Future Truck Engine?

Solly:
:smiley: Good OP.

But as the thread has taken on a more serious tone:
This looks a good contender for the “Future Truck Engine” and anyone with a well grounded mechanical background will recognise the major benefits.

ecomotors.com/ecomotors-inte … mercial-ve

No surprise that I’m a supporter of two stroke engines.

Something along the lines of combining that idea but with spark ignition and using electrically powered supercharging together with turbocharging running on LPG as the price/taxation and supplies of the stuff stand at present,would be my bet.

automobile.com/vw-develops-t … ption.html

motorauthority.com/news/1024 … ne-engines

Hiya …the gas engine was not a bad idea at all… the problem was brakes if i remember correct.
fords built a american gas engine in the 50’s leyland tried in the 60;s.the trucks was rev and go.
they would go very well it was stopping that was the problem. there was no engine drag when
you shut off…Rover cars had a overdrive idea on a petrol engine , when you took your foot of
the eccalerator the car went into over run, this was scary as the brakes was usless in the 50’s,
John

Carryfast:

cieranc:

Carryfast:

cieranc:

Carryfast:
The only experience I’ve got of turbines is the usual reasons as to why ‘not’ to use them in road vehicle applications
automobilemag.com/green/news … index.html

I don’t understand your answer. What experience is that, other than what you’ve read on the internet?

No just based on experience before the internet ever existed.If turbines would have been up to the job that’s what they would have put in trucks instead of zb great big heavy diesel engines and all the reasoning against doing it,that I heard then,seemed to be exactly the same reasons that the internet confirms now.More than just a co incidence I think.

You speak in riddles. The question was, what experience do you have with gas turbines?

No just based on experience before the internet ever existed

What experience is this?
Are you saying you have got experience of gas turbines, or you haven’t got experience with gas turbines?
Maybe I’m just thick but I don’t understand what you mean by ‘experience before the internet ever existed’.

You also didn’t seem to understand the bit where I said the ‘only’ ‘experience’ which I have of turbine engines was involvement in truck manufacturing thereby having an understanding of the ‘reasons’,as to why turbines weren’t (and still generally aren’t) used in trucks.Those reasons being based on the experiences of those who had tried the idea.Which probably explains why no truck manufacturers have ever put any turbine powered trucks into large scale production.In this case knowing why and when not to use the wrong power unit for the job is all that matters.In just the same way that an aircraft builder wouldn’t need any experience of diesels or working in a diesel engine factory to know that four truck diesels won’t power a Hercules aircraft. :bulb:
It was you who said that I’ve based that reasoning on information available on the internet to which I replied that my knowledge of the subject was all gained before the internet ever existed.

Ahh ok, I get it now

You also didn’t seem to understand the bit where I said the ‘only’ ‘experience’ which I have of turbine engines was involvement in truck manufacturing thereby having an understanding of the ‘reasons’,as to why turbines weren’t (and still generally aren’t) used in trucks.Those reasons being based on the experiences of those who had tried the idea.Which probably explains why no truck manufacturers have ever put any turbine powered trucks into large scale production.In this case knowing why and when not to use the wrong power unit for the job is all that matters.In just the same way that an aircraft builder wouldn’t need any experience of diesels or working in a diesel engine factory to know that four truck diesels won’t power a Hercules aircraft. :bulb:

or in plain English ‘none, but I once worked in a truck building factory that didn’t use them’ :unamused:

cieranc:

Carryfast:

cieranc:

Carryfast:

cieranc:

Carryfast:
The only experience I’ve got of turbines is the usual reasons as to why ‘not’ to use them in road vehicle applications
automobilemag.com/green/news … index.html

I don’t understand your answer. What experience is that, other than what you’ve read on the internet?

No just based on experience before the internet ever existed.If turbines would have been up to the job that’s what they would have put in trucks instead of zb great big heavy diesel engines and all the reasoning against doing it,that I heard then,seemed to be exactly the same reasons that the internet confirms now.More than just a co incidence I think.

You speak in riddles. The question was, what experience do you have with gas turbines?

No just based on experience before the internet ever existed

What experience is this?
Are you saying you have got experience of gas turbines, or you haven’t got experience with gas turbines?
Maybe I’m just thick but I don’t understand what you mean by ‘experience before the internet ever existed’.

You also didn’t seem to understand the bit where I said the ‘only’ ‘experience’ which I have of turbine engines was involvement in truck manufacturing thereby having an understanding of the ‘reasons’,as to why turbines weren’t (and still generally aren’t) used in trucks.Those reasons being based on the experiences of those who had tried the idea.Which probably explains why no truck manufacturers have ever put any turbine powered trucks into large scale production.In this case knowing why and when not to use the wrong power unit for the job is all that matters.In just the same way that an aircraft builder wouldn’t need any experience of diesels or working in a diesel engine factory to know that four truck diesels won’t power a Hercules aircraft. :bulb:
It was you who said that I’ve based that reasoning on information available on the internet to which I replied that my knowledge of the subject was all gained before the internet ever existed.

Ahh ok, I get it now

You also didn’t seem to understand the bit where I said the ‘only’ ‘experience’ which I have of turbine engines was involvement in truck manufacturing thereby having an understanding of the ‘reasons’,as to why turbines weren’t (and still generally aren’t) used in trucks.Those reasons being based on the experiences of those who had tried the idea.Which probably explains why no truck manufacturers have ever put any turbine powered trucks into large scale production.In this case knowing why and when not to use the wrong power unit for the job is all that matters.In just the same way that an aircraft builder wouldn’t need any experience of diesels or working in a diesel engine factory to know that four truck diesels won’t power a Hercules aircraft. :bulb:

or in plain English ‘none, but I once worked in a truck building factory that didn’t use them’ :unamused:

That’s right just like the others didn’t either.

