US Army Unveils Hybrid-Electric Propulsion System 179
Gary writes to mention that the U.S. Army recently unveiled a new hybrid-electric propulsion system for use in a new line of manned ground vehicles (MGVs). The new line will have eight different variants, all using the same chassis. The unique feature of the new MGVs is that the traditional engine has been decoupled from the drive train and is used only to recharge the battery and power other systems within the vehicle.
Choo! Choo! (Score:2, Informative)
Gee. Kind of like a Diesel Train.
Re: (Score:2)
or the Maus.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Very cool.
Re: (Score:2)
"The Porsche version had a series-hybrid power system where the gasoline engines powered electrical generators which in turned powered electric motors which turned the sprockets. This method of propulsion had been attempted before on the Ferdinand prototypes and in some U.S. designs, but had never been put into production"
I looked in the Tiger I document and did not see it. I was skimming, so...
Looks like the Porsche submissions in both cases were hy
Re: (Score:2)
The Saratoga and Lexington ( CV-2 and CV-3 )
where turbo electric. A couple battleships from
about that period experimented with turbo-electric
drives ( New Mexico, I am pretty sure was in this
group ). These were designs built in the 20's and
30's, IIRC, so the idea is not at all new.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They invented a diesel-electric propulsion system. How exactly is this news?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cynic's explanation (Score:2)
They don't pay for their fuel, you do. Therefore they can afford to use any damn silly system they want.
Silence is golden (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, stealth (Score:5, Informative)
-b.
Re:Yep, stealth (Score:4, Interesting)
LASERS as well. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Civilians certainly haven't been surprised to have armed insurgents forcing them to shelter them (or in some cases, happily sheltering them). If it's coming as a surprise that sometimes those insurgents will be attacked wherever they happen to have set up shop (and now, with a greater element of surprise), one advantage of that is... exactly what's now happening more frequently: the civilians are providin
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming that America is (a) politically willing and (b) physically able to "stay the course" for 10 years. It seems more likely to me that we'll be out of there in the next 2-3 years, either because t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's their war - we can't tell them how to fight it - we can only capture, injure or kill them to make them stop.
Interesting concept (Score:2)
Electric drives, particularly when freed from the constraints of having to work alongside IC engines, can have drivetrains optimized for their characteristics.
Re: (Score:2)
And this will be lighter and simpler than a pure-IC drivetrain. No need for a complex transmission, clutches, etc, to vary the speed of the tank treads in relation to one another for turning. Just power each side individually with an electric motor (or two, if you prefer, for redundancy).
-b.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How do diesel trains do it, since they handle both extreme low-end torque and reasonably high top ends?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But your reply sounds like you consider a planetary gearbox to be simplier than a countershaft gearbox...
And by the way: every gearbox is modulating speed and torque of the shafts with respect to each other. You multiply the one with a certain factor and divide the other by the same factor. That's the way it works.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They ARE simpler -- not necessarily to build, but to control. Everything is done with wet clutches or brake bands, so there's no real chance of breaking off engagement dogs or gear teeth.
Notice that almost all automatic transmissions before about 1995 used planetary gearsets, not a countershaft system. Good automated countershaft boxes like BMW's SMG and the VW DSG are comparatively recent deve
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
And, yes, it's true that countershaft boxes have been around for longer. Though, interestingly, the Model T used a two-speed planetary transmission that was closer to a modern automatic than to a manual box.
-b.
Re: (Score:2)
Or directly drive the motor so the teeth engage cleanly. Not that I believe you need a gear box with an electric motor. It should be more effective to design a better motor.
Re:Interesting concept, but should be tagged "!new (Score:2)
I think it's the future. Eventually, your car will have an optimized diesel engine, used just for running up the batteries.
only the paint is green (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:only the paint is green (Score:5, Insightful)
The systems previously developed (this research predates FCS by many years) will go far more than a few hundred meters on batteries alone.
Now that decent batteries are available, a hybrid AFV looks much better. They can easily drive heavy electrical loads to provide both weapon system and facility power, they can charge each other via slave cables, they provide full torque at zero RPM allowing very slow creep, and if properly sealed can be used for marine assault and fording rivers (even fully submerged with no snorkel) without fear of drowning out (and destroying) a diesel engine.
