![]() |
Motors & Pumps |
PRBC Concept | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Back to the main menu |
1. Some facts | 2. Sources of usable energies on a vehicle | 3. Hybrid architectures | 4. Specifications overview |
Most of the ground vehicles are moved by internal combustion engines. They have 2 main representatives: gasoline engines with piloted ignition and Diesel engines with spontaneous ignition. These 2 types of engines have been produced mainly throughout the twentieth century thanks to the massive extraction of low-cost oil and gasoline. Nowadays, the differences between "Diesel" and "gasoline" is weaker and weaker.
The success which knew these 2 technologies is largely due to fuels which they use. Hydrocarbons are indeed easily transportable and transvasable under liquid shape. Furthermore, thanks to the present dioxygen everywhere in the atmosphere, the chemical energy-to-weight that they can release is very high regarding those of other sources, what gets a strong autonomy for the vehicle. Besides, this chemical energy is easily produced by combustion with the dioxygen of the air. Gases under pressure so created exercise then mechanical constraints on parts in movement, generally transformed into continuous rotation motion by a kinematic chain.
*
Exhaustion of the reserves of hydrocarbons (from 30 to 100 years
according to the estimations)
* Extremely important taxes on fuels (approximately 250 %, various with
the considered country)
* Engendered atmospheric pollution, mainly by oxides of nitrogen and
carbon
* first point
The levy of the fuel by the States of industrial nations represents an enormous financial basket. We can simply indicate that the justification of this levy by ecological reasons isn't serious at all. Hydrocarbons are simply taxed because they represent 90 % of the energy used by vehicles, what allows automatically big comebacks of money.
To summarize us,
whatever is the considered source of energy, it is the one which is
used mainly at some point which is surcharged independently of quite
other consideration. The levy of hydrocarbons is not thus
really a danger for internal combustion engines, because if another
source of energy becomes widespread, this will thus be surcharged, so
penalized, and this in favour of hydrocarbons.
* Third point
The third
point is by far the
most important. The atmospheric pollution engendered by internal
combustion engines is not indeed questionable and it is the main
acceptable argument which questions the future of the internal
combustion engine such as we know it today.
This pollution has a double impact :
Impact on the health of the population
The effects of exhaust gases, because of various toxic elements (carbon monoxides COx, nitrogen oxides NOx, derived of unburned hydrocarbons HC, ozone O3, diverse dusts) are known still quantitatively badly, but qualitatively better encircled: more frequent and more severe asthma attacks, chronic respiratory difficulties, allergies, diverse cancers …
.
Let us clarify here certain points. The pollution of a vehicle riding on clear road, at practically constant speed, in a suitable driving regime allowing an optimal thermodynamic return for the engine, is acceptable: on one hand, we shall have the weakest consumptions for the automobile, on the other hand, the volume of exhaust gas rejected by km is weak as far as the speed of the car is suitable (more than 50 km/h), what means that the air is not strikingly polluted by the passage of the car. Finally, the concentration of population on such roads is weak, what means that few persons will inhale the polluted air, and that, even if they inhaled it, this would not be dramatic for their health because it would not too much be polluted.
Contrary to the pollution of a vehicle in an urban environment which is unacceptable for 2 main reasons :
* It is extremly important because of the combination of several factors :
- Slowings down, synonyms for accelerations and for frequent brakings and for losses by Joule effect : there is overconsumption of fuel, thus overpollution..
- Engines working at low rpm with a practically stopped vehicle: not only engines have no thermodynamic optimal return, but in more they work " for nothing " because the vehicle don't need power in this case.
In spite of all these problems, 99.9 % of the ground vehicles use internal combustion engines as unique mechanical source of energy. The manufacturers and States "mobilize" themselves in a particularly shy way to develop alternative solutions, and the population complains more about the noise and the problems of car park of the automobiles than about gases which they are emitting. Yesterday as today, internal combustion engines continue to know a real, but unfounded success, because no one seems to have anything better.
At this step of our analysis, internal combustion engines appear as a necessary invention to move, because the energy which they use is easy to exploit, but terribly polluting, notably in city. But must we necessary disdain this technology? In fact, internal combustion engines are victims of their absurd use, wich is the result of complex socio-economic and potilitical couplings.
Quite as a pencil is very useful to write and very dangerous if we plant him in the eye of your neighbour, internal combustion engines are very useful to move, but dangerous if they are badly used, what is regrettably the case. Their mode of functioning is indeed totally unsuitable for the use which is made on urban routes:
* The car burns fuel even when it is stopped, what can be 30% of the duration of an urban itinerary : this is a nonsense so economic as ecological.
* The available power, even with small capacities vehicles ("city car"), is disproportionate with regard to the real needs of an urban itinerary : and so except the periods of stop, the speed limits and the corks make that the vehicle rarely uses more than 50 % of its resources (Cf. fig. 1.).
15 à 30 Ch are largely sufficient for running a vehicle from 0 to 50 km/h in a relatively short duration, as the theorem of kinetic energy demonstrates it :
where m is the mass of the vehicle (1000 kg), vmax its running speed (50 km/h), v0 its intial speed (0 km/h), P the power delivered by the motor (20 Ch, equal to 14.3 kW) and Dt the necessary duration for changing the speed from v0 to vmax.
In this calculation, all the friction to the progess of the vehicle (tires, imperfect transmission) and the aerodynamic resistance have been neglected , what is a good approach below 50 km/h.
All which precedes shows the necessity of adding to internal combustion engines one or several other sources of mechanical energy with different advantages which would allow to pollute less during urban routes, and perhaps even not to pollute any more. Particulary in the stop, the ideal would be to consume no energy, what is very logical and seems regrettably not to be evident for everyone.
We have just put
a major idea in the problematics of design.
The most known example is the thermal / electric hybrid engine which
only some very rare Japanese manufacturers like Honda
or
Toyota succeeded in industrializing recently, although the idea dates
more than 50 years ago! (Cf.
Fig. 2.)
Motorized
device of the Honda IMA (Integrated Motor
Assist) :
1. Some facts | 2. Sources of usable energies on a vehicle | 3. Hybrid architectures | 4. Specifications overview |
![]() |
Motors & Pumps |
PRBC Concept | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Back to the main menu |