needs to advance.

                  This is total nonsense.
                  If you have extra torque (after subtracting all your frictional losses) the engine is going to accelerate.

                  Spark advance is a mere optimization of the combustion. There are plenty of engines out the that DON'T EVEN HAVE spark advance and still manage to accelerate.
                  • Spark advance is a mere optimization of the combustion. There are plenty of engines out the that DON'T EVEN HAVE spark advance and still manage to accelerate.

                    LOL! That is the funniest thing I have ever heard!!! Even the oldest of the old cars had spark advance. Every single car in the world with a variable speed engine has some form of spark advance. Wether it's points with springs and centrifical force, vaccuum advance, mechanical advance, computer controled, or any other system, spark advance is what a
                    • How else could the engine accelerate? Gas burns at the same rate wether you have 1 part fuel or 20 parts fuel

                      Huh? If you have more gas and more O2, it will produce more energy when it burns. When this energy is converted into rotational energy, the engine accelerates. Spark advance has nothing to do with it. Diesel engines don't even use sparks, and they work fine. Lawnmower engines don't have spark advance, and they manage to accelerate (from zero) just fine.
                    • LOL! That is the funniest thing I have ever heard!!! Even the oldest of the old cars had spark advance.

                      I didn't say CARS, I said engines. There is no reason for me to limit myself to cars to point out your obvious total failure to understand the subject. A simple, bare bones lawnmower engine is all it takes to show how completely off base you are here.

                      How else could the engine accelerate? Gas burns at the same rate wether you have 1 part fuel or 20 parts fuel.

                      BY CHANGING THE AMOUNT OF AIR AND FU
                    • " If you have more gas and more O2, it will produce more energy when it burns."

                      Correct, more air/fuel mixture, more energy. But that energy is still released at the same rate.

                      "Diesel engines don't even use sparks, and they work fine."

                      Diesels use heat and pressure to ignite the air/fuel mixture. They use high preasure fuel injectors to shoot fuel directly into the combustion chamber under preasure. They accelerate by injecting the fuel earlier.

                      "Lawnmower engines don't have spark advance, and they
                    • " didn't say CARS, I said engines. There is no reason for me to limit myself to cars to point out your obvious total failure to understand the subject. A simple, bare bones lawnmower engine is all it takes to show how completely off base you are here."

                      I already posted on this. A lawnmower engine is a single speed 2 stroke engine. The throttle on it is a power throttle, it alters the air flow into the combustion chamber. By having the handle pointed at "rabbit" you are providing it the 'correct' amount of
                    • > It you add all your forces together and there's some left over, SOMETHING'S going to accelerate.

                      Heat?
            • That's not exactly accurate. If that where true, an engie would put out 0ft/lbs of torque at it's idle rpm (~800rpm). You know this is false because if you put your car in drive/first and leave you foot off the gas, (slow clutch release on manuals), the car will move, usually at about 3-5mph.

              No, my car will stall out and die.
              Some cars are programmed so that when you press in the clutch it automatically raises the idle RPM to help keep you from stalling.

              Also, you're forgetting about this thing called t
              • No, my car will stall out and die.

                Your car likely high high ratio final gears. (aka Highway gears), good for cruising at speed, bad for low end torque. Take my wife's truck for example, designed for off roading. It has extremely low gearing, I can put it in first, slowly let of the clutch and it will go with out a flinch in the rpms. It's a mid 80's and the engine is carbed, not fuel injected. There is not air bypass, nor any other system that magically increases power at idle because it's in gear.

                Go
                • Given that logic a vehicle may be able to start moving, but as soon as the momentum from the flywheel was effectively countered the car would stop moving.

                  No.
                  You missed the point.
                  Your engine needs to run at a certain minimum RPM in order to sustain operation. If your flywheel has enough momentum, it can allow your car to stay within that range under a temporary load that is greater than the engine's ability to create torque and stay within that range.

                  Of course it's possible to set you idle ridiculous
                  • "Okay, here's one for you guys. If I put my car in neutral, and put the gas half way to the floor, it will spin up to 4000+ rpms.

                    Which means that *gasp* IT ACCELERATED!"

                    Correct, when I step on the gas, the throttle body butterfly valve opens, increasing pressure in the manifold which causes the spark to advance, so that the explosion will occur earlier, have more force and accelerate the engine, which will suck in more air/fuel mixture which will provide more power at that RPM.

                    "I'm trying to explai
                    • Correct, when I step on the gas, the throttle body butterfly valve opens, increasing pressure in the manifold which causes the spark to advance, so that the explosion will occur earlier, have more force and accelerate the engine, which will suck in more air/fuel mixture which will provide more power at that RPM.