This tech will give a huge boost other systems that would benefit from hybridization. Efficient small turbines like Capstone are already charging hybrid buses. These systems can burn clean fuels at optimum rpm, charge batteries, and make for very eco-friendly farm and construction equipment in the future.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is especially true since the current big US tank (M1 Abrams) is turbine powered, which causes really awful fuel consumption at idle and low speeds. If the turbine could run at its optimum speed, it would improve consumption significantly.
Also, being able to turn off the turbine and creep forward would reduce the infrared signature of the vehicle, adding yet another "stealth" aspect.
-b.
Re:only the paint is green (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/hybrid.htm
Ralph Zumbro, Author of "Tank Sergeant", writes about the Hybrid drive M113 that United Defence have built:-
"Phil, The one I was in, and it may be the only one, is state of the art. They steer it with a Bradley gunner's control and it will run for an hour at 30mph on two batteries which are in boxes sized approximately 18"x36"x48". Then a standard issue genset cuts in. The motors are rated at 250 hp each and are oil cooled. It is weird to see a 3 inch diameter drive shaft coming out of a motor the size of a 5 gallon can.
The rubber tracks are soundless, and they've got 2500 miles on them with very little wear showing. That adds up to a VERY quiet vehicle for recon work. Put electric motors, rubber tracks and a two man turret with a 30mm gatling weapon on a standard 113 hull and you've got a recon Tankita.
I mentioned to the people at United Defense that not needing air for the engine made the vehicle capable of running around UNDER water and was told that that had been thought of. That means that you could add enough armor to stop larger weapons, as long as you don't compromise the mobility."
More links:
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002338.html [defensetech.org]
Hybrid M113
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbWbkOkTydk [youtube.com]
Hybrid HMMWV
http://www.evworld.com/archives/conferences/evs14
Re: (Score:2)
the generator out of operation, and to force a recharge when they
want, else the advantage of silence will sometimes be negated when
the generator suddenly runs up to recharge.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fuel worries (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:2)
I read recently that the entire gulf region is a net importer of fuel because they don't have the refining capacity. So we should actually stop exporting fuel to them. Might do some good, you never know.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
However, I would guess the military's main concern is not the environment, it's logistics. The supply infrastructure needed to keep all those vehicles gassed up is mind-boggling. The less fu
Depleted Uranium projectiles are Less Green (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know if there are other commonly used materials for tank shells - steel or something?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
True, but it's a little bit greener than say carpet bombing the whole area and when you're in a combat zone, you gotta get the other guy before he gets you.
Of course, a running, moving enemy tank is better for the environment than one that's on fire (not better for your troops tho).
Re: (Score:2)
Don't assume that I think something should be banned just because I point out it's negatives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Next thing you know we'll be seeing diesel-electrics, such as for big trucks such as semis.
Electric motors scale well, and such vehicles already have a huge, heavy, and expensive gearbox, the elimination of which can help offset costs and weight penalties.
Re:only the paint is green (Score:4, Interesting)
Next thing you know we'll be seeing diesel-electrics in big trucks such as semis.
Then it'll trickle down to pickups and SUVs.
Small cars actually make the least amount of sense to try to make into a hybrid - you have a lot of static costs, making them proportionally more expensive(IE $3k for a $13k car vs $5k for a $30k SUV). Plus - you have the least to gain. Going from 30mpg to 40mpg saves you less fuel per mile than going from 15mpg to 25mpg. Over the course of 10k miles, you'd save 83 gallons of fuel for the car, vs 267 gallons for the SUV replacement.
Then again, we're also finding out that they can produce a four-door 40mpg car without making it a hybrid. The biggest difference I've seen in them is going from a 4 speed auto or 5 speed manual to systems with six gears. Extra gears equals extra expense, and probably extra weight, though the efficiency gains clearly beat it.
Re: (Score:2)
The extra weight of another gear in a modern consumer manual transmission isn't much, maybe 20lbs including the larger gearcase. IMO expense is what drives manufacturers to keep down the number of gears available. Where efficiency matters (18-wheelers) more to the customers many more speed
Re: (Score:2)
They'd better be able to - I run a 1992 Ford Sierra, 1.8 litre, four door, petrol, which routinely returns 450 miles from an 11 gallon tank (that's Imperial gallons). It makes me laugh when I see people crowing about their brand new cars that get lower mpg than mine does. My last service (oil, oil filter, plugs, distributor cap, rotor arm, plug leads, air filter) cost me around £25 !
The car only
Re: (Score:2)
Heck, I could probably build a car that gets 100mpg without too much trouble.
