5 ms·

All it needs to do is generate motion, so they made it like those flashlights you charge by shaking them. Reciprocal! What will be revolutionary will be perform

All it needs to do is generate motion, so they made it like those flashlights you charge by shaking them. Reciprocal! What will be revolutionary will be performing this with some kind of rotary engine.

arethuza 12y ago
The Jaguar C-X75 almost made it into production - and it had miniature gas turbines linked to generators feeding the batteries and wheel motors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_C-X75 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_C-X75 Given the current popularity of hybrid hyper-cars from Porsche, McLaren and Ferrari it would be interesting to see if something like the Jaguar is tried again.
- thesz 12y ago
  This is what I was thinking about too. Rotation is better than reciprocal line movement.
  - VBprogrammer 12y ago
    While in terms of reliability, simplicity and power to weight ratios turbine engines are great, they still suffer from low compression ratios. If I remember correctly about 3 to 1, compared to 10 in 1 for petrol engines and nearly 20 to 1 for diesel engines. Thermodynamically this makes it very difficult to achieve high efficiency.
    - StillBored 12y ago
      "If I remember correctly about 3 to 1," That seemed strange to me given multistage compressors. Maybe 3:1 is true for a micro turbines, but for larger jets wikipedia says the pressure ratio is 30:1 to 40:1 citing the Trent 900 at 39:1 and the GE90 at 42:1. Which according to the same article says that a 40:1 PR is equivalent to a 15:1 compression ratio. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overall_pressure_ratio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overall_pressure_ratio
      - VBprogrammer 12y ago
        I stand corrected. I'm sure I had read that some time ago but I can't find a reference at the moment.
- tomswartz07 12y ago
  Much older than that was the Chrysler Turbine car: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Turbine_Car http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Turbine_Car This was quite literally a lower power jet aeroplane turbine used to power the car. I would imagine that this would have been great on fuel economy on the highway, but terrible in cities.
  - arethuza 12y ago
    That seems to have used a "conventional" mechanical transmission rather than using the turbine to generate electricity to feed the electric motors. Still pretty cool though!
    - MBCook 12y ago
      If you're interested there is a very good book called Chrysler's Turbine Car: The Rise and Fall of Detroit's Coolest Creation. http://www.amazon.com/Chryslers-Turbine-Car-Detroits-Creation/dp/1613743459 http://www.amazon.com/Chryslers-Turbine-Car-Detroits-Creatio...
  - mpweiher 12y ago
    >great fuel economy on the highway Small turbines generally have terrible fuel economy. The Wikipedia page you quote says "...fuel consumption was excessive"
marcosdumay 12y ago
> What will be revolutionary will be performing this with some kind of rotary engine. You mean, like a turbine?
- codfrantic 12y ago
  >You mean, like a turbine? I think he means like a Wankel engine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine
- exDM69 12y ago
  > You mean, like a turbine? There are rotary internal combustion engines, such as the Wankel engine. It has a triangular "rotor-piston" spinning in a circular cylinder and goes through four "strokes" per revolution. Mazda is a manufacturer that utilizes rotary engines in production cars today, particularly in their high performance models. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    They last used it in the RX-8, which they discontinued in 2012. (at least, for production consumer vehicles)
    - exDM69 12y ago
      Ok, I didn't know the RX-8 was discontinued. They do, however, still build the rotary engines for use in racing applications, such as the Star Mazda racing series in the US.
      - maxerickson 12y ago
        I didn't mean to be picky, I just had some vague memory of an article talking about how no production car was going to have a Wankel anymore and after I checked decided it reasonable to post the clarification.

arethuza 12y ago

The Jaguar C-X75 almost made it into production - and it had miniature gas turbines linked to generators feeding the batteries and wheel motors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_C-X75 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_C-X75 Given the current popularity of hybrid hyper-cars from Porsche, McLaren and Ferrari it would be interesting to see if something like the Jaguar is tried again.

thesz 12y ago
This is what I was thinking about too. Rotation is better than reciprocal line movement.
- VBprogrammer 12y ago
  While in terms of reliability, simplicity and power to weight ratios turbine engines are great, they still suffer from low compression ratios. If I remember correctly about 3 to 1, compared to 10 in 1 for petrol engines and nearly 20 to 1 for diesel engines. Thermodynamically this makes it very difficult to achieve high efficiency.
  - StillBored 12y ago
    "If I remember correctly about 3 to 1," That seemed strange to me given multistage compressors. Maybe 3:1 is true for a micro turbines, but for larger jets wikipedia says the pressure ratio is 30:1 to 40:1 citing the Trent 900 at 39:1 and the GE90 at 42:1. Which according to the same article says that a 40:1 PR is equivalent to a 15:1 compression ratio. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overall_pressure_ratio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overall_pressure_ratio
    - VBprogrammer 12y ago
      I stand corrected. I'm sure I had read that some time ago but I can't find a reference at the moment.
tomswartz07 12y ago
Much older than that was the Chrysler Turbine car: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Turbine_Car http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Turbine_Car This was quite literally a lower power jet aeroplane turbine used to power the car. I would imagine that this would have been great on fuel economy on the highway, but terrible in cities.
- arethuza 12y ago
  That seems to have used a "conventional" mechanical transmission rather than using the turbine to generate electricity to feed the electric motors. Still pretty cool though!
  - MBCook 12y ago
    If you're interested there is a very good book called Chrysler's Turbine Car: The Rise and Fall of Detroit's Coolest Creation. http://www.amazon.com/Chryslers-Turbine-Car-Detroits-Creation/dp/1613743459 http://www.amazon.com/Chryslers-Turbine-Car-Detroits-Creatio...
- mpweiher 12y ago
  >great fuel economy on the highway Small turbines generally have terrible fuel economy. The Wikipedia page you quote says "...fuel consumption was excessive"

marcosdumay 12y ago

> What will be revolutionary will be performing this with some kind of rotary engine. You mean, like a turbine?

codfrantic 12y ago
>You mean, like a turbine? I think he means like a Wankel engine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine
exDM69 12y ago
> You mean, like a turbine? There are rotary internal combustion engines, such as the Wankel engine. It has a triangular "rotor-piston" spinning in a circular cylinder and goes through four "strokes" per revolution. Mazda is a manufacturer that utilizes rotary engines in production cars today, particularly in their high performance models. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine
- maxerickson 12y ago
  They last used it in the RX-8, which they discontinued in 2012. (at least, for production consumer vehicles)
  - exDM69 12y ago
    Ok, I didn't know the RX-8 was discontinued. They do, however, still build the rotary engines for use in racing applications, such as the Star Mazda racing series in the US.
    - maxerickson 12y ago
      I didn't mean to be picky, I just had some vague memory of an article talking about how no production car was going to have a Wankel anymore and after I checked decided it reasonable to post the clarification.