Gas turbine/electric hybrid?

And, tell that to Boeing... in this case, both Bret's and Franks' points
are made

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002754224
_boeingitar22.html

Copy and paste both lines.

Carbon fiber technology developed for steath bomber, used in commercial
aircraft. The issue: military secret or not?

Whatever the case, not only is the market global, but also the product
and manufacturing source.


No... it isnt as easy as just keeping it to ourselves... in the
competitive market, it goes both ways. The alternative is that, if you
DO attempt to keep such close to the vest, some politico just deals it
away without thinking, in return for campaign contributions.
See: Clinton Campaign/China - Missile guidance systems scandal.

 

Well now you are talking about a whole different animal, a high-priced
vehicle for those with more money than sense. All in all not an
interesting topic of speculation. I would agree that the only way a
turbine has a fighting chance in automotive use would be as a fuel
burner to power a generator for a true hybrid powertrain where there is
no mechanical connection between the fuel burning engine and the drive
wheels. Trains have been built with such a powertrain for decades, and
AFAIK, none use a turbine engine. GE locomotives has made a bunch of
these trains and GE is also a top builder of turbine/jet engines, so I
bet they have looked at it in depth.


John

 

Frank from Deeeetroit wrote:

When that market recedes the company is toast. Only bankruptcy allows
the company to go back to civilian reality, because the corporate
structure is geared to a process that spends $500 to qualify, approve
and document a $2 bolt (which was made to government standards at 5X
market price in the first place.)

Thew recent crash of a Grumman amphibian due to spar failure was an
example of this. No airline operator operates a 58-year old airframe
that has been in continuous use in a marine environment.....unless
there are no new ones. The Long Island plants that built these things
are sitting idle, the trained workforce is unemployed, underemployed,
retired early or moved elsewhere. The design of these things is paid
for, has been for fifty years. New Grumman amphibian airframes could be
built for very little in labor and materials. Some of the tooling still
exists, none of it was terribly expensive to build (except for
accounting purposes) and much could now be done on NC soft tooling
anyway. In fact a very much cheaper option would be to just build new
wings and horizontal stabilizers which (along with the gear forgings)
are all that has much of a fatigue concern. The hulls are way, way
overbuilt. I guarantee anyone at Northrop Grumman who suggested this
would be laughed out of the boardroom. Their corporate structure is
geared to selling a widget that costs $2,000,000 to build for
$76,400,300 and making it look plausible on paper. (Yes, it cost
$500,000,000 to develop....but the taxpayer already paid them in full
and more for that!)

I really believe now the only thing that can save America as we know
it is a monumental, sudden, and near-total implosion of Wall Street.
Most of the market cap in tech stocks and much in defense must vanish,
and suddenly. I don't make light of the impact: many innocent people
will suffer greatly. But the alternative is even worse. I'd rather see
a few dozen families mourn their stockbroker and investment banker
fathers that bounced off the Manhattan sidewalks and some 50-year-old
retirees depensioned while they can still re-earn a small sum to live
their lives out than...the current trends, where most of them will lose
it anyway and a few people will become multibillionaires and the
average standard of living in America plunge further and further.

 

You are being rather short sighted and provincial. Many technologies
get their start in military applications where the development costs can
be borne, then later make their way to commercial use.

In fact, the Internet we are using started as a DOD project. Much of
the early funding for the semiconductor industry came by way of the
military as well.

John

 

Yeah, just cable television (all of which uses commerical satellite
content), weather satellites, GPS navigation, XM radio, the Internet and
a huge amount of solar cell research and production. Damn NASA and the
military .

John

 

Don't confuse companies with technologies. Sure a company which focuses
on supplying the government is unlikely to do well in other areas, but
there are exceptions to that rule as well. Jet engine development was
all funded by the government early on and to this day both commercial
and goverment users are supplied from the same factories.

Then of course we have GM's Hummer division, which is clearly an
offshoot of government contract work. Of course AM General had to put
Hummer into GM's hands in order to maximize the commerical appeal, but
the roots are still clear.

It sounds like you have a particular bone to pick.

John

 

Personally I think that Boeing is making a mistake by outsourcing so
much of the 787 development and manufacturing. Boeing is putting
know-how into the hands of it's future competitors. Boeing saves some
money today but takes away from it's own long term value.

The government wasn't concerned about Boeing using the military
technology to build commerical products, it was concerned about giving
that technology away to foreign based companies. Since the US taxpayers
funded the carbon fiber R&D there are good arguments for not giving the
technology away.

John

 

Nearly anything you can name was either developed or vastly improved by the
needs of war, include the space program itself.


mike hunt

..

 

Chrysler did this over ten years ago, to an extent. See:
http://www.rqriley.com/sld010.htm

or just google up "chrysler patriot"


Flywheel technology has advanced enough in the last decade that it may be
worth it for them to take another shot at it...