The problem? It wouldn't meet todays safety and emission requirements, not to mention convenience systems such as power steering, windows, video systems in the vehicle upping power draw to the point you need a larger alternator. Each of which adds substantial weight to the car, requiring a larger engine to maintain performance within specifications, increasing weight e
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
New Navy Destroyers... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This is nothing new in naval design, though -- subs have been doing this for about a century. Some ocean liners did it as well (SS Normandie comes to mind). Reading more about the DD(X) program, though, I'm surprised that the next generation of destroyers and missile frigates aren't being planned as nuclear-powered ships.
-b.
From my experiance (Score:3, Interesting)
nuke plants are expensive, you need a LOT of training (the navy nuke program is essentially a bachelors degree w/o the English and basket weaving courses crammed into a two year school), the navy is perpetually strapped for the personnel and offer insane reenlistment bonuses for those that stay in (I've heard of $100k, but it might have been a rumor).
Also the plants are never really off, so being a nuke in the navy is an awful job in port. Reactor Officer
Re: (Score:2)
The Iowa-class battleships were outdated, not in great repair, and unsafe for their crews (see also: the USS Iowa turret explosion). They were decommissioned in the 60s, and hastily reactivated in the 80s, as part of Reagan's naval saber-rattling. This did NOT make them terribly effective or useful weapons.
AFAIK, their role was replaced by guided missile frigates.
-b.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now
Re: (Score:2)
turbo electric drive.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-038.htm [navweaps.com]
Greener way to kill people :) (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Soylent Green?
Less people == More Green (Score:2)
Given how bad people are on the environment, an effect killing machine could actually good for the environment.
Ick, just saying that makes me feel kind of creepy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We're sooooo close to Greenpeace hopping on board with this whole Iraq thing.
So it's like a tank, then? (Score:2)
M1 Abrams tanks have a turbine engine that is hooked directly into a generator which powers a 1500 hp (1119 kW) electric motor.
However, you can hardly call it fuel-efficient
Re:So it's like a tank, then? (Score:5, Informative)
Let me set this straight.
Unless the Army has completely refitted it's tanks, the above is only partly true. It does have a turbine engine and does produce 1500hp, but it's not an electric motor. Has a plain old drive train that goes into the rear sprockets. There are no massive batteries to store the charge (IIRC it has 8 12v batteries).
What makes these things so darn quiet (for a tank, you hear the treads clanking before the engine when it's moving) is that the exhaust is directed up at about a 45 degree angle so the majority of the sound doesn't echo off anything. Of course, that gives it a massive thermal signature, but at the time of it's design, soviet block tanks were not using thermal sites.
This is speaking from experience, I spent 4 years as an M1A1 tank crew member (19k) and prepped the engine(power pack)for removal more than once. There is no greater rush than firing the 120mm main gun at a target 2100m away and/or moving 68 tons of combat steel over any terrain.
Hope this helps, I don't see any "green tanks" in the future and they get horrible gas mileage - a full tank of 504.4 gallons gives you about 200 miles over flat terrain @ 35mph.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It hasn't, and they remain as described in your post, though there is some discussion of modern diesel powerpacks for the Abrams that will use less fuel.
Following in the footsteps of hitlers volkswagon.. (Score:2)
on an old reflection, I have plans from the mid 1970's from mother earth news that show how to convert an Opal GT into a hybrid electric. It used a DC jet engine starting motor powered by a 5 HP Briggs and Stratten lawn mower engine. Ojh hell that was 30 years ago....
Re:Following in the footsteps of hitlers volkswago (Score:3, Informative)
The Volkswagon was not initially a military vehicle. It was designed by Ferdinand Porsche (at Hitlers request) as a car even factory workers could afford. This was slightly before WWII. During the war, they produced military variants, but the original design was for what it once again became afterwards: a super-inexpensive civilian car.
As far as your larger point, the military has always been in the vehicle design business. Jeep, Hummer, etc.
Re:Following in the footsteps of hitlers volkswago (Score:2)
The US military has experimented with innovative vehicles and solicited vehicle designs for, oh, about the last century. There were plenty of military vehicles (tanks, Gama Goat trucks, etc) that didn't have civilian counterparts before 2007 :)
-b.
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly enough, and without knowing about what he has done sine I bouth the original plans in I guess 1979, I recently commented on slashdot about this on another story and refered to the wankel engine and veggi oil (read aug issue of playboy...
