New Internal Combustion Tech Could Improve Range-Extended Electric Cars
As any Chevrolet Volt owner will tell you, the range-extended electric car concept is very well adapted to the average car ownership experience.
The majority of your daily driving can be accomplished on electricity alone, but there's always that engine there waiting to back you up should a longer journey be needed--or those occasions where you've been unable to recharge the car's battery pack.
So far, the range-extending engine is usually based on a production automobile engine--but bigger gains in efficiency could be found with units like the Free Piston Linear Generator (FPLG), reports Fox News.
Essentially, any regular automobile engine is a bit of a compromise for a range-extended vehicle.
It's often heavier than it needs to be, larger than it needs to be, and while optimized for use at constant engine speeds, it's really compromised by its original purpose of working over a large power band.
Developed by engineers at the German Aerospace Center’s (DLR) Institute of Vehicle Concepts, the FPLG doesn't have any of these issues.
As the name suggests, the engine is linear, in that the pistons aren't connected to a crankshaft, where their linear motion is converted into rotational motion.
The engine uses two pistons, facing each other in a single combustion chamber. The pistons are mounted on air springs, which generate electricity as they move back and forth. Combustion happens right at the center of the engine, using the traditional 'Otto cycle'--induction, compression, expansion and exhaust.
Because of the unique design, the engine can also run on all sorts of fuels, including gasoline, diesel, natural gas and hydrogen.
At the moment, the team's prototype is a large laboratory unit, but they say it could be reduced in size to a 125-pound unit putting out around 40 horsepower. Due to its size and shape, several could be mounted side-by-side for larger, more power-intensive applications.
A spokesman for DLR says a production version could be on the road in four to five years--provided they can find an industrial partner to help develop and finance the technology.
+++++++++++
Follow GreenCarReports on Facebook and Twitter.
Related Articles
-
New Gas Mileage Rules Will Reshape What Americans Drive: Hybrids, Electrics, Cost
-
What's Going On At Fisker These Days?
-
Want To Test-Drive BMW's i3 Electric Car? Join The Other 100,000...
-
Electric-Car Price War Heats Up: Chevy Volt $5,000 Cash Back
-
Audi A1 e-tron: First Drive Of Range-Extended Electric Car Prototype
-
Follow Us
On Facebook
Most Popular This Week
More »
Flying Electric Bicycle Debuts In Prague, Will NYC Ban These Too? 
2014 Ford Focus Electric: No Updates, No Love For Ford's... 
2014 Cadillac ELR Electric Luxury Coupe Featured On Jay Leno's... 
Nissan Leaf Electric Car: Ultimate Guide, What You Need To Know 
GM, BMW Complete Testing Of New CCS Quick-Charging Stations For... Find Green Cars
Photo Galleries
More from High Gear Media
- Follow Us
Have an opinion?
I'm sure there's technology out there that converts fuel (gasoline, hydrogen, etc) directly into electricity. It would be perfect for supporting a low battery, not make noise, and be small. ICE's are looking more and more like fossils.
People who bash ethanol always assume it will try to replace 100% of our gasoline.
Cellulosic ethanol can replace up to 35% of current gasoline consumption without any affect on food supply. Cellulosic ethanol is made from things we currently throw away (forest mill waste, corn stalks and leaves, municipal waste, etc). Cellulosic ethanol also comes from energy crops which will grow on land unsuitable for farming. These non-food sources can replace 35% of gasoline consumption. In other words, cellulosic ethanol only affects food supply when you try to scale it beyond 35%.
EREVs can replace 80% of our gasoline consumption. 80% + 35% = 115%, more than enough to completely replace gasoline.
Also, that seems like fuzzy math there. Sure EREVs can replace 80% of gasoline, but they still need gasoline to run long distance. The other 20% of gasoline use can't be replaced with ethonal. Unless it can run ethonoal, you dont make sense.
1) this is a two-stroke cycle & is traditionally less efficient. It can't completely burn fuel as exhaust gas needs to be expelled the last half of power stroke & mixes with incoming mixture.
2) no clear in-take/exhaust shown; no details of valves & timing?
3) synchronizing two pistons is critical; since no flywheel. Energy needed to to adjust in real time (+ compressed air heat loss)
4) electrical power will be non-linear unlike rotational generator… a spike of max power with each ignition with exponential ramp down to near zero as pistons travel away from the center point. In modern ICE the flywheel averages out the power spikes through conserving angular momentum (& reducing vibrations)
5) lubrication mixed with fuel?
2) Since there isn't anything rotating, there will be no cam shaft. I would guess they are using solenoids to drive the valves. That would also allow them to infinitely adjust timing and compression, allowing them to run on a variety of fuels.
4) Since this is just generating electricity, maybe the battery or a capacitor is evening out the power. This would be a very smooth running engine though because the only motion is two pistons that counter-act each other. There are no additional rotating masses to cause vibration.
5) Again, this is a four cycle, not a two cycle.
Compare that with a Sterling engine, which uses a relatively constant external source of combustion. Since the combustion is constant, as opposed to the popping explosions of an internal combustion engine, the efficiency can be much greater, and the noise is dramatically lower, so the exhaust system can be much simpler and less expensive.
Neil
Fact is it's hard to beat modern car ICE on eff when run steady state as a generator.
Neil
I am still NOT sure about its reliability and durability.
Have an opinion?Join the conversation!