                      The PRIMARY reason your engine has more force is because YOU'RE BURNING MORE FUEL.
                      When you open the valve, the engine can suck in more air mass per unit time. The carb/efi senses this and adds
                    • Correct, when I step on the gas, the throttle body butterfly valve opens, increasing pressure in the manifold which causes the spark to advance, so that the explosion will occur earlier, have more force and accelerate the engine, which will suck in more air/fuel mixture which will provide more power at that RPM.

                      Forget about the spark advance right now, as that's a (relatively) recent trick used to get more power. It's not one of the fundamentals required for engine operation.

                      If you look at a lawnmower engi
                    • "The PRIMARY reason your engine has more force is because YOU'RE BURNING MORE FUEL. When you open the valve, the engine can suck in more air mass per unit time. The carb/efi senses this and adds more fuel."

                      You can burn more fuel over time, but you can not burn more fuel per cycle. More air/fuel is the RESULT of acceleration, not the cause.

                      A cylinder that displaces half a liter of space will only ever be able to burn .5l of air/fuel mixture. Period. You can not magically "burn more fuel". You can only
                    • You don't seem to understand the basic principles of how a gasoline engine works. On a gas engine, you do not control the RPM's with the spark advance, you control it by limiting airflow.

                      You can burn more fuel over time, but you can not burn more fuel per cycle. More air/fuel is the RESULT of acceleration, not the cause.You can burn more fuel over time, but you can not burn more fuel per cycle. More air/fuel is the RESULT of acceleration, not the cause.

                      Incorrect. More air/fuel is the result of opening the t
                    • I've come across many people who do not understand how an engine works. They are so used to the modern advances of an engine that they think they are the fundamentals of engine operation.

                      Gasoline engines are controlled by limiting airflow, not spark. In fact, you do not really even need a sparkplug for an engine to work, and the smallest gas engines don't have spark plugs. I have a model airplane engine that will run on gas, and it only has a glow plug- no spark advance there. But it does have a throttle bo
                    • So we are agreeing on everything but symantics, and the importance of spark timing. Your description of how air flow effects engine speed is exactly how I described airflow adjusting the speed of a 'fixed speed' engine (ie: 2 stroke lawn mowers, model airplanes engines, etc). Limiting air flow reduces engine power and opposing friction reduces net torque to 0. (I'm sorry I misrepresented that to start with, I didn't know you (or other readers) where up on their physics). But you still run into the restricti
                    • "Many engines have no spark advance, and some small engines have no spark at all, they work by using a glow plug."

                      We've already been through this. A Lawnmower engine is a "single speed" engine, you are adjusting it's power level which allows it to overcome more friction which allows it to speed up, to a set point. You can increase the speed over this by advancing ignition, diesel engines (the ones with glow plugs and no timing to advance nor throttle body to limit air flow) do this by adjusting the amoun
                    • *CLAP* *CLAP* *CLAP* *CLAP*

                      Thanks for the lucid explanation. As I read through the posts, I wondered if I'd have to try to clear things up, but you handled it splendidly. If I hadn't already posted all over this topic, and if I had mod points, I'd give them all to you. Excellent work.
                    • You can burn more fuel over time, but you can not burn more fuel per cycle. More air/fuel is the RESULT of acceleration, not the cause.

                      This is simply not true. The amount of air you suck into your engine is a function of two things:
                      Your engine RPM
                      How far open your throttle is

                      This seems to be the source of your misunderstanding. The amount of air a 3L engine sucks in at 3,000 RPM depends on how much restriction there is in the intake path. Your throttle is a controlled restriction.

                      An engine is a
              • Its more simple, like this:

                When you stop, you make things hot. Imagine energy that you can recoup; your car spends energy, but lots of it goes into things that we can't recapture immediately.

                The first law says that energy is conserved, in a fully closed system, but the heat and noise (note how playing music uses energy) of a system represent the energy we cannot get back in most common technologies.

                If this alternator can be engaged the moment you want to stop, and allows the part in a car that spins and dri
                • When you stop, you make things hot. Imagine energy that you can recoup; your car spends energy, but lots of it goes into things that we can't recapture immediately.

                  I'm not arguing against regenerative braking. Regenerative braking is a good idea.