And lo and behold he was inbvestigating it many years ago...
And again Thanks , links are book marked. And now I know I'm one of about 60,000 who bought the original plans.
economics = hope (Score:2)
As gas stays above $3.00 a gallon, people, and businesses and organizations and governments who don't give a rats ass about the environment are going to start looking around at ways to save or make money.
Now, I'm not a complete libertarian on this issue. I think regulation from the feds can really help move
Re: (Score:2)
Make doing the "right thing" cheaper than the alternatives.
3 dollars? 7 dollars/gal gas where I live (Score:3, Informative)
Glad you're not a complete libertarian on this, I'm completely with you. Round where I live (in the UK) petrol (gas) is 7.20 dollars
military hybrids (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say that the Promised Land is just a metaphor and doesn't necessarily have to be the historic "holy land" where the Jews came from. Just give Texas and New Mexico instead -- plenty of sparsely populated area, desert, mountains, forest, cities, everything you could possibly want. And the influx of 8 million Israelis would raise the intellectual level quite a bit ... :)
Israel? The Arabs can have the place if they'd like and good ri
Been a while in coming (Score:2)
Other Advantages (Score:4, Informative)
The use of all-electric drive can provide some interesting opportunities for advanced systems such as traction control. By placing multiple, smaller drive motors at each wheel, power can be directed optimally for terrain conditions. No complex mechanical equipment is needed as the algorithms can be implemented completely in software.
The other advantage can be the ability to optimize the IC engine for changes in the fuel available without screwing around with the entire drivetrain. Heck, they can make the IC portion modular and, if the economics of fuel sources change, just pop in the appropriate engine.
Re: (Score:2)
Makes Sense (Score:2)
Bypass blogodreck, go to Army site (Score:2)
Skip the ad-trolling blogodreck, and go to the U.S. Army Future Combat Systems page [army.mil], which has better info. Video, even. Very dramatic.
Stating the...? (Score:2)
Yeah, the rumors that Toyota, Honda and others have had hybrid vehicles in production for years is just plain FUD.
"In fact, the Army's hybrid-electric vehicles are significantly more robust and more powerful than commercial hybrid vehicles."
Really? Military vehicles even more powerful than a Prius?!? That's just MIND
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And by the way the US Army is not the first with that idea:
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/sep/ [army-technology.com]
http://www.defense-update.com/products/s/sep.htm [defense-update.com]
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/hybriddrive-se p-vehicles-receive-votes-of-confidence-from-sweden -bae-02446/ [defenseindustrydaily.com] The Swedish SEP ran for the British FRES program:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europ e/fres.htm [globalsecurity.org]
Unfortunately, recently it was excluded due to (perceive
Re: (Score:2)
Nope again (Score:2)
Re:Nope again and again and again (Score:2)
Compared to that the 75 ton version of BELAZ is probably the first mass produced 4x4 vehicle with independent per-wheel electric motor and a generator power plant (not sure if the 30 ton version had it). As a result it has no transmission to speak of. Differential, accelerator, etc are all drive-by-wire. This is what makes the great difference as far as mai
Re: (Score:2)
Not per wheel. The diesel electric train still has a normal transmission and the wheels are not rotated separately. You simply do not need that on rails.
Not a transmission really, just a reduction gearing. Also, typically a traction motor drives only one axle. With electronic per-axle slip control. So in spirit it has more in common with the electronically controlled per-wheel motor system you describe than with a traditional car/truck system with one engine, transmission, differential(s) etc., the only dif
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Faraday (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Only the control circuits might be vulnerable, and keep in mind that these vehicles wouldn't be normally be connected to long conductors as would systems hooked to the civilian power grid.
Older overview piece on EMP:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/1 988/CM2.htm [globalsecurity.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Easy. With a Faraday cage [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly, the most EMP-resistant engines are the old mechanical fuel control diesel types like the 6V53s in the M113A2 APCs. Designed in the 1950s for use on the nuclear battlefield, there is nothing in the drivetrain that EMP could fry.
60 years?? More like 100 years. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not only has it been used in trains for generations but I saw a program on this sort of "hybrid" tech in 1987 at the GM pavilion at EPCOT center in Florida.
Hell, I've been thinking about putting this type of electric drive/battery/combustion powered generator combo in my current car for the last year (no money for it at the moment).
It has a big advantage over current hybrids in that if another fuel (ethonol,hydrogen,etc) becomes economic all you need to replace/upg