 

Actually there have been a few turbine powered locomotive engines have
been tried. The problem was and still is fuel consumption. Turbines of
ANY size use LOT's of fuel rapidly. There have also been a few turbine
powered autos built. They were dropped for two reasons, cost of
production and fuel use. There are also turbine powered motorcycles. Jay
Leno owns one and was telling on a show the other night that it is a
very difficult bike to get used to ride since the turbine has a very
high lag on both ends.

As for a turbine powered hybrid. Doubt you will ever see one. Heat
production and fuel use are both VERY high as is noise.

 

Steve W. wrote:

What Jay Leno and a couple of other people have is a crude homemade
motorcycle built around a surplus Allison turboshaft engine. Such
things are very different than purpose-built automotive gas turbines
which are relatively inexpensive to produce and designed to recover
much of the wate heat via regeneration.

Several companies built prototype automotive gas turbines but none
were ever sold.

 

Sirius radio.

 

True, because of the need of a quality item in a short amount of time.

 

Some of the tooling still
exists, none of it was terribly expensive to build (except for
accounting purposes)<<

And the liability insurance. Or is that free nowadays?

 

For a company the size of Northrop Grumman it's a necessary business
expense, one they already carry because they have a substantial "tail",
and a small part of the cost.

Hard estimates are tough to pin down because companies do not disclose
their actual premiums, and many payouts go unreported in the press.
However, it's very certain that product liability premiums have far
more to do with the rate of return reinsurors can earn on capital than
with the day-to-day likelihood of big judgments. GAMA wheedled the
General Aviation Tort Reform Act and a Bonanza has since went from
being a $350K to a $750K airplane-with no changes, no new technology,
and a DECLINE in labor costs! Raytheon has laid off many senior rivet
pounders and replaced them with younger, cheaper ones with lowered
health coverage. You didn't notice, son of whore Richard Collins didn't
tell you, of course.

Requiring reporting requirements to make it possible to publish, with
certainty, just how much companies ARE paying in premiums should have
been part of GATRA. It wasn't.

 

I think I may see where Mr. Bundy is saying. Without having read any of the
links provided, it makes sense to me that at zero RPM the motor is putting
out zero torque. Once any torque great enough to make the motor turn is
applied, then the RPM is no longer zero.

 

Don't forget Teflon!

 

What batshit!

If electric motors put out *zero* torque at zero RPM, they'd never begin
to rotate at all. Internal combustion engines DO have zero torque at
zero RPM, which is exactly why you need an electric motor to start them!

How much torque an electric motor does put out vs. RPM depends a lot on
the design of the motor.

DC and AC/DC commutator motors put out their maximum torque at 0 RPM
(but will burn out if held at 0 RPM because only one winding on the
armature is carrying the full load). An example of a DC commutator motor
is the starter motor in a car, or the traction motors in older
locomotives. An AC/DC commutator motor is the type used in vacuum
cleaners, hand power tools, and blenders.

AC induction motors put out their peak torque at a few percent less than
their free running maximum RPM. As you lug them down, torque goes up at
first, but lug them too far and torque begins to decline again, but it
never drops to zero even at zero RPM. An example of an AC induction
motor is a fan motor, AC blower motor, AC compressor motor, or shop air
compressor motor. The most commonly used AC motors in the world.

AC Synchronous motors put out their maximum torque at the synchronous
RPM. They're used in heavy industry because they can be set to run at
leading power factor to compensate for induction motors that run at a
lagging power factor- save's the industry money overall.

Variable-frequency drive motors are induction or synchronous motors
driven by a variable frequency AC source, so that you can make them put
out peak torque at any RPM you want. Modern AC locomotive traction
motors are variable-frequency drive motors.

But regardless of the type, ANY self-starting electric motor puts out
SOME torque at 0 RPM. An example of a non-self-starting type would be a
synchrounous motor without any start/damper windings... but that's a
laboratory curiousity as all real-world electric motors have a provision
to give them self-starting torque.

 

I think I remember reading about lots of other issues, too.

There's a massive amount of airflow which all needs to be very well
filtered -- I think the Chrysler turbine cars were needing the filters
cleaned daily? Of course that's old technology but you'd still have the
same basic problem to deal with and probably would still have very frequent
filter replacement or maintenance. To say nothing of the replacement cost
of Nomen's "HEPA" filters. That'd be one helluva HEPA filter for a turbine
engine's airflow.

I think there was a problem with extremely high exhaust temperatures as
well? There are ways to reduce that, of course, but it would probably still
be a problem.

I think there'd be enormous investment of research dollars with very dubious
returns on practical usefulness, and not very likely to see a great
advantage even over conventional automotive hybrids.

I often wonder about using smaller engines with higher-pressure
turbochargers as a low-cost way to raise fuel economy. Perhaps a modern
1-liter or 1.5-liter with a high-pressure turbo instead of a big V6? (Just
a thought, not trying to hijack the thread...)

 

I thought Teflon™ was a happy accident that resulted from a tank car
load of whatever the chemical is being lift sitting too long - not a
result of any intentional development.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')