                  My point is that if you're sitting there ALREADY stopped at a light and you decide to start charging this system, you're going to have to burn more fuel to make up for the increased load on the engine.
      • You are correct...this was a question I had while working there. I even contacted a company that makes torque converters to see if they even CAN transmit power from the wheels to the engine, and they said no (which isn't very surprising when you see how they work). So, no braking regen for automatic transmissions. However, if you want regen in a manual transmission, you just need to make sure you don't step on the clutch until you absolutely have to--stepping on the clutch right when you start braking wi
        • ...torque converters to see if they even CAN transmit power from the wheels to the engine, and they said no.
          When you downshift an automatic transmission it clearly increases the rotational speed of the engine. Many automatic cars now downshift, when the brake is applied and the throttle position sensor is at zero, for engine braking. I'm sure the detection of when to downshift is more complicated, but it gets to the point that a TC can perform work on the crankshaft. For even more efficiency the torque co
          • What you say is true. I also don't know exactly how they decide when to engage the torque converter clutch, but it is possible that they can, which would allow some benefit for regenerative braking. If you want to get technical though, that's not the torque converter transmitting power but rather the clutch, so it is possible (actually likely) that I asked the wrong question and thus got the wrong answer. Thanks for pointing that out.

  • FAS? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by CohibaVancouver ( 864662 )
    Is this similar to the "flywheel alternator starter hybrid system (FAS)"?

    See:
    http://www.hybridcars.com/silverado-sierra.html [hybridcars.com]

    • Re:FAS? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Infinityis ( 807294 )
      Not really...FAS uses an electric between the engine and transmission. The Electrocharger was going to simply replace the alternator with a more sophisticated motor--much simpler and more accessible in terms of converting older vehicles.
  • Even factory-made hybrid cars don't get 15mpg over the straight gas-powered one. Ask anyone who owns a hybrid Accord. The EPA estimates are way off; the actual difference in mileage between the two versions is very small.

    This product will be fairly useless, because it seems to just drive the engine crankshaft, and is powered from supercaps. There are three major problems with this approach: the amount of energy the capacitor can store is very small, the electric motor will have to work against the gas e
    • Well, it help could at low RPMs where energy output for fuel consumed is quite poor (which is why I think they made the statement that it would help with city driving but I didn't see any claims WRT highway).

    • Re:This is silly (Score:4, Informative)

      by Infinityis ( 807294 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @03:09AM (#13554892) Homepage
      Two things, it would be relatively useless in terms of mpg because you still have the same base engine, so you can't really do better than your highway mpg. That's why it was marketed as a performance product--electric motors deliver excellent low-end torque. Second, the storage was not just ultracapacitor, but a passive combination of ultracapacitor and battery...that part was pretty innovative in that it's a hybrid battery pack for a hybrid car.
  • In reverse. The belts turn the motor, which generates electricity.

  • There's some BS on the site (Score:4, Interesting)

    by photon317 ( 208409 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2005 @08:46PM (#13552907)

    There is the remote possibility that it can have some benefits. The basic idea is vaguely sound. However, they're fond of making wildly inaccurate statements on their website, so I'd take any specific claims with a grain of salt.

    My favorite FAQ is:


    Q. Is the Electrocharger(TM) a performance upgrade?

    A. Yes, it decreases your 0-60 time by a minimum of 3 seconds and sheds at least 3 seconds off your 1/4 mile time, over stock vehicle performance.


    This is of course an outrageous statement to make without qualifications. My current vehicle does 0-60 in about 4.2 seconds. There is no way in hell that thing is going to give me a 1.2 second 0-60. Perhaps on a car that goes 0-60 much much slower, then maybe you could shave 3 seconds, but even then that sounds like an awful lot.
    • The 3 second claim is bullshit no matter what you are driving. I used to drive a Jetta diesel: 0-60 measures by an hourglass. I could have strapped a JATO on the roof and gotten the ET down, but this thing is the 100 mpg carb all over again.
    • Also from the F.A.Q.:
      Q. Does the Electrocharger(TM) act as a DC Generator, or an AC alternator?

      A. Actually its neither and a little bit of both. The current generated by the ElectrochargerTM is an alternating DC current that is filtered to act more like a DC generator.
      Can anyone make any sense out of that?
      • Yes, it makes sense. With a mechanically commutated motor (i.e. a DC motor that uses physical brushes and commutators.), you can just provide a DC voltage and it will happily run the motor. However, you can also have electrically commutated motors (Brushless DC, SRM, etc.) that run off a DC voltage but use a set of switches (MOSFETs) that need a motor controller to turn on and off the voltages seen by the coils of the motor. Thus, even though the battery is providing a constant DC voltage (as opposed to
    • Yeah, I think those initial calculations were based on a Hummer, then assumed constant for all vehicles---not a good assumption to make. Like you'll find throughout my posts in this topic, while I worked there I didn't like how much of the information was presented, nor how inaccurate much of it seemed to be. I think the product (if it were ever finished) would have sold itself just as well (probably better) without all the hype.
    • The one that gets me is the Super FuelMAX magnet that goes over the fuel line that:

      when installed over the fuel line, will fracture the hydrocarbon chains in the passing fuel

      It's worth reading that page for a good laugh though. A link to it: http://www.sigmaautomotive.com/IRD/superfuelmax.ph p [sigmaautomotive.com]

      If you're looking for something real, I think Valeo (recently had a piece on lemonde.fr) already has something along these lines.

  • From the footnotes: Hints that they sold the technology to BMW without actually saying so; "our programmer"--just one, eh?. The whole site gives the impression of a penny stock scam. Finally, do you really think it will be a good idea to put so much torque on the crankshaft without upgrading the front bearing? Also, how exactly are you supposed to extend your crankshaft in order to mount the required sproket--and why no mention of whether or not they supply the needed aftermarket sprocket and chain?
    • Wow, thanks for pointing that out...I have no idea what they're talking about. We had talked to BMW for awhile, but not specifically about the Electrocharger...and I don't know who the programmer is that they're referring to. I also never heard anything about a Mitsubishi EVO, or who are the "guys working diligently"... Of course, I could simply be out of the loop--not likely since I did the research on the battery/ultracapacitor pack and they haven't talked to me for awhile.

      Those updates at the bottom a
  • Does the Slashdot community think an electric motor replacing the alternator on an internal combustion engine will add 5, 10, or even 15 mpg?

    Maybe. Even at their low 5mpg I find it hard that a small alternator sized motor could produce any more then 5 HP for short periods without needing serious cooling. This looks like it could only benefit very small light weight cars. A few mpg in city driving on a small Honda Civic like vehicle in the city might see some improvement if it does what it is supposed to do
    • What we proposed was a passive combination of battery and ultracapacitor. Basically connecting them in series, with the idea that the ultracap will provide the power, the battery will provide the energy. Because the two components will be tied at the hip (i.e. voltage), it's more complicated than that, but theoretically, it's possible that there are benefits in doing so when you take into account internal resistances creating a hysteresis effect--that is, that the voltage drops simply because you draw pow
  • This thing could help recapture some lost energy. By charging while the car is idling or breaking, it uses the energy that the engine would be wasting.

    As for power output? with a 42volt source I can't see this thing putting out more then 50ft/lbs at the crank (notice the reduction in pully size from the crank to the motor). Most likely less then that.

    That power is also only available for short periods of time. But that does make it good for accelerating.

    So, what I see this as a good idea for is veh

  • Of course it'll work (Score:3, Funny)

    by qbwiz ( 87077 ) * <john@baumanfamily.c3.1415926om minus pi> on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @01:05AM (#13554336) Homepage
    That belt will obviously be able to transfer huge amounts of force. And of course, it'll be easy to retrofit and replace the existing serpentine belt.
    • Oh thank goodness, for a while there I thought all of the posts would just be sarcasm or nay-saying...
    • Actually, we were working with Gates Corporation (www.gates.com) and they seemed fairly confident that they could handle the belt issues.

      Or course, I'm an electrical guy and my work there focused mostly on the battery/ultracapacitor pack, so I'm not familiar with how they would handle it...

      -Daivd
      • Or course, I'm an electrical guy and my work there focused mostly on the battery/ultracapacitor pack, so I'm not familiar with how they would handle it...

        So if you're the eletrical guy, how many volts & amps was this thing running?

        To make any real difference you power input has to be HUGE... many thousands of watts. 1,000 watts is only 1.34 horsepower. If you want even a mere ten horse power on a 12V system you're talking about 833 AMPs or current.

        • First, double check the math. 1000W/12V = 83.3A

          The maximum we looked at was 15 horsepower (approx 12kW). We were also going to use a 42V system. This worked out to just under 300 amps max. This isn't even much of a concern because you'd only use this much current if you try to add a lot of torque at when the car is redlining. Most people tend not to redline their car. The typical driver might never use more than 150 to 200 amps (but we'd design it to handle 300, at least for a short duration).

          The bene
          • First, double check the math. 1000W/12V = 83.3A

            My math is correct.

            Yes, 1000W is only 83.3 amps, but that's just barely over one measly horsepower. I was talking about 10kW. This is why I said 833 amps. One horsepower is a freakin joke.

            This isn't even much of a concern because you'd only use this much current if you try to add a lot of torque at when the car is redlining. Most people tend not to redline their car.

            Is or is not this thing being billed as a performance upgrade? I thought it was.
            • I agree about the "expected performance"...if you read my other posts in this topic, you'll see that I don't even think it's a serious claim.

              However, it is fitting to consider it a performance upgrade because of the increase in low-end torque. If you only stop at the level of "power is power" and refuse to consider that power = torque * speed, and that for electric motors, torque is maximized at low speeds, then I'll be unable to convince you that there is a real performance boost at low speeds.

              Just for co
              • Just for comparison, the Prius only has a 30kW motor (twice the power of what we planned). Yet they use this motor for accelerating the car up to about 20mph or so, then turn on the engine. If 30kW (by itself) can perform normal acceleration, and we're proposing to add half of that to your vehicle (which can accelerate just fine by itself), then yes, I'd call that a good performance boost.

                We'll have to agree to disagree here. The name "electrocharger" is obviously meant to appeal to those who compare it
                • I suppose I'll agree to disagree on the definiton as well then...

                  As to the worries in stop and go traffic, since we're not operating anywhere near peak power (because peak power happens when we're about to redline), we won't be operating anywhere near peak current...it will cycle from 0 to about 125amps, then go to -125 when you regen and head back to (about) 0 when you're stopped, and using very rough math, that puts it at about 60-70 amps on the average (I'd normally calculate the root-mean-square current
  • Yes, it sounds interesting and pluasibly could work on the surface. But it won't in reality. The Otto cycle (gasoline) engine is horribly inefficient when throttled (low maxT&P) and guzzles when idled. This device, even if enough power can be put through the fanbelt (I suspect more like 1 HP) just will drive the engine back on it's curve.

    OTOH, a similar device designed into an engine and used for peak shaving might allow the use of a much smaller (more efficient) gasoline engine by providing satisfa

    • I completely agree. If you want to see a better engine overall, check out www.starrotor.com

      I know the professor leading the work on this (he's on my committee for my masters research), and it's based in pretty solid reality. Plus, because the Star Rotor engine is based on the Brayton cycle, it's got a fairly flat torque profile...that makes it an especially good candidate for hybridization with electric motors.

      FYI they can already do compressors, and the only thing keeping them from doing the engines righ
      • The problems you mention with starrotor sound similar to the problems facing (faced? are they still in business) the McMaster Motor system - ie, needing tight tolerances for the nutating disc...
        • Heh, there's a bunch of things about the McMaster Motor that are just plain wrong...for example, the total volume per chamber never changes. If you see a 2D animation, it might look like it, but that thing in the middle is basically a tilted plate that spins, so there is no volume displacement into or out of the chamber whatsoever.

          Also, their fuel source (hyrdogen and oxygen) is a problem...you'll note they say they'll use solar power to produce the oxygen and hydrogen and then use that to power the engine
          • Heh, there's a bunch of things about the McMaster Motor that are just plain wrong...for example, the total volume per chamber never changes. If you see a 2D animation, it might look like it, but that thing in the middle is basically a tilted plate that spins, so there is no volume displacement into or out of the chamber whatsoever.

            Are you certain about this? From what I understand, nutating plate "engines" are all around us and work well - they just work on water or gas - as in being used to drive the mete

  • There are 5 bilion and 600 milions people who don't use Fahrenheit degrees. -20 degrees Fahrenheit = -28.8888889 degrees Celsius
  • It's bullshit now, just as it was back then. If a relatively simple additional part like this one could actually increase mileage significantly, then the car-manufacturers would actually use it.

    Maybe not in the US, but here in Europe, with current fuel-prices hovering around 6$/gallon (not a typo --six-- dollars) I can promise you some people are more than "sligthly" interested in better fuel-economy.

    Apart from that, there's too many claims that are simple nonsensical no matter how you turn and twist it

  • The commerce aspects of SigmaAuto are shared with:

    Aquaristics
    BOSSBi
    Earthority
    NanoRC
    SmartCarisma

    so, whatever they're selling, they're selling a lot of different things.

    Fishier and fishier said Alice.
  • programers.. It's at the very very bottom of the site in small letters.. I quote..

    "Sept 7th, '05: Technically, the maker is ready to launch this device but their hands are tied until the programmer is done refining the software. Please be patient."

  • Hey guys, just so you know, if you want the heads up on all this, look at the replies I've posted...I was actually involved with the project, so they'll probably be your best source of information about it. In one of the replies, I even lay out the whole story (the reply to the topic "No connection")...

Slashdot Top Deals

A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson

Close