So you’re saying that the only reason as to why the Hercules wasn’t designed to be fitted with four diesels instead of turbo props was because no one at the Hercules factory had any experience of diesels and it had nothing to do with just being based on good reasoning,concerned with using the right product to suit the application,based on previous examples in the field :question:. :open_mouth: :laughing:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Jumo_205

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_T56

I’m winding you up, and you’re biting :laughing: .
To answer your question, what I am saying is what I put in my 3rd post, being:

cieranc:
They are totally impractical for truck application though.

In your first few posts, you portrayed a degree of knowledge on the subject (of gas turbines), as your posts progressed, I was questioning what experience with gas turbines you actually had, as I disagreed with your opinions of them. I was pushing you to disclose your level of direct experience with them as I was genuinely curious as to what you’d worked on to give you that opinion.
No malice intended, I’ve sussed out what you’ve worked on: Google :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

EDIT: Ze Germans were building 32 cylinder,2 stroke diesel engines for aircraft use in the 1940’s :wink:

cieranc:
Ze Germans were building 32 cylinder,2 stroke diesel engines for aircraft use in the 1940’s :wink:

:open_mouth:

Ze qvestion is did ze aircraft ever manage to get off ze ground :question: . :laughing:

Carryfast:

cieranc:
Ze Germans were building 32 cylinder,2 stroke diesel engines for aircraft use in the 1940’s :wink:

:open_mouth:

Ze qvestion is did ze aircraft ever manage to get off ze ground :question: . :laughing:

probley, once they got the engine’s going the right way… :laughing: :laughing:

Have a think about this:

It would be hugely impractical to use an electric starter motor to start an aircrafts main engines, the starter motor itself and the battery bank needed to power it would have to be big (read - heavy). So an APU is used. An APU (auxilliary power unit) is a pint sized gas turbine started by a small (car size) starter motor from a small battery. The APU has driveshafts that connect to the main engines to spool them up for starting. They also drive the hydraulic pumps and generators whilst on the ground. If there’s a problem with the cross/coupling shafts, the jet efflux from the APU’s exhaust can be directed onto the main engines turbines, spooling the main engines up fast enough to start them. Typically mid-sized APU’s produce around 250kw of power, equating to just over 300 shaft hp.

A mid-sized APU fully dressed with starter motor + generator/alternator, weighs less than 50kgs (about the same as the coolant alone in a lot of trucks). Smaller ones look almost toy/model like!
They use their own, self generated compressed air supply for cooling.
They can run on anything that burns: cooking oil, waste engine oils, animal fats, meths, turps, petrol, paints, gas, anything you can pump into them. They can even run on fine solids (coal dust). If it burns, and you can pump it into the engine, it will run.

So my thinking is, directly couple an APU to a good sized hydraulic pump, such as those found in an excavator.
Use the hyd pump to power a hyd motor, directly coupled to the diff. The motor would be infinately adjustable from 0 - 2000 rpm.

You would remove from a standard tractor: Coolant, rad, intercooler, water pump, header tank, starter motor, 1 battery, alternator, ps pump and resevoir, engine, manifolds, turbo, exhaust, clutch pedal, master cylinder, slave cylinder and clutch assy, bellhousing, gearbox, gear stick and linkage, propshaft, pto and retarder (if fitted). Whole weight, I would estimate 1.5 tons.

You would add: APU, hyd pump, hyd resevoir and oil, hyd oil cooler (in place of rad), hyd motor, associated valves and pipework.
Whole weight of this kit, I would estimate 300kgs.

The APU would have minimal engine control (simply running or not) and would run at a constant speed with no ‘in cab’ controls as such. The throttle pedal would control the oil flow through the hyd motor so it would drive just like an auto. The hyd motor would ■■■■■■ just as well as it would drive, so no modification needed to standard vehicle brakes. In fact, it would probably need some sort of ‘soft start’ device or torque converter, or you’d spin the wheels every time the throttle was nailed.

Main practical problem would be, where to route the exhaust. Point it downwards and when stationary, you’ll literally set the tarmac on fire. Out to the sides you’ll toast any parked cars, pedestrians, motor biker ists. Upwards, it would have to be a long way up to prevent the trailer taking fire. You wouldn’t want to pull a decker. Mind, most folk wouldn’t want to pull a decker :laughing:

Carryfast:

cieranc:
Ze Germans were building 32 cylinder,2 stroke diesel engines for aircraft use in the 1940’s :wink:

:open_mouth:
Ze qvestion is did ze aircraft ever manage to get off ze ground :question: . :laughing:

I’ve got that wrong. It was a 32 cylinder Boxer engine, not a radial.
In 1940/1941, KHD (Klöckner-Humboldt-Deutz) built the Dz 710, a 16 cyl, 2 stroke diesel boxer engine, producing 2700 shaft horse power. 51.5 litre capacity.
In 1944 they grafted two Dz 710 Boxers together to create the Dz720, a 32 cyl, 2 stroke diesel Boxer engine with a ‘H’ pattern configuration. It produced 5’400 shaft horse power. 103 litle capacity.

So when Subaru advertise “The worlds first diesel Boxer engine”…

I can’t find much on t’internet about them, but I’ll keep looking if you’re interested?

(quote)Can’t see truckers being let loose with nuclear power,
could you imagine how long the daily checks would take ? :open_mouth: plus i don’t think a hi viz would cover the PPE requirements. :smiley: