Except for the god awful lag from when the throttle is opened until the power comes on you would be right.
It’s another benefit I neglected to mention, but even if that was not the case, that issue of the “clutch” (mechanical or fluid) and transmission is a pretty big one, wouldn’t you agree? Especially when pulling a 15,000 ton load.
There really have been no “revolutions” in turbines since that time that stand out, IMO, except for some with stationary turbines that I know of. I mean, efficiency keeps increasing, and NOx control improves. But the basic behaviours and characteristics are the same, and many of these efficiencies are the result of higher turbine temperatures, and more exotic materials and formations of turbine blades (extra cost too). And I’m not certain you can scale down 150MW issues to vehicle-sized turbines very cleanly in many cases.
I wrote a technical paper in 1994 on automobile gas turbines, and in quickly reviewing it, I’m not seeing anything that has really changed with respect to the drawbacks. But it is 50-some pages, and I’m not reviewing it very well. I even forgot I wrote it, which is sad on many levels…
Say, Anth, would you mind e-mailing me a copy of that paper? I’d be interested in reading it.
IMHO it sounds like the best configuration for a hybrid car since you could use a small, light engine running at it’s most effecient maximum speed to charge the batteries. With such a setup it might be desirable to only run the tubine while on the road and run silently on batter power when pulling into a parking lot.
I’m sorry, that would reveal my Secret Identity[sup]TM[/sup], as one could put the text into Google and find my name and address. Otherwise I would have put it online on my Board, along with the 20+ other papers I’ve got published, none of which I can share. 
(fortunately, most of the rest are on coal, and no one gives a shit about that topic)
…or those clever chaps at
…and Midwest
No doubt transmissions would be complex and heavy. That would be one more factor in favor of electrics. I’m just saying that I don’t think building a transmission would be impossible, but that there are many factors why diesel-electric turns out to be the best choice for a locomotive.
…And Freedom Motors, which is a subsidiary of Moller, perpetual hawkers of the I’ll-believe-it-when-I-see-it Skycar.
Actually, Wankel engine performance is more similar to a piston engine than it is to a turbine. It operates through internal combustion just like that of a piston engine. You still have traditional intake systems, fuel systems, and ignition systems. Power output is transferred through the eccentric shaft (crankshaft in pistonese) to a standard clutch and transmission. Really the biggest similarity between rotary and a turbine engines is the smoothness with which they generate their power, otherwise they’re completely different beasts. Back in the early days of rotary development, durability of side and apex seals (see the links below for clarifications) were a problem, but Mazda, in their admirable determination, refined the rotary over the years into a 200,000 mile (or more!) power source. Gas mileage has always sucked, but looks better for the RX-8. Power-to-displacement ratio is amazing … a minimum of 100 hp/liter is typical.
Check out the animations here: http://www.rotaryengineillustrated.com/
and the tech here: http://travel.howstuffworks.com/rotary-engine.htm
Incidentally, Mazda is only the best-known developer of the Wankel engine because they stuck with it. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, nearly every major auto manufacturer was authorized by NSU to produce them. General Motors did some brief development work on one of their own, and Mercedes even developed a handful of 3 and 4-rotor gullwing mid-engine sports coupes. Last I saw, OS Engines in the radio control market still made a single-rotor engine for R/C airplanes … or R/C cars if you’re determined enough.
Many apologies for continuing the hijack.
Diesel locomotives with mechanical transmissions (fluid couplings) are pretty common. They’re mostly used as switch engines, but in some countries they were used as mainline locomotives, e.g. the German V160 series and the Japanese DD51. They generally cite the higher energy efficiency as the reason for choosing mechanical transmission. From what I’ve read, the main advantage of diesel-electric locomotives is the simplicity of the drivetrain which leads to better reliability, ease of maintenance and ease of use (easier to control, especially remotely from the front cab). Caterpillar still makes mechanical powertrains for locomotives, rated up to 1000 horsepower.
Fine. (I think you’re silly for being paranoid, even though I can understand your reasons.) Mind if I ask you a few questions about it then?
Other than the Chrysler Patriot car (and the folks that built Jay Leno’s bike), has anyone built a turbine powered car since the 1960s for evaluation as a mass-production vehicle? (It appears that the Patriot was doomed due to it’s flywheel. Which reminds me of what Phil Egan [one of the designers who worked on the Tucker] said to me about flywheel designs not being practical.) Were the primary objections to using a turbine related to the cost? (If so, then why not stuff one into a Mercedes Maybach? At $350,000 a pop, who’s gonna notice an extra couple of grand tacked on to the price?) For the materials, did anyone look at ceramics? Anyone review Bucky’s designs for a turbine powered car that he did for Kaiser-Frazer? Or look at Secondo Campini’s work on turbine powered cars that he did for the Tucker corporation?
There’s apparently research being done in Japan on ceramic turbines for cars, any thoughts on that? Or AlliedSignal’s efforts to shoehorn a turbine into a car? (You’ll have to scroll down to near the bottom of the page.)
Folks have been working on maglev flywheels as an energy storage medium for cars (plug the car in at home, rev the flywheel up to enormous speeds, then drive around and bleed off the energy as needed with a surrounding generator coil). Would gyroscopic forces have an impact there, too?
Can’t say for certain, but that’s part of what killed Chrysler’s Patriot car.
Of course, that car was supposed to be operated at 200 MPH which is far faster than your average grocery getter could be expected to go.
Still in an accident, the flywheel could be exceedindly dangerous
I can’t find any on-line photos of the turbine used in Chrysler’s 1963 car, but it was very small, and I’ve not read any accounts of gyroscopic forces being a problem in the various accounts of the car. (One has to wonder if the gyroscopic forces were significant in a turbine car, if they couldn’t be harnessed to reduce an SUVs tendancy to “rollover”.)
It sounds like the flywheel axis in the Patriot was mounted horizontally insted of vertically.
Not if you design it properly. If the gyroscope axis is mounted vertically, the gyroscopic (precession) force will be small. If you mount the gyroscope on gimbals to allow some tilt, you can completely eliminate such effects. Not only will it improve the handling of the car, it will also significantly reduce the stress on the flywheel bearings so it’d probably be a good idea.
Nostalgia time – I well remember my highschool physics teacher, circa 1962, saying confidently that by the time we students had children of highschool age, the internal combustion piston engine for autos would be obsolete.
The turbine was his first choice to supercede it, and the electric engine, his second.
Now my classmates have not only children, but grandchildren of highschool age, yet his prediction did not come true.
Say scr4, I didn’t notice it in your links (perhaps I’m overlooking it), but don’t some of the heavy earthmoving machines use a drive system which simply pumps hydraulic fluid into motors on the wheels? No real transmission as such, just a pump on the back of the engine, and motors on the wheels. There’s been some research on using this for cars, but AFAIK, none of the big automakers have touched it. (Tesla’s the earliest person I know of to work on it, Preston Tucker was also working on it, there was also a guy in the early/mid-1990s who was trying to develop such a system.) Can’t see this really working for an ICE car, but it might be possible for a turbine.
One of the sites I googled re: this mentioned that NASA was planning on putting such flywheels onto the ISS … how would the precession work in freefall?